Proposal? (Incomplete) Two pasted together.
WHAT: A series of 15 minute videos, themed around Justice system, Rule of Law.
GENERAL MOTIVATION: We don’t have the Rule of Law. It isn’t well understood.
IMMEDIATE MOTIVATION: NAFTA Re-negotiation. INTERNATIONAL LAWS (TRADE DEALS) TO OVER-RIDE NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL LAWS. Can the series be done with this at beginning?
Most people get it: our governments are being run by Corporate Interests. We have Corporatocracy, not democracy.
What does that mean for The Rule of Law?
I used to say The Rule of Law is essential to democracy. If we don’t have the Rule of Law, we don’t have democracy.
What’s the problem with that statement? . . . Look around. Observe. Oh! You can have the Rule of Law, but the Laws get changed so they benefit the Corporations, not us! We have Rule by the Wrong Laws.
Broad Steps in the Rule of Law:
- We elect the legislators, the people we want to write our laws for us.
- A group of legislators who are the majority, tell civil servants what laws to write.
- Civil servants write the Law.
- Legislators pass the Law.
- The people affected by the Law are told what the Law is.
- Police send citizens who don’t follow the Law to the Courts.
- Courts decide how the fines, jail, or community service will be applied to the person who “breaks the Law”.
- Within the Justice system we then have various bodies for managing the application of these sanctions to the “offenders”.
CORPORATOCRACY, EFFECTS ON THE RULE OF LAW, STEP-BY-STEP
The Justice systems in Canada, as we know it today, come from colonial powers, British and French.
The Laws of a nation are part and parcel of its political and economic interests.
A move from more democratic government to corporatocracy is a change in the power of economic interests.
It should surprise no one that along with that change there has been, and continues to be, changes to the Rule of Law. The corporatocracy, the new centre of power, will have a Rule of Law that is subject to its values, which are different from democratic values.
It’s quite fascinating. Trade Deals.
We elect the legislators, the people we want to write our laws for us.
A group of legislators who are the majority, tell civil servants what laws to write.
Civil servants write the Law.
Legislators pass the Law.
The people affected by the Law are told what the Law is.
Police send citizens who don’t follow the Law to the Courts.
Courts decide how the fines, jail, or community service will be applied to the person who “breaks the Law”.
Within the Justice system we then have various bodies for managing the application of these sanctions to the “offenders”.
= == = ==
JUNE 27, 2017
WHAT: A series of 15 minute videos, themed around Justice system, Rule of Law.
GENERAL MOTIVATION: We don’t have the Rule of Law. It isn’t well understood.
IMMEDIATE MOTIVATION:
“The system” for dealing with (Ashu Solo) – a charge of defamation brought against me, is indefensible.
And it’s the 3rd time (4th time, if the Lockheed Martin trial is included) that the threat of the legal system has been used as a tool of intimidation and coercion against me.
Translation (general): the Charter Right to Freedom of Speech is as mythical as other elements of our Justice System.
Heightened awareness of the dedication with which people have defended the Charter Right to Freedom of Speech, in the face of death threats to them, their families, and work colleagues comes through Salman Rushdie’s Joseph Anton: Memoir. The Ayotollah issued a fatwa against him, calling on Muslims to kill Rushdie, because he authored the book called The Satanic Verses. Rushdie and some publishers stood ground, refusing to relinquish the Charter Right, because of its importance to human freedom and democracy.
The three instances, my personal experience, where the threat of the justice system as a tool to intimidate and coerce, was used to try and take away my Charter Right to Freedom of Speech:
- Full-time Government scientist, employed by the department responsible for the regulation of the industry, simultaneously being paid under contract for years, by the industry: I was quoted in the newspaper as saying he was in a conflict-of-interest. He hired a lawyer to threaten that he will bring charges against me (defamation) if I say such-and-such. I replied in no uncertain terms that this was a mafia tactic, a common tool of the industry he works for.
- When I was an elected member of University of Saskatchewan Senate, the University paid one of its lawyers to threaten me with legal action. Working with other Senators I had been challenging serious conflicts-of-interest at the University. I replied to the threat, again in no uncertain terms, that I viewed the letter as a mafia tactic – – silence me, not with the threat of broken bones, but with the threat of being broken financially, using the tool of the justice system.
- A charge of defamation was brought against me and co-defendants by a man who is in his mid-forties. He had been cyberbullying a woman who was under 30 years of age. I forwarded a complaint from the young woman, for 3rd party, independent resolution. The man then began a vendetta against me. I have not backed down. Eventually the man brought defamation charges against me and two co-defendants. Today, 2 ½ years from the outset of legal action, the case is still in “pre-trial”, my legal bills are $30,000, I have learned a lot about the ACTUAL use of the justice system as a tool of intimidation and coercion.
