The way it works is subtle in deployment but nuclear in impact. The UN makes a compact, or a resolution, or some other form of diktat by another name, and member states are to implement it using the cultural and legal norms of that particular nation. This even though nearly all the resolutions are to dismantle the local cultural and legal framework of its member states, and especially and often exclusively if they are Western ones.
One famous example is when the UN passed resolution 16/18 which was to effectively criminalize criticism of Islam, and implement to one degree or another, the Islamic concept of slander, which means anything that makes Islam as a belief look bad, especially when true. Hillary Clinton, who signed the resolution for the US as secretary of state at the time said, “We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” They then set out to do so against an American pastor who had put the Koran on a kind of mock trial and found it guilty of hate speech. That was Pastor Terry Jones.
All UN member states where to implement some form of 16/18 in their own legal framework. Canada’s was Trudeau’s M-103. And let’s not kid ourselves. No conservative leader would likely have done any different. The only good thing, which these days has come to mean not as bad as it could have been, is that M1-3 ended up being a mechanism to give heapum big cash to his pet Muslim orgs. to monitor Islamophobia and not much else so far, although there have been consequences to people who speak truthfully about Islam on social media.
At this point I would like to interrupt myself to remind everyone that the sole and only purpose of freedom of speech is criticism of political and religious authority.
Which makes this video worth special attention. The Secretary General of the UN itself, his credentials and history are overlaid on the video, speaking about his views on freedom of speech world wide:
A second example is the UN Migration Compact. The most stunning thing about it beyond the actual contents of it, which was to destroy all Western nations and nations built on classical liebralism by mass immigration, is that. no one reported on it. One of the reasons, and just one, is that the UN Migration compact contained a diktat on how immigration must be viewed by world, meaning Western media.
Below are two videos on this. One is a reporter who was at the UN building when it was passed and is visibly flabbergasted by what has just taken place:
And here are some members of the European Union Parliament when the UK was still in the EU, or better stated, the newest iteration of the Soviet Politburo:
Which brings us to today. Please click through to this item on Canuck Law. A very valuable site to keep track of the fungible nature of law today in the west and particularly in Canada. Canucklaw has observed that Trudeau’s attempt to destroy and renege all of Canada’s gun rights and ownership appears to be based on a UN resolution, much like all the items listed above as part of what is very difficult not to view as a global communist takeover.
Were Recent Gun Control Measures In Canada Initiated By The United Nations?
The title isn’t clickbait. The UNODA, or United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, keeps records of the various actions taken by Member States. Canada is one of them.
One of the specific initiatives is the UN Programme of Action (PoA) and its International Tracing Instrument (ITI), which essentially amounts to global gun control efforts.
Interestingly, the Federal Government is reporting some of the restrictions they’ve made on gun owners in the 2022 report as the progress being made towards the implementation of PoA and the ITI. (See archive).
This raises the obvious question of who is really in charge here.
This is an important and detailed article. Please read it over at Canucklaw.ca But I think we have enough in this post here to get a clear picture from the pattern. The UN, an unelected and ideologically collectivist body, has already replaced national governments. The UN also has something between controllers or influencers like Bill Gates, the WEF and so on. Their influence is likely limited to what advances a leftist agenda. One only needs to look into the background of the head of the WHO, who has no actual medical training other than accusations that he used Cholera as a weapon to make Eritrea a Communist/Marxist state apart from Christian Ethiopia.
