Sandra Finley

2016-07-16 Maude Barlow: Millions yearn to escape free-trade deals

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Jul 172016
 

 Sequence:

 

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/columnists/maude-barlow-millions-yearn-to-escape-free-trade-deals-1.2303535

 

Millions yearn to escape free-trade deals

Maude Barlow / Times Colonist

 

U.S. President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Canada, against the backdrop of Brexit and the U.S. presidential campaign, had many opinion leaders trying to dismiss concerns about free trade.

Now, we’re told, people who are against free trade are isolationists who want to entrench themselves in the past, in a parochial nostalgia for the nation-state. The ideology of free-trade opponents can only lead to an inward-looking mentality that fosters wars and destroys the economy.

So say the free-traders who have been fostering wars and destroying the economy.

But is it that easy: a fight between free trade, on the one hand, and isolationism on the other?

This false binary construct leaves little room for a third choice: the progressive concept of “fair trade” and the aspiration to build economies and trading relationships that are based on social and ecological justice, on the primacy of democratic rights over the profits of transnational corporations and on the free movement of people rather than capital. A successful economy is one that works for all, not one that just enriches the one per cent, as Obama noted in his speech to the Canadian parliament.

Free trade is a fundamental tenet — along with privatization, deregulation and austerity — of the agenda that is driving deepening inequality around the world.

The “investment protection” clauses in free-trade agreements are what allow transnational corporations to sue national governments that pass laws against fracking, oilsands pipelines and other climate crimes. These provisions also trample on indigenous rights and their ability to say no to major resource-extraction projects.

And it’s the “intellectual property rights” in free-trade agreements that allow highly profitable pharmaceutical corporations to secure the delay of cheaper generic and biosimilar drugs at the expense of human lives.

It is inexcusable for some politicians and newspapers to use the demagoguery of Donald Trump and the bigotry of Nigel Farage — who led the Brexit campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union — to obscure this valid progressive critique of the power free-trade agreements give to transnational corporations and how those powers undermine our rights.

Opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the North American Free Trade Agreement and other agreements is not “anti-trade.” It is a rejection of “free trade” and the powers these deals bestow on trans-national corporations over our democratic and human rights. This rejection of these destructive trade deals is part of a positive vision of “fair trade.”

The Council of Canadians remains a committed member of the global trade-justice movement that envisions inclusive, environmentally sustainable, non-colonial and democratic economies and trading relationships. Far from antiquated, this sentiment is on the rise, highlighted by the recent Angus Reid Institute poll that showed only one in four Canadians support NAFTA.

This isn’t about trying to return to some imaginary past before global trade, with white picket fences and no immigrants where “foreign ideas” are rejected. This is about shaping globalization in a way in which our cosmo-politanism and openness to the world is not shaped by corporate interests but by democratic impulses.

 

And while the votes for Brexit, and the support for Trump, might not always choose the best political framing, politicians and elites would be arrogant to dismiss the widespread discontent with the status quo.

We must reject the attempts to stoke racism as a way of misdirecting blame away from proponents of business as usual. It’s not immigrants, refugees or racialized communities that have caused the sharp rise in economic inequality. The blame rests squarely with cuts to public services, privatization and the fallout of so-called free-trade deals that have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

There is a massive wound in our economy. Free-trade agreements in their current form are not going to fix it, since they are a central part of the problem. There needs to be a massive shift in the way trade agreements are conceived and implemented so that the benefits of global trade are shared by all.

 

Maude Barlow is the national chair of the Council of Canadians.

© Copyright Times Colonist

2016-07-13 “Free” Trade? Fraud Alert – The deceptive branding behind corporatists’ preference for the term “free trade” over simply “trade.”, by David Korten. Linguistics, Propaganda

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  1 Response »
Jul 172016
 

Sequence:

 

[  http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/free-trade-fraud-alert-20160713?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20160715  ]

 

by David Korten,     YES !  Magazine

 

So the next time you hear the term “free market” or “free trade,” treat that as a fraud alert. Ask yourself, what are those warm-sounding words trying to sell? And remember, a living Earth economy features living markets, not the “free market,” and it engages in fair trade, not “free trade.”      –  David Korten

 

It is rare these days to hear the words “market” and “trade” without the word “free” attached—especially on corporate media. I even hear colleagues who are pursuing a more localized economy use these terms without realizing that by so doing they are subtly and unintentionally promoting a political agenda they oppose.

 

Words have power, and corporate spin doctors choose them carefully to develop positive emotional associations with their agenda.

 

The corporatist website Investopedia.com explains what is meant by a free market: “A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e., buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies, or regulation.” Thus, the term “free market” joins two positive words—freedom and markets—and associates them with the corporatists’ ideal of freedom for corporations to maximize short-term profits free from public oversight, taxes, or responsibility for public consequences.

 

For me, the term “market” evokes the image of a local Saturday morning farmers market like the one where I go to buy fresh produce from my farmer neighbors. Such markets fit perfectly the dictionary definition of a market as “an open place or a covered building where buyers and sellers convene for the sale of goods; a marketplace.” These markets feature life-sustaining person-to-person exchange, often while enjoying each other’s company and the offerings of food vendors and musicians. These are living markets organized by the people who use them. Most of us love them—and properly so.

 

The many community markets I have visited around the world are beautiful celebrations of local life and culture, much like street parties. Our Saturday morning farmers market on Bainbridge Island is tiny by comparison with many I’ve visited. Even so, it draws a vibrant crowd and is an important contributor to building the relationships of trust and caring essential to healthy community function. It is easy to buy into the idea that such markets should be “free” from the heavy hand of government—though, in fact, even these markets have and could not long function without rules, including rules that exclude non-local businesses.

 

The “free market” of the corporatist ideal is the polar opposite to such community-nourishing living markets. The corporatists’ free market is populated and organized by transnational corporations that spurn attachments to people, place, and community. Of course, corporations employ people, but their primary relationship is not to each other. It is to the corporation. And that relationship preempts the direct relationship they might otherwise enjoy with one another and the place they call home.

 

There is a similar deceptive branding at work in the corporatists’ preference for the term “free trade” over simply “trade.” For most of us, trade and freedom are both good. “Free trade” connects these associations with the corporatist agenda of trade unconstrained by national boundaries and interests. These set up a positive association with international agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that are routinely referred to as “free trade” agreements. In fact, they are not about freedom and only indirectly about trade. Filled with thousands of pages of detailed rules, their primary purpose is to strip countries of control of their own borders and transfer that control to global corporations.

 

Perhaps the most striking “free market” contradiction is that the corporatist neoliberal agenda supports corporate mergers and acquisitions that build concentrations of monopoly power and reduce the market competition that is normally assumed to be a defining feature of a market.

 

So the next time you hear the term “free market” or “free trade,” treat that as a fraud alert.  Ask yourself, what are those warm-sounding words trying to sell? And remember, a living Earth economy features living markets, not the “free market,” and it engages in fair trade, not “free trade.”

 

2016-07-13 Corporatocracy, Democracy: Be careful what you ask for. … Or, no time for timidity?

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  1 Response »
Jul 142016
 

Don Chisholm  Commented  on    Rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule.

If you read the Comment there, scroll past the first part of this.   More has been added.

Don says:

Good outline summary Sandra.

 But when pondering revolution we need be careful what we ask for. It would be prudent to have an established outline of a social/economic/political system that could replace the corporatocracy that currently feeds us and sustains social order: Even on their terms it’s better that the chaos within a world where the human footprint is in deep overshoot.