The commonality in the three examples, the Government scientist, the University, and the middle-aged man, is use of the charge of defamation, to create fear, and thereby silence people who offer opposing views. The Government scientist, the University, and the middle-aged man, all tried to take away my Charter Right to Freedom of Speech. In another instance, Statistics Canada and the Federal Justice Dept taught me about the mythical nature of our Charter Right to Privacy of personal information. I will address that separately.
The justice system is in bad need of overhaul. The issue has been raised many times over many years. The people within the system have demonstrated that they are not the ones who should be tasked with re-design. They have too much vested in the existing abomination. I don’t use the word abomination lightly, it is based on my most recent experience of the system.
The activism work through my own network has been full-time for 15 years. What I see is that things are not getting better. We are losing ground when it comes to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Canadians.
I have a choice: I can now dump another $30,000 into the pockets of lawyers, continue the banging of my head against the wall, or I can do a video series, have some fun and do some good.
RULE OF LAW
INTRO
WHAT DOES RULE OF LAW MEAN?
- WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?
RULE OF LAW, YES – – BUT WHAT LAWS ARE BEING WRITTEN? GOOD LAWS, BAD LAWS
- LAWS PASSED IN PRE-WAR GERMANY BY A DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED POLITICAL PARTY. HOW OR WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?
- IN CANADA TODAY, LAWS FOR “FREE TRADE”, AN EXAMPLE
EXPLODE THE MYTHS
- George Bush nor Dick Cheney were arrested when they came to Canada
- Montebello, police officers trained, disguised and deployed – provocateurs to turn a peaceful protest violent
- Anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP on behalf of Encana at Dawson Creek, Tom’s Lake
- RCMP visit organic farmers at behest of Monsanto
- From the U.S., with impact around the world, the Wall Street Fraudsters, the Banksters, have not been brought to justice.
- SLAPP suits, a tool of intimidation. From Government to Corporations to citizens.
- G-20 Summit in Toronto
LAWS WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT ARE PROPAGANDA
IS IT A PROBLEM IF WE DON’T HAVE THE RULE OF LAW? (THE GOOD KIND!)
- VIOLENCE INCREASES
- CORRUPTION FLOURISHES
- TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD: WHAT CAUSES CORRUPTION IN GOVERNANCE?
WHAT DID THE GREEKS AND OTHERS AFTER THEM, WRITE ABOUT THE LIFE-CYCLE OF GOVERNANCE? IS ANYTHING TO BE LEARNED AND APPLIED FROM THEM?
FOUR TIMES I RECEIVED THREAT TO TAKE ME TO COURT. USE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO INTIMIDATE, COERCE AND SILENCE.
- CHARTER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
- CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
- CHARTER RIGHTS AS MYTH. HOW PROSECUTORS GET AROUND THEM.
RETURN TO MYTHS, DEMOCRACY: YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING ON YOUR BEHALF
- WHAT LEGAL PROTECTION DO CANADIANS HAVE AGAINST MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
- HOW DID THE UK AND SWEDEN GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT’S OKAY TO HOLD A POLITICAL PRISONER FOR FIVE YEARS? (FOOTAGE, GUNNING DOWN OF CIVILIANS, INCLUDING TWO REUTERS JOURNALISTS)
- WHAT DO CANADIANS KNOW ABOUT WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT DOES, THAT IS PROHIBITED IN A DEMOCRACY? (Montebello, what else?)
UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW.
- THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC HIT MEN. NEW CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN (2016). ALL OUTSIDE THE RULE OF LAW.
- GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH CROOKS
COSTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
SO WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT ALL THIS? ACTIONS.
- THE STORY OF THE CHILDREN
- MICHAEL MOORE’S FILM “WHERE TO INVADE NEXT”, PRISONS IN NORWAY.
[Computer, search Moore http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=18816]
INTRO
My name is Sandra Finley. I am in competition for the most letters threatening to take me to Court. What I, and others like me, do is to say what needs to be said.
In two cases, I fired back to lawyers, telling them that the mafia uses the threat of broken bones to intimidate and coerce people with fear. It is well-known that corporations and institutions use the threat of the Justice system (will break a person financially) to create fear. The intention is the same; the tool is different. It has nothing to do with Justice.
My response in those two cases brought an end to the threats.
In the other two cases, I stood my ground, the plaintiffs stood their ground, with the consequence that I have 7 or 8 years of experience with the Justice system.
Four different times, the experience of just one citizen.
And Why would I even bring up my experience? I shudder at what others have experienced in other parts of the system. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has repeatedly, over years, admonished the legal profession about the need for change. It’s not apparent that it’s happening.
(Aram’s points re Law.)
The Justice system is for keeping peace in the society, a tool for dispute resolution. Because you and I pay the taxes to create and run the system, it belongs to us. If it is not serving us, if the problems are chronic, if the people inside the system are having a tough time making it work FOR US, well then, it’s time to do something about that.
