Sandra Finley

May 212016
 

Canadians continue to arrive on this blog with questions about the Census and StatsCan Surveys.

Thanks to the student Brad.  The Q&A with him is helpful to others.  My Reply follows his question:

(February)

The crux of the problem is this; we do have a centralized statistical agency and a large part of academia states that this system is more efficient and produces higher quality data. Without faith in the reliability of census material, the agency turned to administrative data (records of other governmental agencies) and used the macro-level data to verify if their surveys are correct.

In other words, without the census they found another way to create the same type of data, albeit one that was less successful.  With a centralized statistical system, there will always be this black box of ‘how is the data handled’.  We know that the agency has some practices to ensure that profiles are not created from the questions, the collection stage is the only one that is at risk for profiling.

Personally, I think that any subcontracting of any stage of data collection and dissemination is a violation of not only the charter, but also the mandate of the statistics act.  At one point, Statistics Canada had the budget and the mandate to ensure that it protected Canadians’ information and now it does not.

I favour the recommendation for an independent statistical agency, so that the government cannot force the agency to create profiles or hand over personal information. Nonetheless, there is a significant voice to those who state that it does not matter, no agency should have this power in the first place.

I will probably have to clarify a few things in this blurb, but my follow up question would be; was there at any point a historical Statistics Canada that would work?  Or do you prefer the proposition?

(Brad’s other good questions are at:   Replies to student research for Philosophy Class.  Census, Lockheed Martin & Charter Right.)

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

MY REPLY: 

The world changes and continues to change.  You cannot go backwards in time.  Among the reasons that the Census worked historically: 

  • technology was much less sophisticated than it is today.  The capabilities that exist today did not exist in the past.  The names of citizens were not directly on their record in the StatsCan data base, which they are today.   The appetite for comprehensive data on individual citizens was less developed.  

The threat posed by detailed files on citizens coupled with technological CAPACITY, coupled with the DRIVE to create the data files – – the convergence of these factors did not exist.   There wasn’t the same basis for citizen resistance, as exists today.  So the Census “worked”.

  • Canada was a more sovereign and democratic nation.  

A war and surveillance corporation from a foreign imperialist Government with documented disregard for the Rule of Law and protocol did not receive contracts for work at Statistics Canada (documented elsewhere on this blog).     I don’t think there is any doubt about the “steerage” role of Lockheed Martin in the “compatible” Census data bases in the “5 Eyes” countries  – –   see   2016-03-18   Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census? 

  • A higher degree of sovereignty in a healthier democracy meant that the VALUES of its people had a greater chance of guiding the nation. 

The Census had a greater chance of working historically because the operations at Statistics Canada did not fly full in the face of values. 

It is well-known that Canadians in general do not see war (personified by Lockheed Martin and wars like the Iraq War) as a means for

  • economic growth
  • enrichment, or as
  • a way to help improve the lot of the world’s people. 
  • Or as a way to spend their tax dollars.  There are more intelligent and beneficial alternatives.  

We embrace sitting down at the table, the use of our full range of human capacities, as opposed to the use of stupid brute force.  I would like to think that in the latter half of the last century, had Canadians sent thousands of letters to its Government protesting against the Lockheed Martin contracts, that the Government would have responded to the values articulated.   There would have been no contracts.   

Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien understood – – he did not take Canada into the 2003 American/UK War on Iraq.  Those Canadian values were solidified before him, under former Prime Minister Lester Pearson.  They became part of our identity.   Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau worked at creating relationships and dialogue with other countries – Cuba is an obvious example. 

With sovereignty came the ability to set our own course.   We were not lap dogs to very destructive American foreign and economic policy.   Nor had the Corporatocracy supplanted democracy to the same degree.

RE:  Do I prefer the proposition for an “independent statistical agency”?   

No.  A hammer sees every nail as something to be hit.  Statisticians have been trained/conditioned to think along the same lines as their professors, superiors and colleagues, regardless of the organizational structure. 

Also,  the “President of the Americas” for Lockheed Martin spelt out to Maclean’s Magazine that they work through the agencies and bureaucracy of Government because they know they can’t get what they want through the democratic channels of Govt. (transparency and public debate).   Ref:   2006-09-13 Maclean’s Magazine interview, President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin Ron Covais, Meet NAFTA 2.0.    The corporatocracy is too heavily infiltrated into the Government for the proposition (an independent statistical agency) to work.

John Ralston Saul correctly argues (in my opinion) that our rational faculty is the most fragile of our faculties.  We routinely rationalize our actions,  we can rationalize almost anything.  It is subject to corruption.  And yet we exalt the rational, to the exclusion of our other faculties.  

QUESTION:  How do I understand this situation in which academics, statisticians and media can loudly proclaim the absolute necessity of a mandatory long form census, detailed data files on citizens,  in spite of the historical record, and the extinction of a Charter Right that protects citizens against the abuses?  

  • FORGETFULNESS  –  failure to use the human faculty of MEMORY.

REF (new):  2016-05-24 This is why the war corporations (Lockheed Martin) will be gone from Canada.  Democracy is as fallible as human beings. But we make progress. Interview of George Takei, Japanese-American interned at age 5.

  • COMPARTMENTALIZATION   – removing the ETHICAL consideration from our actions.  (Using tax-payer dollars to enrich people who promoted an illegal war, the consequences of which fester and ooze in the Middle East years later, who were the Number One Contract “Interrogator” in the illegal, truly depraved and unproductive Torture carried out in American offshore prisons, …

 

  • CONDITIONING – an educational system that fails to EMPOWER, that has little comprehension of our INTUITIVE faculty, that does not reward critical thinking.

 

  • LACK OF COMMON SENSE   – some inhabitants of the Ivory Tower don’t know what the man in the street knows.  The building of detailed files of personal information on citizens by the Government is the signature of a police state.   Intuitively we know that parts of our lives, or the lives of fellow citizens, are private.
  • MARGINALIZATION OF IMAGINATION  – little ability to envision other ways and means, ones that reinforce, instead of undermine, our Values and the Rights of Citizens.

 

  • STIFLING OF CREATIVE CAPABILITY – academics in general are the staunch defenders of the status quo, constrained by boxes.  Simultaneously, creativity is essential for CHANGE.

 

  • FAILURE IN LEADERSHIP  – leadership should help guide us out of a model that makes the world a worse place.   We can’t get to a better place by giving our tax money (investing in) the machinery of the war corporations, forces of destruction.

 

  • A ONE-DIMENSIONAL LINEAR POINT-OF-VIEW –  in a world that is multi-dimensional.