Sandra Finley says:

So, basically Don, we don’t want the French Revolution followed by a Reign of Terror; history has lessons. That has been my position, but current events are causing me to start doubting.

I wonder if the families of Philando Castile and other blacks murdered or victimized in the U.S. might think that there is a brutal counter insurgency already unleashed upon them? Legions of returned veterans trained and experienced in killing, of all skin colours, many with emotional, psychological and spiritual illness – – they were duped. Access to assault weapons. Police who are the products of an economy in which it used to be that weapons were manufactured to fight a war. But now the economy wages war in order to sell weapons. The domestic market in the U.S. is just another market. The Business Plan: pursue growth in the areas of the world where there is unrest (markets for weapons). Welcome to the U.S., a “first world country” with the money to purchase.

To some people it may be that “the corporatocracy that currently feeds us and sustains social order” is too costly. Those of us who can, need to pitch in with our individual strengths – – time is running short!

I am oversimplifying your statement (sorry!) when I say that the problem with “better the devil you know, than the one you don’t” is that escalating violence is inherent in the current system. That’s what we are seeing. The interests of the corporatocracy are in direct conflict with the interests of citizens. Increasing militarization is necessary – – inevitable – – in order to hold onto power.

Seems to me we are on the very thin edge of the wedge, could go either way. The thing we are NOT told is that good and talented people – – hundreds of thousands of them – – have been working for decades building the principles, practices, and connections for the reason you identify (“It would be prudent to have an established outline of a social/economic/political system that could replace the corporatocracy”).  And the Movements in all that good work are accelerating noticeably in the last five years.

Helping to define “the new” are people like Jeremy Rifkin. To get an idea of the change-in-thinking he contributes:
The Empathic Civilization. 11-minute YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

There’s David Korten “Successful social movements are emergent . . .”. He has been working for a very long time on “The New Economy” or “Living Economies” (in the aftermath of his book “When Corporations Rule the World”). (A few years back I wanted to know where prominent activists in the U.S. were in their thinking. I attended a 4-day workshop in D.C. Korten presented and participated, Bill McKibben (350.org), and other rather amazing, great, down-to-earth work-horses. There’s a good video of a presentation by Korten. I’ll find it and add following this.

“Blessed Unrest” by Paul Hawken does a nice job of describing the incredible variety and breadth of people’s efforts in countries around the globe to shift us onto different ways of being in the world.

We have simultaneous de-construction of the destructive, while holding onto the good AND re-construction in the places where warranted (an economic system in synch with values and sustainability!).

The U.S. is worrisome. Maybe they think they need another war. I noticed where there’s a break-away group out of NATO with intentions to establish an alliance that includes Russia.

There are protests in Germany and on-line action originating in the U.S.  to shut down the American base in Germany, Ramstein, that is the hub for the drone warfare. The petition is well-worded to effect that the base is really good at creating more terrorists. I would say terrorists (the U.S. military, much of it out-sourced which is to say “mercenary”) dropping bombs from drones, terrorizing citizens of other countries and yes, creating terrorists in response. And this passes as sound strategy?!

But I digress …

Sandra Finley says:

David Korten speaking in Portland Oregon from his book, “Agenda for a New Economy- Why Wall Street Can’t Be Fixed and How to Replace It.”

I think the “How to Replace it” is the part you are concerned about, Don.

http://essentialsharingdocs.blogspot.ca/2010/04/david-korten-agenda-for-new-economy.html

Don Chisholm says:
Yes Sandra, ‘How to Replace it’ has been on my mind for many years. At a recent conference, International BioPhysical Economics (IBPE), I presented a paper that is a distillation of the web booklet Paradigm Junction. The paper is at: http://gaiapc.ca/PJ/1a-2016DynamicReg.pdf .
Globally, there are many social change initiatives but I’ve found none that deal with big issue of population growth, or the existing Economic Monetary System (MES) that, as your reference to Korten says, cannot be fixed.

 

Sandra Finley says:

Hey, this is great Don. Many thanks. I will go to the link.

Sandra Finley says:

Hi Don,

I read your paper with interest and will return to it. Thank-you.   I would have liked to hear the discussion following your presentation.

I wonder whether this might have added anything?

You identify frustration with the difficulty in getting people to implement an idea,  (Haven’t we all?!):

Unfortunately, it appears that Meadows’ advice to envision as a first step has, generally, not been taken. 

(It is the same:  my submission to the University Senate may have generated some short term buzz, but little more.  adopt the new economics as expeditiously as possible.)

You offer possible remedy:

a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. 

YES – and important to recognize the need.

And propose working together more:

“their individual efforts could gain a significant synergetic boost if they were to become part of a comprehensive socio/political/economic paradigm changing initiative.”   

I agree with you that power needs to be devolved from the centre.  I see it as a way to set the energy and power of people free, to expedite implementation of ideas that fit.  (Empowerment is a key theme of mine, for this reason.)

I did not provide the fuller version of Korten’s statement:

“Successful social movements are emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing, and involve the dedicated efforts of many people, each finding the role that best uses his or her gifts and passions.”  

It is similar to what I wrote  About the Network   (this blog).   Not everyone agrees.

QUESTION:  Does or can  Korten’s prescription  (emergent, evolving, radically self-organizing, many working together, individuals finding the role that suits their passions)  help to address the problem with getting people to take the advice offered by Meadows or by someone else?   Are monumental meeting and organizing challenges addressed?

Personally,  I think the changes we need are, and will continue to happen, if we are willing to give up control.   Where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”  we may do well to recognize that things are rapidly evolving (we aren’t standing still) and  “radically self-organizing” .

History tells us this is the way it sometimes happens.   The world did not see the Iron Curtain coming down,  the fall of the Communists in East Germany.   It was accomplished without major bloodshed and seemingly, out of the blue.

I am a fan of Nellie McClung – – “Just do it” (what needs to be done).  Empowered and distributed leaders emerge.  I think that is what I am observing today, and thankfully, many of those leaders are young and talented.  They abound among the musicians, in theatre, in the arts – –  in addition to the usual places you might expect.  Even retirees are taking on the challenges in various ways.

The actions of the Corporatocracy have been bold and extreme.   They are digging us deeper and deeper into violence.   This is no time for timidity, in my humble opinion.

2011-01-03 “All our Cowardice and Servility” from the Museum of Non-violent Resistance at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin

 

2016-07-12 University: Canadian researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by privacy law. Toronto Star. AND response.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys, Take back the University  No Responses »
Jul 142016
 

The publicly funded agency responsible for policing scientific fraud is keeping secret the details surrounding these researchers.

Their names, where they worked, and what they did wrong is protected under privacy laws.

 

MY RESPONSE, FOLLOWED BY THE ARTICLE 

This is an extremely important article.    It opens a door through which more information can flow.   Many thanks to reporter Michael Robinson.

If there is a place for making on-line Comments on the article (an obvious place to expand the discussion), I can’t find it.  So I will contact people named in the article,  and provide the list below of missing CONTEXT.

I suspect that Michael Robinson reported narrowly, on topic, because he is limited by a “number of words” constraint??   I think we need to step up and generate as much discussion as possible on:

IN WHOSE INTERESTS ?,  the missing CONTEXT

The need to address CONTEXT is obvious, with only this partial list:

Philanthropy is noble. But when it’s mostly in the hands of a few super-rich and giant corporations, and is the only game available, it can easily be abused.

