Today I came across a story "Can the courts restrict a woman from reproducing?"
"In what her lawyers are considering a Canadian first, a Montreal woman will take pregnancy tests twice a year as part of her sentence.
The woman, whose name cannot be released under a publication ban, pleaded guilty to infanticide last year. In additional to pregnancy testing the woman was sentenced to 20 months house arrest, and three years’ probation.
Unknowingly pregnant the woman gave birth in a bathtub, the baby was found by her spouse alive in a plastic bag but died days later. Originally the woman was charged with manslaughter, a charge that was later downgraded to infanticide."
Could this be the beginning of restrictions to our reproductive rights?
Now I know you're probably thinking that I'm talking a large leap here. "This is just a court case and it's not like they are force sterilizating this woman."
However, this is what you could call 'testing the waters', or 'social conditioning'. We will see more rulings like this and each time the sentence more imposing.
A case like this will create a debate on whether mentally ill people should have the right to have kids. They are doing the same thing in the US with gun control.
The problem with this is well.. How do you define who qualifies as mentally ill? According to CMHA 1 in 5 Canadian will experience a mental illness (Link). Should someone who has anxiety for example not be allowed to have kids?
Besides depopulation has been a big part of the agenda for a long long time.
Don't believe me? I'll give you just a handful of examples, but I assure you if you look into it for yourself, you will find a lot more.
Prince Williams calling for depopulation -
Don't have kids to fight climate change
Problem with the whole climate change debate is that it is bullshit and here's he proof - 
The New Order Of Barbarians: The Lawrence Dunegan Tapes - Dr. Lawrence Dunegun recalls a presentation he attended by Dr. Richard Day from 20 years ago(1969). Among many agendas mentioned depopulation was a big one that was discussed.
Georgia guidestone - population under 500 million.
What a better case study of reproductive control than China, who had a one child policy from 1979 until late 2015. Sounds like the damage is already done for China.
"Since the citizens of China are living longer and having fewer children, the growth of the population imbalance is expected to continue, as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which referred to a United Nations projections forecast that "China will lose 67 million working-age people by 2030, while simultaneously doubling the number of elderly. That could put immense pressure on the economy and government resources."[13] The longer term outlook is also pessimistic, based on an estimate by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, revealed by Cai Fang, deputy director. "By 2050, one-third of the country will be aged 60 years or older, and there will be fewer workers supporting each retired person."[55]
Although many critics of China's reproductive restrictions approve of the policy's abolition, Amnesty International said that the move to the two-child policy would not end forced sterilizations, forced abortions, or government control over birth permits.[56][57] Others also stated that the abolition is not a sign of the relaxation of authoritarian control in China. A reporter for CNN said, "It was not a sign that the party will suddenly start respecting personal freedoms more than it has in the past. No, this is a case of the party adjusting policy to conditions. ... The new policy, raising the limit to two children per couple, preserves the state's role."[58][59] The abolition may not achieve a significant benefit, as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation analysis indicated: "Repealing the one-child policy may not spur a huge baby boom, however, in part because fertility rates are believed to be declining even without the policy's enforcement. Previous easings of the one-child policy have spurred fewer births than expected, and many people among China's younger generations see smaller family sizes as ideal."[13] The CNN reporter adds that China's new prosperity is also a factor in the declining[55] birth rate, saying, "Couples naturally decide to have fewer children as they move from the fields into the cities, become more educated, and when women establish careers outside the home." - Wikipedia
Updated: Past Is Prolog
Back in the early 1900's the US had (still has Cough! planned parenthood Chough! Cough!) a Eugenics program later emulated by the nazis during ww2
"Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population,[2][3] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[4]
Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany,[5] which were largely inspired by the previous American work.[6][7][8] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[9]
During the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century, eugenics was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to a change in emigration from Europe, rather than scientific genetics.[10]"
"Eugenics supporters hold signs criticizing various "genetically inferior" groups. Wall Street, New York, c. 1915."
"The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement.[11][15] In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.[16] The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory." - source
Sterilization laws passed in the US.
"In 1914, eugenicist Harry Laughlin published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people “maintained wholly or in part by public expense.” The law included sterilization of the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” Laughlin’s publication was the basis for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, passed in 1924, which was first tested in the well-known Buck v. Bell case." - source
But if such laws were to come to Canada, it would have a devastating effect on our already dismal birth rates.
Canada's birth rates are already at an all time low with an average of 1.5 children per families.
To add to the anti-children agenda Male fertility in North America is down by 60% in the last 40 years. source
No breaking news coverage on that? Why do you think that is?
Why does it seem like at every turn the government seems to want to decrease birth rates in Canada?
"British Columbia will begin offering free abortion drugs to women on Jan. 15, providing even more incentives for women to abort their unborn babies."
"The province follows New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario in its decision to offer the deadly drugs for free through the taxpayer-funded health system." - source
I know in Edmonton they are cutting free services provided by fertility clinics. This will exclude most people who can't afford to dish out for these services.
So how will the Canadian government deal with this issue?
"Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said "that by 2036 100 per cent of Canada's population growth will be as a result of immigration, it stands at about 75 per cent today." -source
Oh Okay!
Look I'm not saying laws are rolling out tomorrow or even a year from now. But it's coming folks and if we don't made the depopulation apart of the discussion, well next thing you know you or your kids are no longer eligible to have kids.
I thank you for reading