 

  • INABILITY TO INTEGRATE THE HUMAN QUALITIES WE POSSESS –  you end up with a fractured humanity.   Our rational faculty with a false sense of superiority, obliterating what is ethical, intuitive, the experience in family histories;  at odds with common sense, and with little creative capacity.   It is a recipe for fallibility;  the same recipe that has been used in the past (and present) with disastrous consequences.

REF (new):   2016-05-24 This is why the war corporations (Lockheed Martin) will be gone from Canada. Democracy is as fallible as human beings. But we make progress. Interview of George Takei, Japanese-American interned at age 5.

  • TOO MANY DISEMPOWERED, DIRECTIONLESS, OR IRRESPONSIBLE AND PROPAGANDIZED CITIZENS  – a few factors at play.   But basically, we know it is wrong to be complicit; we fail to take a stand which is our responsibility as citizens.  

 

In my view,  the answer to the StatsCan debacle lies in the raising of consciousness coupled with ferocious defence of our values and Charter Rights.   Please see

2016-05-21  I lose myself.  “A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.”

. . .   These qualities (memory, intuition, common sense, imagination . . ) exist whether we recognize them or not.  What remains in our power is how conscious we are willing to be of our humanness.  By conscious, I mean how much we wish to exercise our qualities and to do so one in concert with the other.  To be conscious of them is to be more confident in our use of them.           – –   John Ralston Saul

 

May 122016
 

QUESTION:  from kari da

I would like to hear about what other ‘refuseniks’ in Canada are doing, and get updates on organizing and legal challenges for the 2016 census.

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

REPLY:

Hi Kari,

Don Rogers’ blog, Count Me Out,  is strong on ‘refusenik’ strategy;  I don’t try to duplicate it.   But I will add:

There is a continuum of resistance.  All the strategies contribute to the effort.   Different people are comfortable with different actions, from:

  • Start as many conversations about the Census as you can.  Too many citizens still don’t have a clue about the involvement of Lockheed Martin in the Census operations.  (Creation of AWARENESS.)   Ref:  2016-03-18   Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?
  • If you are contacted directly by a StatsCan worker, try to engage them in conversation.   “Lockheed Martin Corporation is involved in the Canadian Census.  Do you know who they are and what they do in the world?”  (Everything from International Surveillance to Number One Contract Interrogator for the Offshore American prisons (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc.)  – – the authors of depravity (torture that is illegal under International Law).   Manufacturers of Land Mines and Cluster Munitions that are illegal under Canadian and International Law.  Authors of the dropping of bombs from drones (another form of terrorism).   Instrumental in the decision by the Americans to start the Iraq War, a decision based on outright lies, the agonies of which spread and live on in the Middle East today.   Lobbyists and corrupters of democratic governance.   We are complicit if we sit by while our tax dollars enable these monsters.   They are dependent upon access to the public purse.   They are proficient at over-charging.  They have been convicted many times of breach of arms export control laws.   They sell weapons and it doesn’t matter to whom.
  • I have found letters-to-the-editor that go back to 2006 and 2011 to still be very helpful today.   They alert people to aspects of the Census of which they are unaware.  But maybe more importantly,  they help form a bond of solidarity.   You help move thoughts that others have thought into the open.  They can say somewhat anonymously to friends and colleagues,  “Did you happen to read that letter-to-the-editor about the Census?”
  • Moving into the question of how you as an individual handle the Census.   There is no limit to the creativity of citizens.  Have some fun with it!   (Maybe it wasn’t a joke? . . .  Thousands of Canadians have identified their religion as “Jedi Warrior”.)   Many have apparently been named after cartoon characters.  . . .  Personally, I think it is important to get the message across that the involvement of Lockheed Martin Corp will not be tolerated.   Some people have received an actual paper copy of the Census, which is easiest.   A large “No Lockheed Martin” across the first page gets the message across.  If you received the code to access the on-line copy,  you might request a paper copy (I don’t know if the e-copy allows you to register your feedback to StatsCan).
  • If you happen to receive the Long Form Census,  you have the opportunity to stand in solidarity with others in defence of our Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  In a democracy you simply do not allow the Government to build detailed files of personal information on individuals, which is what is happening through the Census Long Form, the National Household Survey and other Surveys that are on-going through StatsCan.   Do not answer questions that you judge to be personal in nature.
  • I was going to say, “Have no fear”.   But somehow Kari,  I don’t think you need that piece of advice!
  • Resistance – – is a process that happens over a period of time.  Do what you have to do.  And be patient.  In the past the Dept of Justice did not issue summons to court until near the end of the two years after which the Statute of Limitations kicks in.   You may never hear from them, only a small number do (65 out of thousands).

RE  Legal Challenges:   People end up in Court if they are selected for prosecution because of non-compliance with the Census (the 65 / thousands).  Citizens have not been the initiators.  Our network has helped some people defend themselves.   We remain alert to news of refuseniks and contact them if possible, to see if they want or need support.   If StatsCan and the Justice Dept don’t change their process,  as mentioned, there will be no word of people being prosecuted (summons to court) until at least a year-and-a-half from now.

 

May 082016
 

Looking for information on the 2016 Census?    The one-pager below might be helpful.

We’ve followed the issue since 2003.   So there is more information on this blog than you will ever want to see!

For links to census topics not addressed in the following, see  Lockheed Martin, War Economy, StatsCan, Charter Right Privacy, Trial

 

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

Sent to CBC Sunday Edition (Host Michael Enright), 2016-04-03

 

RE:  Your Interview of Wayne Smith, Canada’s Chief Statistician

I am happy to hear that StatsCan no longer charges for its products.

Canadians could not know whether to be happy about other questions around StatsCan because you, Michael, did not ask the hard questions!  Uncharacteristic of you.   Nor did Wayne Smith offer the information.   Silence.

I trust you will find the following helpful  (please ask if you would like more source references):

  1. The question of whether Lockheed Martin Corp has a role in the 2016 Census  (see APPENDED).

2.   StatsCan is required to operate WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.

StatsCan claims that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away citizens’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

(The Right:   “In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”)

Most people know that Rights provided under Constitutional Law cannot be taken away by a regular act of Parliament.  Under Constitutional Law, in order for the Government to take away a Charter Right it has to meet the criteria set out in the Oakes Test.

As far as I know,  StatsCan / the Justice Dept have not applied to the Courts to see if they can meet the criteria, so the Charter Right stands.  StatsCan’s assertions to citizens that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away Charter Rights is bogus.

In summary, the personal information of citizens is protected by a Charter Right;  StatsCan has not gone through the process prescribed by Constitutional Law to take away the Charter Right. Therefore the Charter Right stands.

Charter Rights are deadly important and purposeful in a democracy.  The only people who will defend against the erosion of them are citizens.   When push comes to shove, the only people who will insist on the Rule of Law are citizens.