Our democracy is directly threatened when the rich buy off politicians.

But no less dangerous is the quieter and more insidious buy-off of institutions democracy depends on to research, investigate, expose, and mobilize action against what is occurring.

The B.C. government had announced last year that it would tie 25 per cent of public funds to the labour-market outcomes of graduates.

Dr. Gupta seemed like the right man for the times.  In his 14-year stint as CEO and scientific director of Mitacs, he had helped link up thousands of graduate students and researchers with internships in industry. In 2013, Ottawa rewarded the group with $35-million over several years.

The future UBC president was well connected to the federal government in other ways as well: In 2011, he served as a member of the Jenkins panel on innovation, which recommended closer collaboration between the National Research Council, universities and business.

“We are in a province where everything seems to be oriented toward LNG and pipelines,” one administrator said. “If what you think you need is better representation in government and in the private sector, Arvind [was] a pretty interesting choice.”

  • 2015-09-02 Reply to Globe&Mail, “Universities need a new model of governance” by Julie Cafley   

    From   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=15223   (propaganda)    

    The elephant in the ivory towers is corporate influence which she does not even mention.  That is a very serious omission.   It is the vehicle by which the Universities become and are the propagandists.   

    But why would Cafley be obtuse to the problem?   . . .  hmmm    what is this organization for which she is a Vice-President,  Canada’s Public Policy Forum?

    http://www.ppforum.ca/      Aaaaah!    Take a look.   Explains everything.   These guys PROMOTE corporate inclusion.    

    I left a message on Julie Cafley’s voice mail.  613-238-7858 Ext: 229.   She did not reply.   I need to email her:    julie.cafley  AT   ppforum.ca

    I think we have to directly challenge – – well, we actually have to stop – –  these people who so blithely sell-out our democracy.    Corporatized universities are in the propaganda business.    Propaganda is necessary to fascism.

    John Pilger understands that.   Most of us understand that.   Why doesn’t a PhD know that?

     

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 Canadian researchers who commit scientific fraud are protected by privacy law.  Toronto Star.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/12/canadian-researchers-who-commit-scientific-fraud-are-protected-by-privacy-laws.html

By Michael Robinson  Staff Reporter

 

Seventy-eight Canadian scientists have fabricated data, plagiarized, misused grants, or engaged in dodgy scientific practices in projects backed by public funds, a Star analysis has found.

But the publicly funded agency responsible for policing scientific fraud is keeping secret the details surrounding these researchers. The scientists’ names, where they worked and what they did wrong is not made public because that information is protected under federal privacy laws.

A Star analysis of investigation statistics obtained online and through interviews showed the oversight body — the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research — handled 243 cases of alleged research misconduct over the past five years. From December 2011 to May 2016, 68 investigations found individuals or a team of researchers who engaged in questionable scientific practices, the secretariat said. The cases comprise both deliberate and unintentional violations.

In 15 confirmed breaches, the secretariat asked that $895,000 in grant money be returned. So far, $179,000 remains unpaid. Not all researchers found to have committed research misconduct have to give back grant money. Penalties range from a letter of concern to indefinite bans from future funding.

“If you were going to be a fraudulent scientist or plagiarist, or you want to steal grant money, Canada is an excellent place to live,” said Amir Attaran, a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa.

Making public the names of research wrong-doers and their transgressions, he said, would “keep scientists honest.”

By law, the presidents who lead each of Canada’s research funding agencies — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council— have the power to release the findings of these investigations if it is deemed to be of significant public interest, defined as a concern of public health or national security.

But no details of any investigation have ever been released.

“We have always had the authority under the federal Privacy Act to publish details where there is a matter of significant public interest. It is a higher bar and rarely reached. That is why you only see statistics,” said Susan Zimmerman, the executive director of the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research.

She emphasized “the public’s right to know is obviously important as well,” but noted “that needs to be balanced” with a researcher’s right to privacy.

The federal government distributes $2.4 billion yearly to health, engineering and social science researchers across Canada through CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC. When a grant recipient is suspected of wrongdoing, the secretariat relies on universities and other research institutions to conduct internal investigations.

David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said this “system of self-policing” allows universities to investigate themselves.

David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said the current “system of self-policing” allows universities to investigate themselves.

David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said the current “system of self-policing” allows universities to investigate themselves.  (Blair Gable / for the Toronto Star)  

 

“If you have a star researcher who is involved in an allegation, there may be a tendency to not thoroughly or rapidly investigate if there is a possibility of reputational damage to the university,” he said.

Although the written regulations require that at least one person on an investigative committee to have “no current affiliation with the institution,” Robinson argued universities could circumvent this rule by appointing retired professors.

A separate independent panel in Ottawa then reviews the institution’s findings and, in a case of confirmed wrongdoing, suggests a sanction and whether the scientist’s name should be published.

In a joint statement to the Star, Alain Beaudet, B. Mario Pinto and Ted Hewitt — the presidents of the three organizations that give out tens of thousands of grants to researchers each year — wrote that “disclosing personal information requires that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweigh any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure.”

Details such as the institution’s name and the amount of taxpayer money a scientist misused are kept private, they said, because it “could make the individual identifiable.”

The Star has made an access to information request for these records. As a result of this ongoing request, the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada declined to comment on this story.

The three presidents said a new rule was introduced by the agencies in December 2011 that made it mandatory for researchers applying for public funding to consent to the publication of their names if they are found to have committed serious infractions. But it often takes years from when grant money is applied for to when allegations of misconduct emerge, meaning no researcher has yet been named under these new rules.

Zimmerman said it will make the name of the first researcher found to have committed serious misconduct under the new rule public next month.

Meanwhile, the University of British Columbia (UBC) has been posting — without names — online summaries of its research misconduct since 2013.

In a 2013 case, evidence of fraud was found in a UBC faculty of medicine researcher’s account.

Four such cases handled by the secretariat have involved the police, but Zimmerman declined to elaborate further because “naming an actual police force could lead to the identification of the involved individual.”

And because the agency doesn’t follow up with police, it’s not known if any of the researchers faced criminal charges.

Academics the Star spoke to said the secretariat’s “secretive” approach corrodes the reliability of Canadian-branded research.

Attaran said Canada’s research community could learn from the “name and shame” approach of the panel and the secretariat’s U.S. equivalent — the Office of Research Integrity. Following a confirmed finding of misconduct, the integrity office publishes online a full report containing the results of its investigations.

“The Americans will denounce research misconduct by name and Canadians won’t,” Attaran said. “This proves that Canadian research is less trustworthy and Canadian researchers are less trustworthy. Period. These are the facts.”

Still, some ethicists argue “too much public disclosure” could ruin careers.

Bryn Williams-Jones, director of bioethics at the School of Public Health at l’Université de Montréal, suggested partial reports — without a researcher’s name but with the details of their misconduct, where it occurred and the type of disciplinary action taken — be released instead.

“Right now, the public does not know if a sanction is reasonable or unreasonable,” he said. “This would give you confidence that severe cases are punished severely.”

Zimmerman noted U.S. authorities operate on a more “narrow” definition of misconduct, restricted to faking and plagiarizing data, while Canada’s research watchdog also looks at issues like dishonest authorship and misuse of research grant funds for personal benefit. She is, however, “in favour of more openness” and is considering the release of censored reports this fall.

Science Minister Kristy Duncan and Health Minister Jane Philpott, who oversee the agencies, both declined to comment and referred the Star to the joint statement provided by the agency presidents.

