(Background for newcomers, see: Lockheed Martin, . . . Census, Surveys, Charter Right to Privacy, On Trial
(SCC = Supreme Court of Canada)
NEED CRITICAL INPUT
Will some of you please read the Objective Summary (2 paragraphs) and provide your critical thoughts to me?
At this juncture,
a two-paragraph Summary of the issue in my trial has the potential to decide whether we have the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, or not. (Never mind the question of whether we have Lockheed Martin involved!)
I am concerned that the Summary is not Objective. I am unwilling to run the risk that, in a very busy world, summaries may have undue influence.
The Objective Summary has been prepared by a lawyer who works for the Supreme Court.
It will be given to the Panel of 3 Justices to aid their decision whether leave-to-appeal in my case, R vs Finley, is granted.
The naming of the 3-Justice panel is at: SCC Referral to Panel
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is on the panel. I have respect for her, we’ve referred to her work in a number of postings.
But I also know the Justices receive hundreds of applications for leave-to-appeal. And they are human.
Knowledge of What’s at Stake? (below) drives me to ensure that the best possible be done. I know that “the best” comes from your ideas in combination with my own.
Today I sent an email outlining what I see as the basic problem: To lawyer re SCC Objective Summary.
Steve responded: The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process. I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.
What are your thoughts about the Summary? Time is short. I want to forward your input to Lawyer Steve in anticipation of a green light on getting the Summary changed.
Thanks,
Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
(This is a reminder because we are forgetful creatures.)
– Lockheed Martin is involved in the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada that is continuously being added to.
– Under the Patriot Act, American corporations and their (Canadian) subsidiaries, if requested, must supply data bases to which they have access, to the American Government (think NSA, their National Security Agency).
– From testimony given at my trial by the then-head of the Census operations at Statistics Canada, I know that NAMES are on the individual records on the StatsCan data base. The information is NOT “anonymous”.
– The data on individuals being collected by StatsCan is increasingly comprehensive. The number of questions went up to more than 50 in the 2006 Census (once every five years). The Census long form then became the (on-going data collection) National Household Survey. Within a couple of years the number of questions was up to approximately 80. StatsCan uses coercion and manipulation to force people to answer the questions (see on-going people’s stories on my blog).
– We have known from newspaper reports that the Americans want the information on all Canadians. Excerpt from CHRONOLOGY: …
2008 November: OTTAWA CITIZEN, “CANADIAN OFFICIALS .. WILL MEET THE NEW STANDARD” FOR SUPPLYING DATA ON CANADIANS TO THE AMERICANS…”
“… American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians, says an influential analyst on Canada-U.S. relations.
“Not only about (routine) individuals, but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there’s no indictment and there’s no charge,” Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute told a security intelligence conference in Ottawa yesterday. . Canadian officials have said this country will meet the new standard, “plus or minus a little,” by 2011, he said. “But there’ll be tremendous pressure (from the U.S.) to get there faster.“
(Link no longer valid) http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=64f59d78-ce97-48dc-b2fd-381859ce6c84
What better vehicle for the American military to get information on all Canadians than through the Census with Lockheed Martin as the conduit?
– We have known HOW it is to happen. Maclean’s Magazine Sept 2006:
The President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin, Ron Covais, active on the SPP with Stephen Harper, tells Macleans Magazine in an article entitled Meet NAFTA 2.0,
“We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes, because we won’t get anywhere.” The main avenue for changes would be through executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulations, he said, adding: “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘Tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen.‘”
(Link no longer valid) http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20060911_133202_133202
– There is harmonization and integration of data on citizens through Census Bureaux in Western Nations, under the influence of the American power elite and their puppets.
In the early stages of my trial I represented myself. I did the cross-examination (not well!) of the StatsCan witness who was head of the Census operations. Because of similarities I was seeing between the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. census operations I was curious about the extent of “harmonization and integration”.
It was told to the Court that the Census Bureaux from numerous Western nations meet and cooperate, etc.
Lockheed Martin in involved in the U.K. census data base, as it is in the Canadian and American. I don’t know the full extent, other nations.
– We have known since 2009, NSA to Build $1.6 Billion Storage Facility to House Personal Surveillance Data, Utah (The amount increased to $2 billion and the centre is now in operation.)