3.   Wayne Smith’s statement that the National Household Survey is voluntary is contradicted by the text of StatsCan’s pamphlets provided to householders “It is the law – – – ”.

Many Canadians have been, and continue to be threatened with prosecution if they don’t answer the survey questions.  (Last I knew, the amount of information demanded had increased from just over 50 questions in the mandatory long form Census (2006) to more than 80 in the National Household Survey – – and note that censuses and surveys both feed information into the same data base.)

4.Wayne Smith, Chief Statistician, in response to your question provided examples of the good that arises from the data collected by StatsCan.  The examples he cited would not require citizens to provide detailed personal information to StatsCan.

5.   There is a potential unsavoury underbelly:  Wayne Smith described the targeting by StatsCan of individuals in indigenous communities (the StatsCan program aimed at First Nations has been on-going for almost a decade as learned in the aftermath of media reports (2006 Census) that 35,000 First Nations people did not fill in their census form.).

Canadians need the number of people in different communities, age distribution and so on.  Some band councils have insisted that consistent with self-government, they will provide aggregate numbers to StatsCan, which is what StatsCan will tell you it deals in anyway.

There is a particular difficulty for many indigenous communities:  they wish to protect their lands.  Lockheed Martin (“Senior Management Steering Committee” for censuses, see Appended) can be seen as the “enforcer” for corporate interests, especially American resource extraction companies.  Surveillance is one of Lockheed Martin’s specialties, they have contracts with the NSA; detailed files on citizens are very helpful if RESISTANCE to the destruction of lands (ability to feed oneself and one’s family) is a factor.

The conflict between resource extraction by large corporations and the interests of local people have historically been settled by removal, one way or another, of the leadership of the populist movements that threaten the hegemony of the exploiters.

In the Canadian context I am reminded of the “incidents” on the Encana pipeline out in the bush in the vicinity of Dawson Creek (2008).  There is a history in the area of the oil and gas industry’s role in the poisoning of livestock and people by “sour gas” which is highly toxic;  remember Wiebo Ludwig and his family?   the role of propaganda in diminishing Wiebo and his attempts to resolve the sour gas poisoning through the channels offered by the Government?

The anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP was assigned to deal with the “incidents” on the pipeline near Dawson Creek.   Tom’s Lake is a First Nations community near Dawson.  In the name of finding the “terrorists”,  any rights they may have had were eliminated.  The unlawful entry into homes and interrogation of families by the RCMP (frightening to the subjects) were for the benefit of Encana.

Beneficial to citizens would have been actions to stop the poisoning of the land and its inhabitants – – the enforcement of regulations.  I am not suggesting that anyone in Tom’s Lake had anything to do with the “incidents” when I say that an existing profile of each resident of the community would have been helpful to the “anti-terrorist” squad.   They did not find the “terrorists”;  they might have found them in corporate offices in Calgary where they did not conduct any searches.

 

In summary,  consistent with the lessons of history and of police states, there is a reason why, in a democracy,  you simply do not allow the build-up of detailed personal files on citizens.

The next time you interview Wayne Smith, Chief Statistician, I suggest you review the role of “census bureaux” and detailed files on citizens beforehand – – ask him more questions that matter.   You may find Edwin Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” helpful.  Central to the ability of the Nazis to exterminate certain populations was the collection of large amounts of personal information and the mechanization of that (census) data through Hollerith machines and punch cards.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

(contact info)

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

ASIDE:  The building of detailed files on citizens is a wrong response to “terrorism”:

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)

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

APPENDED,  Excerpt from   2016-03-18   Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?

  1. What has StatsCan announced to the Canadian public?

StatsCan has NOT made a statement to the public to say that Lockheed Martin’s involvement at StatsCan has ended.

Such a decision would have been made at least a couple years prior, so by 2013 – 2014.

Given the significance of the issue (the three trials, Audrey Tobias, Janet Churnin, Eve Stegenga related to 2011 Census alone;  and non-compliance rates)  IF a decision was made to end Lockheed Martin’s participation at StatsCan, surely it was StatsCan’s duty to report that to the Canadian public.

I double-checked the StatsCan website.  A search on “Lockheed” shows “0 results”.   If you search “All” records, there are “4 results” two of which (appended) are Expense claims from Peter Morrison related to meetings with Lockheed Martin in 2010 and 2009.   I say with confidence that StatsCan has not made a statement to the public.

HOWEVER

 

  1. One “BUT”, leads to another “BUT”

The transcript for the Audrey Tobias trial contains a statement that Lockheed Martin is out.

If true, it would represent a huge victory for Canadians against the Military-Industrial complex.

BUT,  as evidenced by the expense claims of Peter Morrison  StatsCan is enmeshed in collaborative censuses (U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Canada  AND Lockheed Martin).  You have to be realistic in assessing the evidence given by Yves Beland (StatsCan) at the Tobias Trial.

THE TOBIAS TRANSCRIPT, LOCKHEED MARTIN IS “OUT”

See    2014-07-17 Transcript, Tobias trial establishes Lockheed Martin is OUT

The testimony of the StatsCan witness Yves Beland, Director of Census Operations Division, tells

  1. StatsCan was getting resistance to Lockheed Martin’s involvement from the beginning (2004) during the development period.
  2. StatsCan reacted by “scaling back” substantially on the Lockheed contract for the 2006 Census.
  3. StatsCan cut again, down to $20 million for the 2011 Census.
  4. Resistance continued   and so
  5. Lockheed will be completely out of it by the next census (2016).

The only source I know for “Lockheed Martin is “out””  is this transcript of the Tobias trial which ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE have seen.

So, from the transcript of the testimony by Yves Beland, StatsCan had made a decision before the Tobias trial (Oct 2013)   IN SPITE OF WHICH   StatsCan and the Justice Dept proceeded with the prosecutions of Audrey Tobias, Janet Churnin and Eve Stegenga all of whom were on trial because they objected to Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the 2011 Census.

The administration of Justice is brought into disrepute.

 

  1. StatsCan’s record on truthfulness

You have to address the StatsCan CREDIBILITY GAP in arriving at any conclusions about

Lockheed Martin’s current (2016) involvement in the  StatsCan Data Base on Canadians.

You also have to be very careful about word-smithing, as noted in the posting about Lockheed Martin is “out”.

StatsCan CREDIBILITY GAP

  • Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald did a good job of explaining that under the auspices of the NSA, backdoor entry to data bases is established if American “security” forces cannot obtain legal front door access.  Lockheed Martin is a contractor to the NSA. Both entities are surveillance specialists; both see themselves as being outside the rule of law.  The data base at StatsCan will contain the on-going collection of data through censuses AND surveys. Your name is on your file.  All in all, EVEN IF Lockheed Martin is “out”, a backdoor entry to the data base will be in place.