From fudging data to plagiarism, committing scientific sins carry consequences that can extend beyond simply wasting public money.

“Society also loses out on what could have been groundbreaking research,” said Frances Chandler, president of the Canadian Association of Research Administrators.

 

2016-08-11 Tragedy of the Commons applied. To settle or not to settle.

 X1B Postings  No Responses »
Jul 122016
 

From: Samuel Edmondson   Sent: August 11, 2016 5:17 To: Sandra Flnley   Cc: Chelsey Kuspira;  Grant Scharfstein

Subject: Re: REPLACEMENT: Ashu Solo Clarity re defence

Sandra,

I’ll attend to this tomorrow when I’m back in the office. I expected this to be how you’d want to proceed, however as you know my role is to also provide options and advise. You’ve chosen with your eyes open to the options.

I’ve encountered the tragedy of the commons before. One of my undergrad degrees is in economics, and it comes up in several contexts in that program. I’ve not seen it compared to this type of circumstance, but I appreciate the comparison you’ve made. It’s an interesting and intriguing take on free speech and bullying/intimidation as it applies to the internet.

Samuel

– – – –  – – – – – – – – – – –

From: Sandra Flnley

Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 15:09

To: Samuel Edmondson; ‘Sandra Finley’

Cc: Chelsey Kuspira; Grant Scharfstein

Subject: RE: REPLACEMENT: Ashu Solo Clarity re defence

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Hi Samuel,

Many thanks for your conversation with Paul, and the notes on it.

Will you please pursue:

He (Paul) indicated that from his perspective one option would be:

  1. That Loosefoot note you for default (which would close the pleadings);
  2. That Loosefoot would not take out Judgment; and
  3. That Loosefoot would consent to the filing of a defence in the future.

 

MY THINKING:

  1. “That Loosefoot note you for default (which would close the pleadings)”.

Which would simultaneously clear the path forward to the Mandatory Mediation.

In your words, “this option avoids Ashu bringing the application and provides some ability to later defend against some aspects of liability”

  1. I do truly regret the impact of Ashu’s actions on LFC.  I can alleviate that by agreeing to attempt “global settlement”.   …  HOWEVER!
  2. However,  in my opinion it would be a short-term fix, and it would be a larger betrayal.

The betrayal can be understood in the framework of “The Tragedy of the Commons”.   No one of us individually is responsible, and therefore no one is responsible.   (The internet – – the air waves – – are part of “The Commons”.)

               A short read may be helpful:    Battles to protect the Commons.

EXCERPT:    . . .   battle-fronts to protect The Commons in an era of unprecedented assault on them.   Our success or failure affects the ability of future generations to care for themselves.

When there are incursions onto the Commons, people have to come together to defend it.  If not, the Commons is lost and the whole community suffers  – – a lot.

OTHER people work hard, all the time, in defence of the Commons.  Without them, one tiny example,  the quality of the water coming out of your tap would be less than it is.   Many more people would side-step the issue through the purchase of bottled water, if they can afford it.

There have been monumental efforts by people in Canada and the U.S. to stop things like tiered (preferential) access to the Internet that large corporate interests seek.

In the context of this court case:

Some of you have daughters, sisters, nieces, or are young women yourselves.   The case against me exists because I forwarded a complaint – – this older man was using the internet against a young woman, in ways you would not tolerate.

Click on:    2016-07-29   ‘What law am I breaking?’  How a Facebook troll came undone 

This recent story is of young women who had the courage to fight against such cyber-bullies, and win.  It’s a win for everyone who has a presence on the internet.   AND for everyone who has a daughter, sister or niece.

One woman, Brierley Newton, stood in defence of the Commons.  She is not asking us for our gratitude.  But she should expect that we will at least stand in solidarity when the ball lands in our court.

Standing down from Ashu Solo would be a betrayal by me.   We need to ADD to the success of these young women, not subtract from it.

You might think of the case of Amanda Todd (a teen who committed suicide as a consequence of on-line predation).  This is not as extreme, but it is related.

To what extremes will/would Ashu go?   So far, he knows that the Police and the Justice system will not touch him.

If I capitulate, not only would his belief be reinforced, but he will potentially make money (a “global settlement”) doing what he does.   He would flaunt a win, which would empower him AND others.   The above article, How a Troll came Undone,  describes the extent of the problem.

 

We leave a more violent world behind us, if we do not accept our responsibility.

The tragedy and comedy of human existence:   we are often unwitting participants in our own demise!

 

Samuel,  excerpt from my email (yesterday) to Andrew (LFC):

I cannot see my way clear to (settling with Ashu).   At an appropriate time I will do some fund-raising (a very not-comfortable undertaking!).   

I have made overtures to the Sask Law Reform Commission and to the Office of the Deputy Minister of Justice (Sask).  Both expressed  (sincere, I believe) interest in documentation I will provide to them regarding the practice of using the threat of legal action to intimidate people.   When done in the corporate sphere it is called a SLAPP suit.    

Ontario has legislation to address the practice.  I believe the legislation in a number of jurisdictions has been effective in putting an end to the SLAPP suits.   – – But now, individuals like Ashu have learned how to use the same practice.    

I might be able to on-line fund the push to get the legislation done in Sask and some other provinces.   My work is volunteer, but maybe I could use the proceeds to re-stock the larder.

 

I promise to continue paying the bills, Samuel!

Hopefully you and Paul will work out an agreement in which I am cited for default.

Thanks,

Sandra

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From: Samuel Edmondson  Sent: August 11, 2016 To: Sandra Flnley   Cc: Chelsey Kuspira ; Grant Scharfstein

Subject: RE: REPLACEMENT: Ashu Solo Clarity re defence

 

Sandra,

I spoke with Paul Wagner, Loosefoot’s counsel, a few minutes ago.  He indicates that he had a brief discussion with Andrew about settlement in which they discussed the $4,900 held in trust and global settlement of the action.  A global settlement would be a joint settlement between the defendants and Ashu, in which a single sum of money was paid.  In Paul’s view, the damages available in this action are likely to be low, and on that basis it makes sense to consider joint settlement.  The discussion with Andrew was with regard to whether in a global settlement some of the $4,900 could be used by you in payment of a global settlement.

In my discussion with Paul, I also indicated a desire to avoid the application being brought.  He indicated that from his perspective one option would be:

  1. That Loosefoot note you for default (which would close the pleadings);
  2. That Loosefoot would not take out Judgment; and
  3. That Loosefoot would consent to the filing of a defence in the future.

 

If he will commit to that in writing, although I still advise defending the counter-claim, this option avoids Ashu bringing the application and provides some ability to later defend against some aspects of liability.

With regard to global settlement, although I know that you would rather not settle with Ashu, I do advise (and am obligated to continue to advise from time to time through the litigation process) pursuing that course.  At this point I have seen no evidence of actual damage suffered by Ashu from the blog posts, aside from his somewhat erratic responses.  This leaves per se damages for some of the posts complained of.  As we have advised you, there is a good chance that if this proceeds through trial that you would be found liable for some of these posts.  In such cases, typical damage awards are in the 10’s of thousands of dollars – without having to prove actual damage.  For that reason, whether now or later in the litigation process if it is possible to settle in the range of $7,500 to $20,000 it would be our advice to do so.