The remedies will come from outside the system, not from within it. That’s clear. And it’s true of every profession. The remedies for the financial sector are not going to come from inside the banks and investment industries. The remedies for our food supply are not going to come from inside the food industry. The remedies for health, true prevention of disease and developmental problems, are not going to come from inside the medical and pharmaceutical professions. The remedies for our universities are not going to come from inside the universities.
I think we have a competent Minister of Justice who is dedicated to the public good. I know, as with any human being, that if she gets rest and sleep, has time for nutritious food, isn’t feeling guilty about neglecting her family because of the demands of her job, has time for reflection, beauty and nature, that she will be stronger. She will excel even more. To me, because bandaids have been used for so long, the problems are now so many and so entrenched that citizens need to pitch in. It is not fair to expect one Minister of Justice to be responsible for the running, let alone the re-design of this behemoth called the Justice system. The Minister is elected, vulnerable to becoming un-elected. She is expected to become fully operational, responsible for the Justice system over night. The first thing she is met with is volumes of briefing books, wielded by deputy ministers and staff who have been doing the job for a long time. They are the experts and they know the files. Some of them have come into strategic jobs in the bureaucracy through a revolving door with the corporates. There’s the lobbyists and advisors on top of all that.
This video series is the contribution of my experience. I hope it will be helpful.
There are many vested interests in seeing that our Justice system stays the same, just as there are vested interests in seeing that our political-economic and financial systems stay the same.
In order for “enlightenment” to prevail in our efforts to change the Justice system, the task cannot be left to those who have been incubated within the existing system.
The work has to be protected from the lobbyists, the crossing of palms with silver, if it is to serve the public interest, as the Law must do.
Videos, podcasts, and blog postings can be one-way communications. That won’t work for what we need to accomplish.
Maybe these videos will be an addition to efforts that are underway.
The Uniform Law Conference of Canada was founded in 1918 to harmonize the … legislation based on identified deficiencies, defects or gaps in existing law, …
The ULCC 2017 Annual Meeting is in Regina, SK. I approached them but unsuccessfully.
WHAT DOES RULE OF LAW MEAN? WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?
George Bush and Dick Cheney started coming to Canada in celebrity status following the end of their terms.
That was a big test of the Rule of Law. Canada failed the test. Why?
If you are a citizen in a democracy, your basic education will have equipped you to shout out the answer, immediately.
Did you? (Geez! I wish this was a two-way exchange.)
[Go to computer screen, to http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16856. Significance of the Rule of Law. There is more than the following excerpt. And the points are important. The Rule of Law is undermined if it isn’t applied equally.]
“All persons, regardless of wealth, social status, or the political power wielded by them, are to be treated the same before the law.
“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.
“The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government as well as the governed. Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”
EXPLODE THE MYTHS
To avoid confusion between you and me, I should tell you:
When someone says
- Canada,
- Democracy,
- Rule of Law
- (which is essential to Democracy).
I automatically tag on some words in my head:
- Myth
- Canada,
- Democracy,
- Rule of Law
- (which means Democracy is hanging by a thread).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – —
- George Bush nor Dick Cheney were arrested when they came to Canada
Bush and Cheney were exempted, they were not treated equally, in spite of efforts by Canadians to insist on the Rule of Law. They either had to be turned back at the border, or arrested if they entered Canada. [Computer – – ]
Bush was scheduled to speak in Geneva. When Swiss citizens went to their authorities about the Rule of Law, Bush consulted with his lawyers, was advised that yes, he would be at risk of being arrested. He cancelled his speaking engagement. He didn’t leave the relative safety of the U.S. I say relative because (Vermont)
[Go to top of blog page, to the “Arrest Geo Bush” button, to the chronology of International efforts to arrest Bush and colleagues]
- Here’s another one. Police officers trained, disguised and deployed – provocateurs
[Enter “Montebello” in Search.]
- Anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP on behalf of Encana at Dawson Creek, Tom’s Lake
- RCMP visit organic farmers at behest of Monsanto
- From the U.S., with impact around the world, the Wall Street Fraudsters, the Banksters. If the Rule of Law is real, not a myth, then the perpetrators would be in jail. The Rule of Law means that everyone is treated equally before the Law, and NO ONE has the authority to grant exemption to another person. No matter who they are.
The documentary film, Inside Job, narrated by Matt Damon does a nice job of laying out the frauds, and the failure to bring the perpetrators to trial. http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=825
These people are now in Canada, too. [name the banks]) Larry Summers . . .
- SLAPP suits, a tool of intimidation. From Government to Corporations to citizens.
before going into my experience with the use of the justice system as a more sophisticated tool than thuggery, to intimidate and coerce,