[The interest of the Americans in obtaining access to information on ALL Canadians is known through mainstream media report (Ottawa Citizen 2008).   The “President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin” is quoted in Maclean’s Magazine Sept 2006.  Lockheed’s position at StatsCan was in place by then.  Ron Covais was speaking in general when he said, The Ministers have told us, Tell us what you want, we’ll see that you get it.  This was how things were to work because as he said, they (corporates) knew they couldn’t get what they wanted through normal democratic channels; they would get it this way, working through the bureaucracy and agencies of Government.]

  • StatsCan claims that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away citizens’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  Most people know that Rights provided under Constitutional Law cannot be taken away by a regular act of Parliament.  Under Constitutional Law, in order for the Government to take away a Charter Right it has to meet the criteria set out in the Oakes Test.  As far as I know,  StatsCan / the Justice Dept has not applied to the Courts to see if they can meet the criteria, so the Charter Right stands. StatsCan’s assertions to citizens that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away Charter Rights is bogus.
  • StatsCan proceeded with prosecution of 3 women AFTER the claimed decision (Lockheed Martin is “out”) was made – why would they do that if Lockheed Martin was indeed “out”?  The reason for dissent by all 3 women was Lockheed Martin’s involvement.
  • StatsCan continues to tell citizens “it is the Law”, you have to fill in (for example) the National Household Survey (formerly known as the long-form Census) when the Statistics Act says that participation in surveys is NOT mandatory (the sanctions for census non-compliance do not apply).   StatsCan uses a serious lie to intimidate and coerce citizens into providing information protected by the Charter Right.
  • They always report to the media that Census non-compliance is 2% when the figures they supplied under oath at the Tobias trial compute to 11% non-compliance.

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

So there we are, Matthew.  Is Lockheed Martin part of the 2016 Census?   I would say yes.  StatsCan has never made a statement to the public to say that the StatsCan contracts with Lockheed Martin have ended.   StatsCan’s credibility provides no basis for believing what they say.  So you have to figure it out.

To me, the CLINCHER is this:  Lockheed Martin is a component of the 5 Eyes partnership which commits Canada to collaboration and conformity with other nations in Census operations.

If people do not understand that this is about surveillance, they need to  read  (related to Bill C-51)   2014-09-26  Journalists and whistleblowers will go to jail under new national security laws, Australia, The Guardian. (Includes info on Five Eyes (FVEY)

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

APPENDED

EXCERPTS

From  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/about/expense/petermorrison/2010

Morrison, Peter, Assistant Chief Statistician

Travel expenses – 2010

Date Purpose Cost
January 28, 2010 ARCHIVED – Lockheed Martin Steering Committee Meeting $909.88
September 22, 2010 ARCHIVED – Corporate Business Architecture presentation to Regional Offices $1,523.32
October 11, 2010 ARCHIVED – Participate at the 2010 Meeting of the International Census Forum and Lockheed Martin Senior Management Steering Committee Meeting $2,062.94
October 21, 2010 ARCHIVED – Corporate Business Architecture presentation to Central Regional Office and visit to Regional Census Centre $1,128.14

 

From  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/about/expense/petermorrison/2009

Morrison, Peter, Assistant Chief Statistician

Travel expenses – 2009

Date Purpose Cost
June 17, 2009 ARCHIVED – To visit the Regional Offices in Vancouver and Edmonton $1,478.68
June 22, 2009 ARCHIVED – To attend the Steering Committee Meeting with Lockheed Martin and visit the United States Data Processing Centre (DPC) site $1,262.61
August 10, 2009 ARCHIVED – EX interviews $684.78
September 7, 2009 ARCHIVED – International Census Forum 2009 $4,369.27

 

 

 

May 062016
 

From articles appended:

  • Added to the lawsuits related to depression and suicide brought on by Accutane,  ones on bowel disease.

These are just a few of the 7,000-plus lawsuits that have been filed against Roche over the debilitating side effects of Accutane.

  • Accutane is now a generic drug sold under various names.
  • annual Accutane sales at  their peak, in 2000, were up to $759.4 million   (Appended article,  What is Accutane …?)

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

The recent CBC article on harm to fetus omits:

  • the high level of suicides associated with Accutane/Isotretinoin.   Scroll down to last article, Congressional Committee finds . . .

 

  • Accutane causes birth defects because it interferes with the body’s endocrine system.  Well,  MALES happen to have endocrine systems, not only females.  The difference is that deformed babies can be directly and easily linked to the taking of the capsules.   Uh oh – – lawsuits.

The nailing of responsibility  (cause & effect) is otherwise difficult and expensive to prove.

That said,  Accutane is known to artificially shut down the epiphyseal growth plates in bones. 

The largest market for acne “cures” (Accutane) is adolescent males and females.  Coincidentally this is also the time when bone growth is remarkably robust.

Statural growth can occur as long as the epiphyseal growth plates persist.  The gonadal steroids (estrogen, testosterone) cause closure of the epiphyseal growth plates in late adolescence.  The cartilage becomes entirely replaced with bone, and statural growth ceases.    (ref https://courses.washington.edu/conj/bess/growth/growth.html)

 

More than a decade ago when I questioned the Health Canada scientist responsible for the registration of Accutane, I was told that the premature shut-down of the epiphyseal caused by Accutane only happens in a small number of cases.

How would she know:

  • adverse drug effects are not well reported
  • Doctors (e.g. a sports medicine doctor) who see a patient because of skeletal pains know nothing about the side effects of a drug taken for acne.   And the patient is unlikely to associate the two.

Is anyone investigating to see what happens to the developing skeleton when a drug brings about an abrupt halt to bone growth, before it is complete?   Do we have any idea of what the longterm consequences are?

Accutane and its generic offspring are very poorly researched and regulated.  The harm done to teenagers is a sea upon which floats the harm to fetuses.

ACTION:    I sent the Accutane information to Doctors Henry and Humphrey, named in this CBC article.  And will tweet Robyn Sheremeta.

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/acne-accutane-pregnancy-1.3551549

Doctors stress that a powerful drug prescribed to fight acne needs to be taken under strict guidelines to prevent serious harm to a fetus, as a new study commissioned by Health Canada points to many failures in preventing pregnancy.

Isotretinoin was commonly sold as Accutane when it entered the market in Canada in 1983 to treat severe acne, which can cause scarring such as pockmarks. The medication is now available as Accutane Roche and in several generic forms. It’s also prescribed for more moderate cases.

Since the drug can cause damage to the head, face, heart, central nervous system and limbs of a fetus, the prescribing information in Canada requires written consent from the patient, two negative pregnancy tests before treatment and the use of two reliable methods of birth control. These conditions apply to prescriptions dispensed to women of child-bearing age.