– The “revelations” by Edward Snowden only confirmed what we have known. From the last email I sent out (Who will win? Our feudal lords or us?!):
It’s rather exciting when the New York Times publishes an editorial that explains, in easy to understand language, how the NSA gets into “secure” data bases: Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial
– There is much more, e.g. the deployment of drones all along the Canada-U.S. border, but surely the preceding is more than sufficient motivation to share information with more Canadians.
– If I lose the request for leave-to-appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be the end of the legal process. The decisions of the lower Courts would prevail: I would remain “guilty”. Which would mean that Effectively we do not have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.
– It will not be a disaster if that happens. It is one skirmish in the larger battle for democratic values. But it would be very nice to win this one!
– Right now, the best way to help is to just pass the information along. And trust that it will fall into the right hands through those “6 degrees of separation”!
Thanks,
Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NOW THE FUNNY SIDE!
We can’t hide behind the delusion that we are rational beings – – there is simply too much research to the contrary (3 examples below).
The funny side is related to the idea that Court cases, the law, is “Objective” – – ha! Ha! – – and intending no disrespect to the Justices. It is just the way we are as human beings.
Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves. (Carl Sagan)
No need for conspiracy theories – – although Lockheed Martin is certainly “conspiring”!
When you “see through” things, it usually makes you laugh, as when a child creates an imaginative but false reason for having their way.
THREE EXAMPLES, OUR DELUSIONS ABOUT OURSELVES:
– A very interesting, 17-minute presentation about the myth of rationality: The fiction of memory, Elizabeth Loftus, TED Talk.
– Some time ago we circulated the closely related: Perception, an illustration of our fallibility and our gullibility. Dan Simons. Basketball.
– The question of our rationality is addressed brilliantly by John Ralston Saul: Understanding why we flounder, help from John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”
“I’m a logician. No matter how wrong I am, I can always convince myself I am right. ” ― Jarod Kintz ( http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/delusion)
So let’s have a good laugh. When I wrote “What’s at Stake?” (above), it DID seem to me that we are collectively a bunch of lunatics! We are ludicrous to the point of being funny.
Maybe the system we have designed for “justice” and the preservation of democracy is even funnier. Or, the role we have assigned to it, and accept, is quirky. The issues in this case are extremely important, but the process so far, does not allow me to address “What’s At Stake?”
Some will say that is deliberate. I don’t think so. There is nothing to prevent us from evolving that which does not serve us well.
We have the freedom to make our minds known, the freedom to communicate with our fellow citizens . . . WHO THAT IS SANE would just give up the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information without a fight? If you have any idea about the role of detailed files on citizens – – it is symptomatic of a police/military state.
As R vs Finley moves through the Justice system, I see the possibility that an Objective Summary written by one lawyer, could halt the “Rational” consideration of whether, under Appeal, the Supreme Court will stand behind our Charter Right.
I better understand how it was that the “influential people of the day”, the lawyers and judges and academics, became participants in the run to power of the Nazis in Pre-World War Two Europe – -but not necessarily did they ALL act out of malice.
I have maintained that the Second World War could have been avoided – – IF the citizens of Germany had opposed early enough, what they knew was wrong.
But perhaps it is ALSO as Sagan says: Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves.
We believe ourselves to be objective. But the research shows we have misplaced faith in ourselves.
Canadian Law, the Charter Right:
“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”
If I lose the court case, we will have lost the Charter Right.
Uhhh . . . not exactly a laughing matter.
INput received by email:
Hi Sandra, I would assume that we have a charter right to privacy and that the long form census was an infringement on that right. I thought that is why the Harper government backed off on the long form census. I just assumed they knew it was wrong to force compliance.
What strikes me about this violation of privacy is that multi-national corporations have access to our personal data.
I don’t know how you can stress it any more effectively that it is the danger. How much information should the US military have about us? none.
There is an issue of national security.
Thanks for fighting the good fight,
Lorraine
A lawyer emailed:
I do not see what else can be done other than your lawyer requesting correction.
From: Angela
Sent: October-01-13
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: I need your critical thoughts on this!
Sandra,
You are absolutely, 100% correct in focussing on this oversight.
It seems to me that it is more than just pertinent: it is the _essence_ of the entire case.
It is the sine qua non of the case. That we get to choose _what_ we disclose to the
state, and how much. Right now, there is no choice, as in, “all or nothing”. And “nothing”
has been criminalized. “Partial” completion of the form is off the table. And here they’ve
really wrapped a rope around their own necks.
