MALCOLM: The UN Migration Compact - the details are truly worrisome

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-the-details-are-truly-worrisome

Candice Malcolm

Published: December 5, 2018
Updated: December 5, 2018 4:21 PM EST

Filed Under:

• Toronto SUN
• Opinion
• Columnists

Asylum seekers line up to receive boxed lunches after entering Canada from the U.S. at Roxham Rd. in Hemmingford, Que., in this Aug. 9, 2017 file photo. Graham Hughes / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer has come out swinging against a new United Nations immigration treaty that the Trudeau government will sign next week.

“Canadians want their government, not foreign entities, to be in control of our immigration system, a system that is orderly, compassionate and fair,” said Scheer on Tuesday.

This is exactly right.

The UN Migration Compact is a highly controversial document, riddled with contradictions and radical claims. While many journalists accept Liberal talking points on the banality of this treaty, a close reading of the document exposes the many problems it contains.

The document promises it is “not legally binding” and merely a framework, but at the same time, it encourages countries to sign the agreement, join the UN’s efforts and implement its suggestions at home.

The entire point of the UN Compact on Migration is to form the foundation of new international norms that will, in time, become international law.

The compact promises that national sovereignty and the rule of law will be respected and maintained, but then carves out special rights and protections for migrants and insists that the “well-being of migrants”, including illegal immigrants, must come first.

But what about the existing citizens of a country?

What about our families, our communities, our culture and traditions? What about our rules, our laws, our safety and security? What about the costs, the impact on our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our tax dollars?

The UN treaty doesn’t so much as mention the impact of mass migration on the host country and its citizens — who are often ignored and removed from any discussion on migration.

The contradictions continue.

The treaty insists that governments must provide “access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration.” That sounds good. Citizens should know about the harms and dangers associated with mass migration, as well as the potential advantages and benefits.

But wait, the sentence continues to say, “with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.”

You can either commit to telling the truth and objectively studying the issue of immigration, or, you can commit to dispelling negative perceptions about migrants.

You cannot honestly say you’re doing both at the same time.

Finally, the most controversial section of this UN compact is Objective 17, which is to “eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.”

It pledges to “eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants” — without defining these words or acknowledging that in today’s heated public discourse, these terms have been weaponized and are used to discredit anyone who doesn’t subscribe to Liberal dogma on immigration and multiculturalism.

It instructs governments to implement laws and harsher penalties for crimes against migrants but says nothing about crimes committed by migrants.

And, most controversially, it calls on governments to intervene in the media, to promote positive stories about migrants and to cut off media outlets that tell the other side of the story.

While outlining these Orwellian guidelines for media censorship and government intervention in the free press, the compact throws in a line about “respecting freedom of expression” and “freedom for the media.” As if that’s any consolation for calls to punish journalists for reporting facts and telling the truth.

Canadians should join Andrew Scheer in rejecting this radical global scheme that undermines Canadian laws and traditions while pushing for mass migration and open borders.