The study, published in Monday’s issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, suggests the pregnancy prevention program is not effective, with between 30 per cent to 50 per cent of women taking the drug not complying.

“The program is probably half as effective as it should be,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. David Henry, a senior scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and a professor at the University of Toronto.

Henry and his team used hospital and vital statistical data to study 59,271 female patients aged 12 to 48 in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario for about 15 years. Over that time, nearly 1,473 pregnancies, about 100 a year, occurred during the vulnerable period during and after treatment with isotretinoin. The risky period includes any time during the 42 weeks of a pregnancy.

Pregnancy losses

Of these pregnancies, 1,331 or 90 per cent weren’t completed. The majority, 70 per cent, were medically terminated because the patient and health-care provider were worried about the risk to the fetus or had ultrasounds showing abnormalities. Another 20 per cent of the pregnancies were lost spontaneously.

Of the remaining 10 per cent of live births, a total of 11 babies or nine per cent were born with abnormalities, which amounts to one or two children each year. Researchers don’t know the severity of the abnormalities or if use of the acne drug directly caused the congenital abnormalities.

Henry said he believes greater familiarity with the effective drug, which is generally well tolerated, has led to its use in less severe cases of acne.

Robyn Sheremeta

Robyn Sheremeta says there was ‘zero monitoring’ after she was prescribed isotretinoin for her acne. (CBC)

“It should be reserved for more severe cases [of acne] because that just cuts down the number of women of childbearing age who are going to be exposed to the drug,” Henry recommended.

It’s estimated the average age of isotretinoin users in Canada is 24.

“Conjecture is that physicians who are coming through these days didn’t get the same scary messages that we did,” Henry said.

Dr. Shannon Humphrey is a dermatologist in Vancouver and a professor in the dermatology department at the University of British Columbia. She is a spokeswoman for the Acne and Rosacea Society of Canada and wasn’t involved in the study.

Humphrey said for many of her patients, the benefits of isotretinoin outweigh the risks.

“As physicians, we should not become complacent,” Humphrey said. “There are absolutely patients who have moderate acne, who’ve tried other alternatives and who are suffering, who have anxiety or depression or are not engaging in their daily life because of the stigma of acne. And for that patient, as long as they can understand the side-effect profile, as long as they can engage with the pregnancy prevention recommendations very stringently, that may very well be an ideal candidate for this medication.”

Outside of birth defects, the majority of side-effects from the drug include dry skin and sensitivity, she said. Doctors also monitor blood work to check cholesterol levels and liver function after prescribing the drug, which is generally taken for three to four months.

Dr. Shannon Humphrey

Dermatologist Dr. Shannon Humphrey says that for many of her patients, the benefits of the acne-fighting drug isotretinoin outweigh the risks. (CBC)

Now that isotretinoin is generic, there’s less emphasis on education about it for specialists, said Humphrey, who welcomes greater awareness.

Henry stressed that physicians need to be reminded of their obligations to comply with the prescribing guidance for the drug.

Robyn Sheremeta is a university student in Toronto who describes her acne as moderate and persistent. More than a year ago when she was 22, Sheremeta booked an appointment with a dermatologist at her family’s hometown in Edmonton. She thought she’d be prescribed antibiotics or another oral drug to “dull the acne.”

Sheremeta was already taking birth control pills. The dermatologist prescribed her a year’s supply of a different kind of birth control pill and mentioned using a second method when having sex, she said.

“There was zero monitoring,”  Sheremeta recalled. “I didn’t do a single pregnancy test, no blood work. I was given a four-month set of [isotretinoin] pills.”

Sheremeta completed the treatment, the acne disappeared and she now feels it is back to mild to moderate.

Both Henry and Humphrey also said pharmacists can act as a second line of defence when dispensing the drug.

One of the limitations of the study was it only captured prescriptions, including for birth control, from provincial drug benefit insurance programs.

About one-quarter to one-third of women in the study filled birth control prescriptions, which was about the same as before they started the acne treatment.

Studies in Europe also suggest that changing contraceptive behaviour among isotretinoin users is difficult, the researchers said.

A spokesman for Health Canada said pregnancy rates for women taking the drug in other international jurisdictions are similar to those reported in Canada. The department is reviewing the results of the study.

Physicians are expected to follow a manufacturer’s risk management program if one is in place, as recommended by Health Canada, said a spokeswoman for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Doctors are expected to practise competently and to maintain the applicable standard of practice when prescribing drugs, including when prescribing isotretinoin products, the college said.

The study was conducted by the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies, or CNODES, which is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

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

https://www.drugwatch.com/accutane/

http://www.accutaneaction.com/   (I don’t know if these people are still active)

We have over 2000 members who have suffered severe physical and psychiatric side effects. We are also working with similar groups in the US, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden, Italy and South Africa.

 

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

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/roches-accutane-suit-over-death-of-congressmans-son-nixed/

By Jim Edwards MoneyWatch June 11, 2009, 4:21 PM

Roche’s Accutane: Suit Over Death of Congressman’s Son Nixed

Last Updated Jun 11, 2009 4:21 PM EDT

Roche has won a ruling insulating it from allegations that its Accutane acne drug caused the suicide of U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak‘s son. B.J. Stupak started taking Accutane in 1999. In May 2000, at age 17, he shot himself in the head. The ruling states:

Laurie Stupak [B.J.’s mother] claimed that Roche was liable under negligence and strict liability for failing to warn that its prescription acne medication Accutane could cause suicide without premonitory [warning] symptoms.

The package of Accutane that B.J. Stupak was taking warned only of “changes in mood,” although the Physician’s Desk Reference said:

… may cause depression, psychosis and, rarely, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide.

The court ruled that because Roche did not know at the time that patients on Accutane could experience a desire to kill themselves without any warning signs, that the Stupaks could not sue the company:

Because Stupak has failed to identify any evidence in the record that Roche knew or should have known that Accutane could cause suicide without premonitory symptoms, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Stupak, D-Mich., has been a critic of Accutane for years — both his sons took it. He told his story to a Congressional hearing in 2002. The Drug and Device Law blog notes that the ruling, from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is unpublished but may nonetheless influence the trial judge to turn down other cases.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

 

= = = = = =

 

https://www.drugwatch.com/accutane/

Last modified: October 5, 2015

What Is Accutane? Its Uses and Interactions

Accutane (isotretinoin) is a popular drug for severe acne created by Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. The drug is linked to severe bowel disease and other side effects.

Accutane, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1982, proved to be a miracle for some, offering blemish-free skin to those who had given up after trying many other treatments.

The drug works for severe (cystic) acne, providing long-lasting and sometimes complete reduction of acne for 80 percent of patients. However, clear skin may be accompanied by serious side effects like Crohn’s disease.