At this point in the litigation, it may be worth making an offer to Ashu for global settlement with both you and Loosefoot.  Paul suggested global settlement in the range of $7,500, I am less optimistic and would suggest at least $10,000.  Ultimately, given your agreement, you in effect would pay the full sum, however some amount would ultimately be paid out of the money held in trust by Paul.  A global settlement would likely be less than each of you and Loosefoot settling individually.  Making the offer is no guarantee that Ashu would accept.  He may accept, reject, or make a counter-offer.

 

To summarize the options:

  1. Offer(s) of settlement – without admission of liability, with release(s) from Ashu, with discontinuance of the claim without costs,

a.   arranging with Paul a joint global offer of settlement in the range of $7,500 to $10,000 without an admission of liability and with Ashu releasing each of the defendants including the Russian defendant from any further liability; or

b.   requesting that Loosefoot settle with Ashu for the $4,900 offer if it is still available.  Our suggestion would be that if possible this settlement also include the Russian service provider.

2.  Attending to closing the pleadings.  If Loosefoot settles, no further action is required. Either:

a.   Filing the defence to cross-claim that I provided to you for review;

b.   Advising Paul to note you for default, provided that first he confirms in writing that he will not take out judgment, and will allow you to later file a defence.

 

On the facts available, settlement is your best option from a dollars and cents view.  We have advised that there is very likely to be a finding of liability against you for some of the blog posts.  Further, the litigation will not likely have the effect of deterring Ashu from continuing on as he has.  As much as you are opposed to settling with Ashu (which I understand very well), the corollary objectives of deterring his behavior will simply not be met in this litigation.

Of the pleadings options our advice is to file the defence.  This provides additional protection to you down the road, in the event that liability is found against Loosefoot which is not captured by your agreement with Andrew or your service agreement.  Further, it may be that Paul cannot obtain instructions from Loosefoot to agree not to enter judgment .  Finally, it is possible that in the future Loosefoot obtains other counsel who for one reason or another may not agree to be held by Paul’s commitment not to enter judgment or allow a defence to later be filed.

Yours truly,

This e-mail is confidential and is solicitor-client privileged and may contain confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail.  Thank you.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

MOOT POINT  (Sandra to herself)

RE:    “and with Ashu releasing each of the defendants including the Russian defendant from any further liability”

Why the inclusion of Fishnet, the Russian co-defendant?

–          Canadian courts have no jurisdiction in Russia.

–          Which makes the legitimacy of the original naming of them as a co-defendant a prank of some kind – – Solo, Finley, LFC, & Fishnet are not the realm of World-Wide Corporate structures.

–          the default judgment against Fishnet filed in Nov 2015 is a continuation of the smoke-and-mirrors, from my perspective.   Ashu’s lawyer named them co-defendant and then noted them for default.  It closed the pleadings which were non-existent anyway.   It was all more-or-less silliness from the beginning – – my perspective.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From: Samuel Edmondson Sent: August-10-16 3:04 PM To: ‘Sandra Flnley’   Cc: Chelsey Kuspira ; Grant Scharfstein

Subject: RE: REPLACEMENT: Ashu Solo Clarity re defence

Sandra,

Thank you for clarifying your position on settlement.  This is as I thought.

I agree with your suggestion of encouraging Andrew/Loosefoot to settle with Solo if that option is still available to them.  There was an initial offer of $4,900, however I am unsure whether Ashu would still accept that sum.  The best option, for you, is if that offer remains open.  If that fails, we would have to file a defence to the cross-claim so that you are not put to the cost of responding to an application by Ashu.

With regard to the content of the defence to cross-claim, what you propose is not allowed for within the rules of the Court.  Further, I do not expect that counsel for Loosefoot would advise their client to accept partial indemnity (which is what you propose) at this point in the litigation.  In addition, an agreement between you and Loosefoot does not close the pleadings, which Ashu’s counsel views as a necessary step to proceeding to mediation.

At this point in the litigation, the defence I have proposed is in keeping with my understanding of the evidence and is not contrary to the agreement on costs reached between you and Loosefoot (as I understand it).  The denial and requirement to prove damages does not mean that you cannot have an arrangement with Loosefoot, either on a partial or full indemnity basis.  What it does is close the pleadings to allow the litigation to move forward.

In terms of proceeding, I have been advised by Ashu’s counsel that the application will be coming in the very near future if a defence is not filed (or settlement with Loosefoot is not reached).  Loosefoot’s counsel has not answered their phone or called me back, despite the voicemails I have left.  If you discuss with Andrew/Loosefoot, he may be able to instruct his counsel to contact me, or to contact Ashu’s lawyer regarding settlement.  In either event, settlement or a defence must occur this week to avoid the application.

 

Yours truly,

 

2016-07-10 Water Alert: South Saskatchewan River. Government threatening to cut funding of Meewasin.

 Water  No Responses »
Jul 112016
 

Our network started with a battle to protect the South Saskatchewan River.   We won.

(2006-04-27 Water. Wrap-up statement, Proposed Meridian Dam. Battle won.)

 

The Meewasin Valley Authority is the Mother to that River, the most endangered in Canada.

 

Many thanks to  Susan Lamb:

Hi Sandra,

. . .    The province is threatening to cut its funding which would end the Meewasin Valley Authority as we know it.

There is a grassroots group starting a social media campaign.

I have attached their info plus how to get involved on Facebook, twitter, and change.org.

If there is anything you can do by signing on these sites and passing this information along to your contacts, please do.  . . .

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = =

For sure, Susan!

 

NEWS RELEASE

KEEP MEEWASIN VITAL

For Immediate Release

June 29, 2016

Meewasin is favoured by users – walkers, runners, cyclists, bird watchers, tourists, environmentalists, families and people of varied backgrounds and interests. Reader’s Digest Magazine recently named the Meewasin flagship – the Meewasin Trail – one of the top 10 trails in Canada. Visitors to the Meewasin Valley have said that in addition to healthy lifestyles, the top impacts are tourism, marketing/publicity, and economic. Meewasin has received numerous international awards for conservation, and remains a leader on the world stage for the work it does in our community.

This stellar reputation is now under threat and any decrease in provincial level funding will undoubtedly lead to erosion levels that will be difficult at best to rebuild from. In fact provincial funding at higher levels is required to maintain, sustain and enhance this prized asset.

Meewasin’s support from citizens is unparalleled:

  • 88% of residents believe that Meewasin is key to their quality of life.
  • 87% of residents believe Meewasin is a good investment.
  • Meewasin is among the most popular and well-used metropolitan trails in North America.
  • Meewasin gets more than one million visits each year.
  • Meewasin doubles (through private fundraising) every dollar granted by the provincial government.

The goal of the KEEP MEEWASIN VITAL campaign is three fold:

  • Engage citizens in demonstrating openly their value of and support for Meewasin.
  • Encourage our provincial government to sustain and in fact increase funding levels to Meewasin.
  • Motivate Meewasin enthusiasts to get involved by spreading the word, adding your voice and making donations.

Todd Brandt, CEO of Tourism Saskatoon says “Our river, its valley and the associated land resources of the three Meewasin Partners form the critical basis of our destination’s brand. We attract 2.8 million people annually to share and celebrate at our many festivals, events and attractions. Meewasin is a provincial, national and international treasure and needs to be treated as such. Our cultural and economic future is dependent upon it.”

“The Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce supports the community effort to sustain the educational programming and riverbank trail support services currently delivered by the Meewasin Valley Authority.” stated Kent Smith-Windsor, Executive Director of the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce.

Meewasin is a major contributor to tourism, education, economic development; and the health and vibrancy of our community and citizens and we encourage you to help us keep it intact.

