RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14391/un-global-compact-next

This initiative [to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”] should be deeply concerning and is likely to serve only to silence critics of the UN, including its agenda on migration and the GCM.

The EU, for its part, according to statements by Hungary and Austria, does not appear to agree that implementing the Global Compact should be up to every EU member state. Instead, the EU is working on making it legally binding, even for those EU countries who have not adopted the Compact.

“A ‘secret document’ has been published on work by the European Commission’s legal service to formulate ‘lengthy and devious’ legal grounds for suggesting that the compact is, after all, mandatory for EU member states.” — Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

In December, world leaders of 165 countries adopted an ostensibly non-binding agreement that propagates a radical idea: that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected[1].

The agreement is named the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), and now comes its implementation. The UN has not wasted any time in setting this “non-binding” Compact in motion. Already at the Marrakesh Conference in December, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched the Migration Network (Network)[2], a new addition to the UN bureaucracy, and seemingly intended to “ensure effective and coherent system‑wide support to the implementation of the Global Compact”. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) will serve as the coordinator and secretariat of all constituent parts of the Network in implementing the Global Compact.

The UN, in other words, has set its enormous bureaucratic infrastructure into full motion to see to it that the Compact will have maximum impact across the globe.

IOM director-general Antonio Vitorino has already sent a warning to critics of the UN migration agenda. “If we want to succeed in having a more humane and better world, we should resist the temptation of negative narratives that some want to spread about migration,” Vitorino said recently.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274139/trinidad-western-hemispheres-jihadist-hotspot-stephen-brown

It is difficult to believe that a lush, tropical vacation destination like the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, a relatively prosperous country with full religious and legal freedoms, has produced more fighters per capita for the murderous Islamic State (ISIS) than any other country in the Western Hemisphere.

But, unfortunately for Trinidad and the civilized world, that is the tragic fact of the matter. While Muslims constitute only five per cent of the country’s population, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, a portion is “causing outsized global security concern,” states Todd Benson in the publication Center for Immigration Studies.

Unknown to most and largely unreported by the media, Trinidad, with only a population estimated between 1.2 and 1.5 million people, has sent at least 130 of its citizens to join the Islamic State. The United States, by contrast, with a population about 240 times larger than Trinidad’s, has sent about 250 to 300, about one per cent of the 30,000 foreigners who joined ISIS.

T. and T. citizens in ISIS “are high up in the ranks, they are very respected, and they are English-speaking. ISIL have used them for propaganda to spread their message through the Caribbean,” said John Estrada, former U.S. ambassador, to Trinidad and Tobago, adding Trinidadians did “very well” in ISIS.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/religious-suppression-north-of-the-border-11561676755

One of New York state’s great civic leaders once began a meeting by observing that I wore a yarmulke at work. I’d just been nominated as president of New York’s economic development agency. I told him that headgear hadn’t seemed to hinder Cardinal Edward Egan’s effectiveness. We got down to business and got along fine. This incident came to mind last week when the National Assembly of Quebec passed a law barring public employees from wearing religious clothing or symbols at work.

Advocates say the bill promotes the separation of church and state. In reality, the law suggests that religious practice is incompatible with public service, that people of faith cannot be trusted to balance their religious beliefs and civic responsibilities, and that employees must choose between their consciences and careers. Public employees won’t be the only ones affected: If the government won’t hire someone who wears a turban or crucifix, why would a private business?

During my decade as a yarmulke-wearing government official in New York, I occasionally encountered those who viewed religious professionals through a lens that magnified their faith while obscuring their abilities.

On two separate occasions when I was in Albany for the State of the State address, senior officials approached me in the holding room for politicians and staffers off the Capitol floor, shook my hand, addressed me as “Rabbi,” and thanked me for coming to deliver the invocation. Mortified colleagues quickly corrected them.

If religiously observant employees are given the chance, eventually people will focus on the job they are doing and not the clothing they are wearing while doing it. The best way to ensure respect for different faiths and cultures is to make them well-represented in all workplaces. That means not excluding them from the workforce or forcing them to hide their identities.