Following numerous reports of adverse events – and after doctors noted potential dangers with the drug and the FDA issued a black-box warning, Roche stopped manufacturing Accutane in 2009. Generic brands of the medication — Amnesteen, Claravis and Sotret — are still available.

Uses of Accutane

Accutane is part of a class of medications called retinoids and originally was marketed as a chemotherapy drug. It is known for its ability to treat acne that has not responded to antibiotics. The medication is a derivative of vitamin A and works by controlling the oil in the sebaceous glands. The acne it treats consists of nodules with a diameter or 5 mm or greater. Having this type of acne can be socially debilitating, so the potential of a cure can be life-changing.

Undergoing Accutane treatment is a commitment of time and energy. It can take months to be effective, and patients often must deal with side effects like dry eyes and headaches. In addition, acne may worsen during the beginning stages of treatment before it starts to clear up.

Doses of Accutane range from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg body weight per day, with a cumulative dose of greater than 100 to 120 mg/kg. Accutane comes in capsules of 10, 20 and 40 mg, and should be taken with food. Most patients take the medication for 15 to 20 weeks, and may repeat the treatment course if acne returns. Due to the risk of serious birth defects, women of child-bearing age must commit to programs aimed at preventing pregnancies during treatment.

Doctor Warnings

The first prescriptions of Accutane were written in 1982, and a year later came the first report of a baby born with malformations after Accutane was taken during pregnancy. In 1983, there were two “Dear Doctor letters” — special communications the FDA requires drug manufacturers to send out if the drug label is not complete in covering the extent and severity of side effects — sent out, alerting physicians of the possibility of birth defects. From 1984 to 1988, seven more of the letters went out.

The FDA was not alone in noting the dangers of Accutane. Dr. Frank Yoder, one of the scientists involved in the discovery of Accutane, wrote a letter to the Journal of American Medicine in 1983, informing the public of the possibility that Roche was not clear in alerting users of the toxicity associated with Accutane.

That same year, a nonprofit health advocacy group, Public Citizen, petitioned the FDA to add warnings of birth defects to Accutane labels. The FDA took action in 1985, when a black-box warning, indicating that Accutane can cause fetal deformities and possibly fetal death, was added to the medication.

By 1988, a pregnancy prevention program had been put into place, with the goal of decreasing the number of woman getting pregnant while taking the drug. The program was eventually effective in decreasing the percentage of woman getting pregnant while taking the drug, from 4 women per every 1,000 a year to less than 2 for every 1,000. However the number of prescriptions given out also increased, keeping the number of affected pregnant women taking Accutane high.

Other countries had even stricter rules about Accutane use by women of childbearing age. For example, in Britain, prior to receiving the medication, women were required to agree to have an abortion if they became pregnant during treatment.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) played a role in affirming the danger of Accutane by publishing information on the fetal toxicity of the drug, conducting a study of Accutane-exposed pregnancies to raise awareness, and sending a letter to the FDA in 1998 recommending that the drug not be sold due to these dangers. Also, the CDC division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities  received reports of infant death following maternal exposure to Accutane.

In June 2009, as the number of adverse events reported to the FDA and lawsuits from patients continued to grow, Roche stopped manufacturing Accutane. The company said it was an economic decision based on generic brands of the medication taking over the market. Accutane was recalled in 11 other countries.

Milder Side Effects of Accutane

Most people experience some measure of common side effects with Accutane use and should not be concerned unless these conditions worsen or become extremely painful. With more serious side effects, however, a doctor should be consulted immediately.

Common side effects include:
Diminished night vision Increased bone injuries due to thickened or weakened bones
Increased reaction to UV exposure Red, cracked or sore lips
Nosebleeds Changes in nails
Peeling skin Unusual hair growth or loss
Bleeding or swollen gums Fatigue
Voice changes Headache
Slow healing of cuts or sores Cold symptoms
Dry skin and eyes Muscle aches
Birth Defects Related to Accutane

The FDA gave Accutane a pregnancy rating of X, which means it should not be taken during pregnancy because there is evidence of fetal abnormalities when it is used during pregnancy. The FDA reported that infants whose mothers took Accutane were born with both internal and external abnormalities such as cleft palate, missing ears, facial dysmorphism and central nervous system malformations.

In fact, among Accutane-exposed pregnancies, 42 percent of infants suffer from birth defects.

Because of the high risk of miscarriage and deformities, the FDA worked with Roche to create programs to ensure that Accutane users were not and would not become pregnant. The first program was put into place in 2002 and was called SMART (System to Manage Accutane Related Teratogenicity).  SMART required qualification stickers on prescriptions, signed consent forms, patient education videos and information guides. In addition, doctors and pharmacists were required to read literature on the risks.

In 2006, a stricter system was put in place, called the i-PLEDGE program. The computer-based system required registration by pharmacies, doctors and patients. Within the system, negative pregnancy tests from approved labs were periodically required before medication was dispensed, prescriptions only covered 30 days at a time, and users were required to utilize two types of birth control.

According to a 2007 study funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, the rate of elective abortions for patients who got pregnant during Accutane use was 84 percent. This rate was based on 90 women, out of 8,609, who became pregnant while taking Accutane. Of the remaining pregnant women, three had spontaneous abortions, two had delivery trauma that resulted in neonatal death, and nine infants survived. One of the nine was born with face and neck abnormalities.

Gastrointestinal Disorders

Women of child-bearing age are not the only ones who have suffered after taking Accutane. Adults of all ages, as well as teenagers, have had their lives interrupted with other serious side effects, which may include inflammatory bowel disease and suicidal behavior.

Roche maintains that it was not aware of side effects relating to inflammatory bowel disease, however, early animal trials of Accutane by Roche showed evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in dogs. Another early study by Roche of 523 patients found that 21 percent experienced gastrointestinal disorders.

Since Accutane’s release, many patients have sued after developing gastrointestinal conditions, mainly consisting of inflammatory bowel diseases that come in two forms. One is ulcerative colitis, associated with inflammation of the digestive tract and ulcers in the large intestine and rectum. The other is Crohn’s disease, which may develop anywhere in the intestinal tract and can cause fistulas and bowel obstructions. Both conditions can be devastating, causing patients to suffer for years from symptoms like vomiting, rectal bleeding and diarrhea. In addition, patients may require surgery to remove parts of the bowel.

Suicide

Psychiatric problems have also been linked to Accutane use. From 1982 to May 2000, the FDA received hundreds of reports linking isotretinoin use to depression, including 37 suicides, 110 hospitalizations for depression or suicidal behavior, and 284 cases of non-hospitalized depression. Roche responded to the reports of depression and suicide in 1998 by adding a warning to the medication’s label stating that Accutane could cause psychiatric disorders.