-30-

Media for more information

contact Lorna Shaw Lennox   306-380-5447

keepmeewasinvital@gmail.com

 

 

Get on board with the KEEP MEEWAIN VITAL campaign:

    1. Contact your MLA and tell them how important Meewasin is to you. Visit the KeepMeewasinVital Facebook page if you need information on how to contact your MLA.
    2. Sign the Letter of Support at https://www.change.org/p/show-your-support-for-continued-provincial-funding-for-meewasin
    3. Upload photos, thoughts and ideas about Meewasin to the “Keep Meewasin Vital” Facebook page. Tell us what you do on the Meewasin Trail, in the Meewasin Valley parks, the Meewasin Rink and the South Saskatchewan River.
    4. Join the movement on Twitter @KeepMeewasin
    5. Spread the word to friends, colleagues and neighbours about how important it is to show support for Meewasin by connecting online, signing the letter of support and contacting your MLA.
    6. Organize events – walks on the Meewasin Trail, picnics in Meewasin Valley parks, festivals along the riverbank, canoe treks and more. Tell us what you are doing through Facebook or twitter and we’ll share that information throughout social media.
    7. Contact the chair of the Meewasin Board of Directors and tell her what you think. Contact details below:

Toddi Steelman

Executive Director and Professor

School of Environment and Sustainability

(306) 966-1499

toddi.steelman@usask.ca

 

2016-07-08 Democracy overtaken by Corporatocracy = coup d’état. Citizens fight to regain democracy = Revolution (insurgency) . Corporatocracy fights to hold on = counter insurgency.

 Empowerment, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  13 Responses »
Jul 102016
 

Many of us have concluded that big business is running the show.   We have  corporatocracy,  not democracy.

If that is the case,  by definition,  there has been a coup d’état by stealth in Canada (and in the U.S.).

From  2010-09-13   RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat to Canada, Ottawa Citizen.

“Military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.”

 

Yes – that is what we have.   You know it more intimately if you have been in the trenches fighting

  • to protect your local water supply from pollution or “bottling”,
  • to figure out why we even have to fight against the introduction of GMO wheat when consumers nor farmers want it,
  • or against GMO salmon,
  • or, name your area.

Most Canadians know it – – all you have to do is start a conversation on the subject and the other person will chime in with their concurring observation.

Leonard Cohen sings it , “Everybody knows . . .”

So now we have that on the table,

In Canada today, a “developed” country, we have the communications and means to empower ourselves.

The corporatist situation exists and continues because we accept it:   Simplisticly stated, rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule.  We are much more numerous than they. 

What is the difference between a coup and a revolution? 
With thanks to Nikolay Matyushev

Coup changes government without changing social system i.e. replacing Yanukovich with Poroshenko in Ukraine just substituted one oligarch with another without changing oligarchical Capitalist society.

Revolutions change social systems. Examples are numerous

  • French and English bourgeois revolutions abolished Feudalism / Absolute Monarchy and established Capitalism / bourgeois democracy.
  • Russian revolutions:
    • 1905 – Absolute Monarchy to Parliamentary Monarchy,
    • February 1917 – Monarchy to Republic / bourgeoise Democracy,
    • October 1917 – bourgeoise Democracy to Socialism,
    • 1993 – Socialism to bourgeoise Democracy.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ELABORATION  (originally a response to Yeoshi).

 

. . . However,  I think you are talking about RESISTANCE  (not The Law).

(I have been twice to the Museum of Non-Violent Resistance in Berlin, and once to Robben Island in South Africa where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years.  I think we need to know Resistance better.  There are a number of postings on this blog, for example related to Mahatma Ghandi.  “Empowerment” is a related category.)

What you call the New World Order, I call the Corporatocracy.  We know who the worst offenders in the Corporatocracy are.  The RESISTANCE, the intention to move us onto a different path, to develop better ways, is in response to them.   (Maybe we should be thankful to the Corporatocracy for setting us in motion?!  Ha ha!)

Once we decide we don’t like to be governed by a system that is concentrating all the wealth in the hands of the already-wealthy, that we are absorbing the costs while they offshore their money to avoid kicking in their fair share, – – – the list goes on and on – – – governments that govern on behalf of corporate interests, failure to problem-solve because it might affect “returns on investment”, the huge amounts of money taken from the public purse to benefit these corporations who are corrupt and without scruples, actions that undermine democracy, set citizen against citizen according to race or religion or bank account, destroy the environment . . . Once we decide “no more”, once we no longer agree to be ruled by “them”, the game SHOULD/COULD be over;  we are numerous, they are not.  (Alas!  there are other factors.)

In the world it is not usually one thing or the other, but a combination of factors.  A “both and” situation.  It seems to me that when people understand the role of governance (the transition from more democratic to more corporatist governance and values),  they know that the solutions lie in working together (the many millions of us).

I am reminded – –  Tom Flanagan from the University of Calgary who was closely aligned with the Harper Conservatives was interviewed about the threats to their agenda.   I understood his response to basically say that the forces fighting to stop the poisoning of the water and air, to work aggressively to ameliorate climate change – – the Indians and Environmentalists – –  were weak.   His written analysis:   no danger they would start working together, hence they posed no threat.  I was kind of shocked that he was so far off the mark.  Everything I was witnessing was of the First Nations, Environmentalists, Conservationists and “Survivalists” forming close bonds working together.

We’ve made progress in giving the usurpers the boot.  But first,

LINGUSITICS  (Language is important!):

As discussed in  RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat to Canada, we would be said to be in revolution against the corporatocracy that took away our democracy.

To the usurpers, the ones now ruling (“corporate globalization” is another term used) – –  to them we would be “insurgents”  . . .  or “insurrectionists”.

Those are the names applied by Western media to people who resist in countries outside western democracies.   (People in countries that have been colonized – – they are insurgents against the Colonizers.  But really they are only people trying to take back their countries.)  Yesterday I heard the word “rebels” used.   What are the nuances?   Insurrection – –  insurgency – – revolution  – – .

Insurrection is  an act or instance of rising in revolt,  rebellion or resistance against  civil authority or an established government.    (Is that what is happening in the U.S. today?  the killing of 5 police officers in Dallas, Texas after the long string of black men shot and killed by police? with the recent live-streaming of the killing of Philando Castile)

Insurrectionist – a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel.    I guess you’d have to say it sure meets the criteria of “armed” if it’s in the U.S.   They are awash in weapons of all kinds, and with lots of people trained and experienced in using them (killing) – – the veterans of year after year, of war after war, going back to Viet Nam and beyond and continuing forward.  

About Insurgency:  When insurgency is used to describe a movement’s unlawfulness by virtue of not being authorized by or in accordance with the law of the land, its use is neutral. However, when it is used by a state or another authority under threat, “insurgency” often also carries an implication that the rebels’ cause is illegitimate, whereas those rising up will see the authority itself as being illegitimate.   …  No kidding!   But moving on,

Yes,  the Corporatocracy is going to fight back because they don’t like to lose their power and control, status and wealth.   The fight-back by the usurpers would be called “counter-insurgency”  – – military or political action taken against the activities of guerrillas or revolutionaries.

See how the language makes the ones who are fighting for democracy into “the bad guys“?   It comes from a history of colonialism, whether European, American or Canadian.   A partial list of excellent leaders, democratically-elected who wished to stop the exploitation by corporate interests backed by a foreign government  is at   2016-03-22  There are two sides to the story. Why do we hear only one?   (Terrorists & Context: CIA – examples Mossadegh, Lumumba, Arbenz, Guevera, Allende).