Put another way: If Statistics Canada could demonstrate a clear linkage between
collected data and improved services to citizens (which, naturally, they cannot do),
we (some of us) might conceivably be willing to reconsider our stance on releasing
information that ostensibly would be used for the betterment of social conditions but
which otherwise would remain private.
The _only_ reason that a rational person would willingly turn over such information to the state is due to a ‘good faith’ type of understanding that the information would be used to help, not harm, the individual in question and the public at large.
Unfortunately, any sane and observant person knows that this is not to be. Public health programs? Nope. Cleaning up the water and sewage systems on First Nation lands? Nope. Services for seniors? Nope. Better EI, welfare, CPP and overall social security system? Nope. Assistance for family farms?
Nope. Environmental protection? Hello, Tar Sands.
We can check every Department, from Parks Canada and its massive lay-offs heralding a Disneyland vision of national parks to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and its xenophobic / mercenary brand of cruelty, to the out-and-out criminal activities of Health Canada, Agricuture Canada, DND, and all the other Departments that are so blatantly ‘owned’ by the corporate sector that it’s now a matter of common knowledge, and in this review find our government to be so severely lacking in integrity, thics, duty, responsibility, and sense of justice, that it’s truly a wonder that ANY census form EVER gets filled out in this country.
The performance graph for the federal government shows a straight, downward curve that is only descending more rapidly every day. This is the reason why federal public servants across the country are barricaded in their offices, behind locked doors (despite being merely the “enforcers”). They have something to be afraid of. Us.
My two cents.
Keep up the great work.
Best to you,
Angela
/ / / / /
From: Sandra Finley
To: Angela
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2013
Subject: RE: I need your critical thoughts on this!
Wow girl! You sock it to ‘em!
With words and colour that I could never muster.
Thanks so much Angela.
You are a bright light in my day.
I had to chuckle at your closing remarks!
/Sandra
From: Angela
Sent: October 1, 2013
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: I need your critical thoughts on this!
Hiya,
I guess what bothers me the most about the Objective Summary is the intimation
that you could have been ‘compliant’ via the alternative of partial completion of the
form, which as we know, is a bogus claim. The use of the words “any of” in “refused
to fill in and return any of the long form census form” is completely misleading.
So not only is there bias due to the repetition of this one ‘fact’, but the fact itself
is debatable, given the disingenuous suggestion that there was some alternative besides
all or nothing. How could a person possibly comply / not comply with filling out ‘any of’
the form, when partial completion was never an option?
And of course this issue is directly related to the larger issue of what exactly it is that
the government can compel us to reveal regarding our biographical core of information;
in other words, at what point is mandatory completion of the long form census in conflict
with the rights enshrined under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
In the absence of assurances as to our safety were we to complete certain sections of the form, and in seeking therefore to protect ourselves, we choose “nothing” versus “all”, since “something”, i.e., partial completion, is not an option.
Ok, enough of my rants. 😉
Hope you guys succeed in getting the Summary changed. Fingers crossed.
Cheers,
Angela
NOTE: we were not successful in getting the Summary changed. And the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Saskatchewan Court was denied.
I too refused on the grounds that the government expected me to fill out the form for free and that constitutes slavery. Not even those conscripted for war nor prisoners are expected to work for free for the government.
She never came back when I finally answered my door on about her seventh visit and explained this to her and that I would need a formal offer in writing of how much they would pay me. You may want to say something about slavery.
After the Charter was proclaimed Barbara Amiel wrote: A place which feels compelled to legislate justice and liberty is an unlikely place in which to find justice and liberty.
The BC Court of Appeal denied Victoria BC homeless people the right to shelter themselves 24 hours a day under s. 7 of the Charter by invoking its
s. 1. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
The 3 ‘Justices’ also ignored the BC Interpretation Act s. 7 (1) “Every enactment must be construed as always speaking.”
This demonstrates we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system and they are not the same thing.
Most people casually use the term “right” without comprehending a right is only a right if it is enforceable.
Thanks to Rod (input by email):
It is my understanding that Lockheed Martin have already entered Canada through the back door, no less, and are working with a “sovereign nation” one particular Indian band near Saskatoon. Divide and conquer …This information would be worth “keeping in the public eye”.