According to a study in the book Drug Injury: Liability, Analysis and Prevention, Drs. Donald Marks and Tzarina Middlekoop found that the number of formal adverse reaction reports, from national and international health agencies, of suicide and suicidal behavior associated with Accutane use reached 500, making it the fourth highest number of adverse reactions in the United States prior to 2005. The mechanism of action that makes Accutane cause psychiatric events is not fully understood, nor has a link between depression and Accutane been proven. However, the high number of reports of depression in people without a psychiatric history suggests there is a link.

Accutane Lawsuits

Kamie Kendall, a New Jersey Accutane user who was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, won a verdict of $10.5 million in 2008. That verdict was later vacated.

In 2010, another bowel disease case involving Accutane was decided in Atlantic City, N.J., when Andrew McCarrell – who required five surgeries and the removal of his colon— was awarded $25.16 million. Roche is appealing.

In 2012, also in Atlantic City, two more claimants who developed bowel disease, Kathleen Rossitto and Riley Wilkinson, were awarded $9 million each for damages. Roche is also appealing these verdicts.

These are just a few of the 7,000-plus lawsuits that have been filed against Roche over the debilitating side effects of Accutane.

While some claimants receive millions — for damages and medical expenses — the numbers do not compare to the company’s revenue from selling the dangerous drug. For example, annual Accutane sales at  their peak, in 2000, were up to $759.4 million.

Lawsuits against Roche are not limited to bowel disease. They also come from patients and families of patients who have experienced side effects such as birth defects, depression and suicide attempts. Because warnings were added slowly between the time Accutane was released in 1982 and the time it was discontinued in 2009, some cases hinge on the dates that the medication was prescribed, when health concerns were diagnosed, and when warnings were publicized.

 

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

http://www.rense.com/general32/scu.htm

(copied, a UPI article)

Congressional Committee Finds Accutane Causes Suicide

By Steve Mitchell

UPI Medical Correspondent

12-12-2   (2002)

WASHINGTON (UPI) — A congressional oversight committee’s two-year investigation released Wednesday has found the acne drug Accutane frequently has been associated with suicide.

The investigation also made public an internal FDA memo from 1998 recommending the drug be taken off the market due to its potential to cause birth defects.

Staffers on the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations spent hundreds of hours culling internal memos, reports and e-mails obtained from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as from Accutane’s manufacturer, Roche U.S. Pharmaceuticals, part of Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., of Nutley, N.J.

More than 200 people have taken their lives while taking Accutane — and perhaps many more — but neither the FDA nor Roche has ever publicly admitted the suicides were due to the drug.

“This investigation leads to one conclusion: In some cases … Accutane results in severe cases of depression, suicide ideation, suicide attempts and suicide,” said Bart Stupak, R-Mich. Stupak’s son, B.J., died in 2000 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound while taking Accutane.

“If the FDA cannot or will not regulate Accutane, … then it is imperative for the U.S. Congress to act to protect the American public,” Stupak said.

Committee members grilled representatives from FDA and Roche on the findings of their investigation, charging both have failed to protect the public from the known risks of Accutane. Both denied the suicide link and said a new plan instituted earlier this year will lower the incidence of birth defects.

Accutane, first approved in 1982, is intended to be used as a last resort to treat severe forms of acne that cause scarring and cysts. It often works miracles, as patients have attested, because it can clear up their skin in a matter of months. However, the drug carries serious side effects. It is known to cause birth defects and an unknown percentage of people using the drug have developed depression and committed suicide.

The FDA and Roche maintained there is no scientific proof the drug caused the depression or suicide cases — although the labeling on the drug specifically warns of both possibilities. The FDA has confirmed 167 cases of suicide in people taking Accutane. Stupak said his office sent 37 more cases to the agency last week. He said, however, internal FDA documents suggested this was less than 1 percent of the total number of suicides by people on Accutane, indicating the real number could range from 2,000 to as high as 20,000.

Stupak also cited a 1994 FDA memo discussing a teleconference call with Roche. It said Roche concurred with the agency that there does appear to be a problem with Accutane and depression and suicide.

Roche’s president and CEO George Abercrombie said he was not familiar with the memo or the teleconference call.

Accutane also is known to cause birth defects, such as ear deformities — including a lack of an inner and outer ear — fatal heart defects and mental retardation. The committee obtained internal memos from the CDC and FDA that said risk of birth defects is so dangerous the drug should not be allowed to be sold. A CDC official wrote in a 1998 letter to the FDA that Accutane is just as serious a cause of birth defects as the cancer and leprosy drug thalidomide, and “we simply need to remove the drug from the market.”

Another FDA internal memo, written in 1998, said, “Accutane poses a significant public health threat and as such should be withdrawn from the market.”

The memos notwithstanding, the FDA has attempted to put provisions in place to inform women of this risk and warn them not to become pregnant while taking the drug. Despite these efforts, and warnings to physicians to prescribe the drug only for the most serious form of acne, the investigation found 90 percent of women who received the drug suffered only mild acne and nearly half of all prescriptions went to teens with mild cases of acne.

Pressed by committee members on this, FDA’s Janet Woodcock, director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said, “A proportion of people treated with this drug in the last decade had mild acne and should’ve been treated with other drugs.”

Roche’s Abercrombie disagreed, saying, “we believe the vast majority of use is” appropriate and in people who have severe acne.

The FDA has no control over how a drug is prescribed and physicians are essentially left to their own discretion to decide whether to limit a drug to the use for which it is approved.

Stupak noted although thalidomide is not used by women likely to have children, it is tightly controlled and regulated with a system that requires the physician, the pharmacist and the patient to be registered. “Yet, Accutane is not tightly controlled like thalidomide, and Accutane is marketed to women of child-bearing years despite its horrendous record of causing birth defects,” he said.

The FDA estimated about 2,000 pregnancies per year occur in women taking Accutane. Roche disputed that number, saying only about 2,300 pregnancies have occurred, in total, since the drug first became available 20 years ago.

“Roche isn’t telling the truth on that,” Stupak told United Press Interational. During the hearing, he cited a 1999 report from Roche that mentioned 93 pregnancies affected and 42 abortions in women taking the drug during only one-quarter of that year.

The FDA has worked with Roche to develop a new plan called the System to Manage Accutane Related Teratogenicity, or SMART, that began in April. This requires women to get a pregnancy test each month, receive repeat counseling about birth defects, and agree to use two forms of contraception while on Accutane. This new program will help curtail pregnancies in women on the drug and, therefore, birth defects, Woodcock said.

However, Lynn Martinez of the birth defects program at the Organization of Teratology Information Services, a national group that tracks prenatal exposures, said her organization is still getting calls from women who have become pregnant while taking Accutane even after the SMART program has gone into effect.