What was at stake?  (What IS at stake – – it hasn’t changed):

  • people (cheap, impoverished  labour)
  • resources (oil, land for growing mountains of cheap (canned) pineapple to market in first world countries, …)   and
  • environment (poisoning of land, air and water)

Mossadegh, Lumumba, Allende, democratically-elected leaders who fought for the interests of their people,  became dangerous revolutionaries in the eyes of the people in the U.S and their allies.   (Simply through propaganda, through collaborative media.)

The same propaganda tool was attempted by former prime minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives when “environmentalists” became enemies of Canada financed by foreign interests,  as they claimed.   I should be locked up, same as my fellow activists and others by association.

Citizens who challenged the exploitation and poisoning, who stood to defend democracy, became “terrorists” as when the anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP was deployed over the incidents on the EnCana pipeline, Dawson Creek (story on this blog).

Fight for civil rights – – you are threatening the power, control and wealth of a ruling elite and their minions who are very comfortable where they are.

The imperialists use the same tool the Nazis used:  language that creates enemies and bad guys.  Polish people were “vermin”, the justification for Nazi invasion.   Mossadegh, Lumumba, Allende – – –  revolutionaries who had to be eliminated or removed.    “Environmentalists”, people who protest trade deals designed to suit the corporatocracy – –  jail them.

Summary

Spread over a number of years,

  • coup d’état  –  corporatocray infiltrates democracy, takes over the reins of government by stealth using money, revolving doors, quislings and other means  (think SPP)
  • revolution or insurgency  –  (the word carries innuendo of “bad guys”)   Citizens resist, they do not agree that business interests and values should be running the show
  • counter insurgency  –   corporatocracy wants to hold onto power and control.   They mobilize  “a counterinsurgency force” against the forces fighting to restore democracy.

In Canada the counter insurgency includes  (some of you will add your own examples – there are lots more to choose from):

2008-11-28   Follow-up on Montebello, Police provoke Violence at SPP protest (2007)

2012-06-10   G-20 Summit, Toronto. And kettling, a tactic of police.    ALSO   2010-06-24  G20: Canada’s billion-dollar summit mystery, Toronto Star

The Police tactics at Montebello and the G-20 Summit in Toronto were extensions of the counter insurgency against citizen mobilizations over the  World Trade Organization (WTO) which is the Corporatocracy,  the SPP,  in different garb.       Battle in Seattle, WTO, SPP.

It is easier for me,  propagandized as I am to view “the West” as the “good guys”, to use the “insurgency” language for conflict in developing countries (over “There” where the bad guys live, not “Here” in the land of “the Good”) .

When I try to see what is happening in my own country,  it is more difficult.   But after working with our network for more than 15 years, battle after battle, what becomes obvious is the corporate power behind-the-scenes with the accompanying corruption of governance and values.    Corporatocracy’s coup d’état over democracy, insurgency and counter insurgency, are indeed the right words to describe the Canadian (and American) situation.

We need to use the proper LANGUAGE.   The right words bring clarity and the ability to have productive discussion.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

PROGRESS IN GIVING THE USURPERS THE BOOT:

 

There is more than one way to skin the cat.  As I see it, the Corporatocracy is slowly crumbling under the varied guerilla attacks against them.

1. Many of the UKers who voted to exit the European Union did so because they objected to . . (what?)  ..   they didn’t have a word for it.   The symptoms they gave were those of a Corporatocracy (or New World Order (NWO) as Yeoshi calls it).   The UKers had an opportunity to give the boot to unaccountable, undemocratic corporate governance and they used it.  See  2016-06-29 Post-Brexit results: Is governing by referendum democratic?   Reply to CBC The Current. (Corporatocracy, Linguistics.)     and    2016-07-07 Maude Barlow: Brexit, CETA and the right way to create trade agreements. Corporatocracy.

2.    A non-violent, Rule-of-Law way to take down some of the leadership of the NWO Corporatocracy:   In the wake of the recent UK Iraq War Report, Tony Blair AND the people with whom he launched an illegal War will be again shaking in their boots. They are drawing ever closer to being prosecuted. Roots Action has already launched a petition calling for the prosecution of Blair. Roots is American-based; they see that if we can together push hard so that Blair DOES get prosecuted, then Bush, Cheney and the others will not be far behind. It is worth it for all of us to sign the petition and encourage others to do the same. The link to the RootsAction Petition is on http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16915.   Take down the leadership.

3. Lockheed Martin Corp plays a central leadership role in the Corporatocracy.  And the lead role in Surveillance and war. As I read it, you (Yeoshi) don’t agree to let them play their leadership role, and I don’t, and hundreds of thousands of others don’t either.   We will not allow the building of detailed files on individual citizens.

4.  The March Against Monsanto is another arm of the rebellion.

5.  All the multiple groups working on the transformation  (from larvae to butterfly) are the health of the new world we are creating.

We have Occupy, Idle No More, Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, the determination not to re-elect the Conservatives under Stephen Harper (a component of the Corporatocracy),  HaveNoFear, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Glen Greenwald, as I say hundreds of thousands, no millions . . . all skinning the cat in their own way. Alongside us, in our way.   The cat won’t survive the insurgency  (the guerilla warfare).

You do not need killing weapons to fight a war.   

Rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule. 

Events tell me We have reached the point where we are no longer willing to be ruled by the corporatocracy.  

The insurgency and counter insurgency in North America have been underway, started decades ago.

We will to have our democracy back.  There are too many of us compared to them,  not to castrate them.

P.S.   Arising from Comments posted below, please see also   2016-07-13 Corporatocracy, Democracy: Be careful what you ask for. … Or, no time for timidity?

2014-03-04 U.S. pushes Canada to loosen privacy laws, Huffington Post

 Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Jul 102016
 

By Daniel Tencer

The U.S. government is prodding Ottawa and some provinces to overhaul their privacy laws and allow Canadians’ personal data to be hosted on U.S. servers.

PAUL J. RICHARDS via Getty Images PAUL J. RICHARDS via Getty Images

In its latest report on international trade barriers, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR) criticized federal and provincial regulations preventing public bodies from storing Canadians’ personal data outside Canada.

The OUSTR took aim at Ottawa’s plan, launched in 2011, to build a unified email system for the entire federal government that would require data to be stored within Canada. That privacy regulation essentially ruled out U.S.-based companies from bidding on the contract. Bell Canada won the $400-million contract last year.

Many data services are moving to cloud-based storage, the U.S. report notes, but Ottawa’s rule “hinders U.S. exports of a wide array of products and services.”

The issue has been a point of contention between the U.S. and Canada for some years, and this is not the first time the OUSTR highlighted its concerns; the previous year’s report contained many of the same criticisms.  As the agency responsible for recommending trade policy to the White House, the OUSTR’s reports are a good barometer of what the U.S. wants from its trade relationships.

Plenary Group

The OUSTR singled out two provinces, British Columbia and Nova Scotia, for their privacy laws that prohibit the export of personal data by government agencies.

But while governments can avoid sensitive data moving through U.S. servers, most Canadians don’t have the same luxury. Some 90 per cent of Canadian internet traffic is routed through the U.S.

The head of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which administers the .ca domain, has suggested Canada build its own internet exchange points to avoid U.S. surveillance.

The issue of cloud-based storage of personal data has raised concerns for years among some Canadian privacy experts. Many point to the controversial USA Patriot Act, the 2001 law passed in the wake of 9/11 that greatly expanded the U.S. government’s ability to monitor communications.

According to OUSTR documents recently obtained by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, major U.S. corporations have complained to trade representatives about Canadian privacy laws.

Canadian officials were reportedly reluctant to allow data storage in the U.S. due to “privacy concerns stemming from the Patriot Act.”

However, recent revelations about Canada’s cooperation with U.S. electronic surveillance (see here, here and here) have made some privacy experts question whether Canadians’ data is safe from prying U.S. eyes even in Canada.

The European Parliament issued a report earlier this year calling for a review of data-sharing with Canada, which it said was “involved on a large scale in mass surveillance of electronic communications” and may have co-operated with the U.S. on surveillance of EU citizens.

 

2016-07- 07 I Travelled Across Syria And Saw For Myself What Blair’s Actions Caused, R Fisk. & Where Did the American Century Go?, Tom Engelhardt

 George Bush war criminal  No Responses »
Jul 092016
 

In response to:

2016-07-06 Significant development in international efforts to bring GEo Bush & cronies before the ICC: UK Iraq War Report. Former PM Tony Blair disregarded warnings of risks as he built case for military action.

Dianne sent the following.   Many thanks to her.

These are not articles written by Muslim or Russian “enemies”.  They are yet more voices from within the empire itself,  attacking the falsities.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – –

Great post and might add to it with the below.

I Travelled Across Syria And Saw For Myself What Blair’s Actions Caused By Robert Fisk
We brought about the deaths of up to half a million people, most of them Muslims who were as innocent as Blair was guilty.  – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45056.htm

And somehow I keep getting into more articles that get in the way of my rational thinking.  Actually they make sense and the rest of the world looks crazy.

Where Did the American Century Go? By Tom Engelhardt
Are we still in the American Century?  And if not, whose (or what) century are we in?   – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45061.htm

 

 

2016-07-07 Maude Barlow: Brexit, CETA and the right way to create trade agreements. Corporatocracy.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Jul 092016
 

Maude Barlow explains things so well:

http://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/the-next-ontario/maude-barlow-brexit-ceta-and-the-right-way-to-create-trade-agreements

by  Daniel Kitts

One would expect anti-free-trade activists to cheer the decision of British voters to leave the world’s largest trading bloc. But how do those activists, often on the progressive end of the political spectrum, feel about  how the victorious Leave campaign gained support by stoking anti-immigrant fears?

To discuss this, and how groups opposed to economic globalization see Brexit, I talked to Council of Canadians national chairperson Maude Barlow.

Barlow has been a vocal critic of free trade deals since the 1980s. Today, she and her organization are campaigning against two major trade deals Canada is trying to finalize: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe, and the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership.

What was your reaction to Britons voting to leave the EU?

Well, I wasn’t surprised. I knew people who have my sort of politics on both sides, people who said Britain and progressive thinking is better in the EU, and those who said it’s not. But I think something was coming for a shakeup. I could feel the anger building. I do a lot of work in Europe, particularly on CETA and on water privatization issues. And there was a growing feeling coming not just in Great Britain but across Europe that decisions being made by the European Commission, by the European Union and the sort of lobby interests there don’t represent the will of the people.

(INSERT:   Maude describes what I was saying;   but she says it Better!  and from a better perch, right inside Europe.   2016-06-29  P ost-Brexit results: Is governing by referendum democratic? Reply to CBC The Current. (Corporatocracy, Linguistics.)

If I’d have had to bet, I would have said that it would be Remain by a tiny three or four per cent margin, but I’m not surprised that the country is split in two. I think it’s a shakeup that’s going to have huge repercussions.

How do you see it affecting Ontario, if at all?

It’s going to affect CETA, and that’s going to affect Ontario. With Brexit, if it somehow either delays or actually causes the end of CETA, or if it speeds it up, which [federal Minister of International Trade Chrystia] Freeland wants, it’s going to have implications.

All of the [province’s spending] and all of the spending of the municipalities in Ontario will be impacted and challengeable [under CETA]. Over a certain level of spending, [government contracts] all have to be opened up to competition from European companies. So this is new, and this is going to have an impact that we have done very little thinking about. There have been no studies in Canada and no studies in Ontario about the implications for local economies when we’re no longer able to make decisions around protecting local food, protecting local economic development.

Brexit shakes everything up. I think what happened with the U.K. making this decision is that people said: “Love it or hate it, left or right, I want to make these decisions closer to home.”

 Every time Donald Trump speaks against NAFTA, I cringe.

Are you bothered by the fact that in the case of the British referendum rejecting EU membership, victory was achieved mostly by stoking anti-immigrant sentiment?

I think it was mixed. Because I know many, many people on the left, if you will, or so-called progressive movement who voted [to Leave]. I have a friend who spoiled his ballot by saying “I refuse to choose between Westminster and Brussels. I hate them both.”

So yes, you’re absolutely right, there was a lot of racism. It’s just like the split in the United States with the people concerned about trade who support [Donald] Trump and the people concerned about trade who support [Bernie] Sanders. There’s the right-wing, populist, xenophobic , hunker-down-and-get-under-the-covers kind of concern, and there’s the much more, I would say, thoughtful, analytical understanding. But in both cases, we have to admit that economic globalization, these policies of unfettered trade and allowing corporations to write the rules and moving jobs by the millions offshore, and the deregulation and privatization of social security have hollowed out the middle class. And they’re angry.

When the decision is made by bureaucrats far away, the feeling is democracy doesn’t matter. And I think it’s the democracy-doesn’t-matter theme that united people across the political spectrum in the Brexit decision.

There’s a very detailed, progressive economic critique of free trade and globalization. But it seems in this case the xenophobic critique was the more persuasive one to a lot of British voters. Does that give you any concern about the ability of a progressive economic argument against globalization to actually persuade voters?

Absolutely. We’re totally, completely aware of this and this is exactly as it’s unfolding in the United States. Every time Donald Trump speaks against NAFTA, I cringe. Because do I want him on my side? No, I don’t. He’s awful. And he speaks to the worst in people. But we need to fight for that space, and that’s what Bernie Sanders did. He said there’s a critique against what Donald Trump says, but also the kind of globalization that has led some people to support Donald Trump.

When I see people say “You’re either protectionist and xenophobic or you’re for open markets,” I say “No, no, no, no, no. Sorry.” There’s a whole third analysis here that says that we can build trade, and nobody that I know is against trade. We can create trade agreements, but they have to be built on a different set of principles and those principles have to protect the right of governments to regulate. It’s a huge challenge for us to put out that alternative third way. It’s not open markets and globalization versus pull the cover up over your head and hate everybody that doesn’t look like you. There’s a third way.

But is that third way persuasive enough? That’s what I’m wondering. What worked in this instance was the fear.

I’m not sure. I know that got a lot of play, but I have a lot of colleagues and friends in Great Britain and Scotland and Ireland and they tell me the xenophobia of Brexit got more media and there were horrible, racist incidents right after, but that there was much more of a thoughtful analysis among many people who just wanted to bring democracy home.

And there’s a reason there’s a difference between the vote in London and the vote out in the communities. [Smaller communities have] been hollowed out. They don’t have jobs. There’s going to be an anger. And some of that anger is going to go nasty and right-wing and divisive and some of it already [putting forward] a third analysis, a very thoughtful analysis. I can only hope that the better side of our nature will be the side that wins.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Sujata Dey, BJ MBA

 Older Entries  Newer Entries