Many experts testifying before the subcommittee called for a mandatory registration similar to the thalidomide system. They urged that doctors, pharmacists and individuals taking the drug be required to register. This has been employed in Europe for Accutane and there are nearly no birth defects associated with the drug in that region, Stupak said.

FDA’s Woodcock said such requirements would violate patient confidentiality and, by making the drug harder to get, would only create a black market. Pressed on this by the subcommittee, she admitted there was no evidence tighter restrictions would lead to a black market.

The investigation also found Accutane is being purchased in Mexico and brought illegally into the United States, and it is available on approximately 40 Internet Web sites, where individuals can order it without a prescription or being informed of the risks, Stupak said.

Roche could help crack down on these illegally sold products simply by purchasing some of them and using the tracking codes on packaging to determine where they originated, Stupak told UPI. He noted Pfizer did something similar with its drug Viagra to curtail illicit sales.

Roche relies on regulatory and law enforcement agencies to control the illegal sales of Accutane, Abercrombie said. “As soon as we are made aware of illegal distribution, … we immediately turn that information over to the appropriate authorities,” he said.

The committee also faulted Roche for its ads targeting consumers, given the serious consequences that can result from the drug and the assumption by the medical community that patients should be strictly warned of the side effects.

Although the ads do not mention Accutane specifically, the purpose of the ads was to make consumers aware there were treatments for severe acne, Abercrombie said.

“What you just said is not a truthful statement,” said Peter Deutsch, D-Fla. He held up a Roche ad depicting a teenage male who did not appear to have acne. “You’re beyond the straight-face test, I’m sorry,” he added.

If FDA fails to regulate Accutane adequately, Congress could pass legislation regulating Internet sales of pharmaceuticals, requiring the FDA to more closely monitor people taking this drug and requiring the FDA to do a better job of controlling illegal importation of drugs, Stupak told UPI.

In response to the committee’s investigation, the FDA announced this week that it was placing importation restrictions on Accutane and warned consumers not to buy it over the Internet.

To add to the list of problems associated with Accutane, the FDA recently made the decision to include the risk of violent and aggressive behavior on the list of warnings on labeling.

 

Copyright © 2002 United Press International. All rights reserved.

May 062016
 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/03/i-never-advised-mike-duffy-about-housing-expenses-david-tkachuk-says.html

The Conservative senator says the only advice he ever gave was about caucus responsibilities, contrary to Duffy’s testimony at the trial.

Mike Duffy testified he spoke with David Tkachuk, pictured, and asked whether he could claim expenses against his Ottawa-area home as a secondary residence. Tkachuk said the meeting never happened.

Mike Duffy testified he spoke with David Tkachuk, pictured, and asked whether he could claim expenses against his Ottawa-area home as a secondary residence. Tkachuk said the meeting never happened.   (FRED CHARTRAND / THE CANADIAN PRESS File Photo)  

OTTAWA—A senior Conservative senator who was labelled as the guru of Senate rules by Mike Duffy’s judge says the widely-held view of his role in the whole affair is more fiction than fact.

Sen. David Tkachuk insists he never advised Duffy on questions about his housing and travel allowances, despite Duffy’s criminal trial having been told otherwise.

Tkachuk says the only advice he gave during a January 2009 meeting of new senators was about caucus responsibilities, since he hadn’t yet been appointed to the executive of the Senate’s internal economy committee, which oversees expense rules.

Duffy testified at his trial that he spoke with Tkachuk one-on-one after the meeting and asked whether he could or should claim expense against his Ottawa-area home as a secondary residence.

The question came amid media reports that raised questions about Duffy’s constitutional eligibility to sit as a senator from Prince Edward Island.

Duffy testified Tkachuk told him the claims were essential to quell eligibility questions and that Duffy should claim for daily meal allowances in the capital, even though Duffy said he personally didn’t believe in them.

Tkachuk said the meeting never happened.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Tkachuk said he would have told Duffy to speak with Senate lawyers or someone on the internal economy committee if he faced questions on Jan. 7, 2009, about Senate rules. Tkachuk said he didn’t join the internal economy committee until Feb. 10, 2009.

“It’s important that people know I wasn’t sitting there advising Sen. Duffy about how he should conduct his residency claims at a meeting that I never had with him and that I had no right to be at because I wasn’t a member of internal economy,” Tkachuk said.

Duffy has not responded to a request for comment.

Late last month, Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt dismissed 31 criminal charges on fraud, breach of trust and bribery against Duffy, all of them related to his Senate expenses. Vaillancourt called the Senate rules vague and ruled that Duffy was forced to take a $90,000 payment from Nigel Wright, Stephen Harper’s then chief of staff, to pay off his politically problematic housing expenses even though Duffy contended he had done nothing wrong.

Tkachuk’s role in the affair related to his position on the internal economy committee, which oversaw the audit of Duffy’s expenses and subsequent changes to spending rules.

Tkachuk wasn’t called to testify and he says the Crown never contacted him, even though he was available to take the stand. He says he was surprised he wasn’t called as a witness.

He says the facts in the criminal trial skewed his role in the matter and he wants to give his side of the story.

“I know what the truth is, as far as I’m concerned, and the facts bear me out,” he said.

Duffy returned to Parliament Hill for the first time Monday since his acquittal and he returned to his seat in the upper chamber on Tuesday amid colleagues who voted to suspend him without pay in late 2013.

Much like before his suspension, he sits near the front door, in the back row close to Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin, former Conservatives who were also suspended without pay over questionable expenses.

Sen. John Wallace said the suspension process was a debacle and a breach of due process.

He said the Senate should give Duffy back the almost $270,000 he lost in wages during his suspension because Vaillancourt’s judgment “totally demolished” the basis for the suspension: That Duffy was negligent with his spending.

“There was a rush to judgment and some would say a rush to political judgment and he paid the price for it,” Wallace said.

To get the money back would require passing of a motion, which any senator could put forward.

Sen. Don Plett, the Conservative whip, wouldn’t say whether Duffy deserved the back pay.

“His pay was not deducted because of any criminal charges. They were deducted because of a disciplinary action, well before there were any criminal charges. The two are not related,” Plett said on his way into the Senate chamber.

Apr 202016
 
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/health-minister-jane-philpott-discusses-crisis-in-attawapiskat-and-assisted-dying-bill-1.3535593/saudi-arabia-deal-a-question-of-principle-1.3535644
Saudi Arabia deal: a question of principle?    (I would prefer a better title – –  this is a story about the resistance, one man who is mounting a Court Challenge, Daniel Turp.  A good interview.)

Listen 8:51

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the government’s decision to go ahead with a $15 billion arms contract with Saudi Arabia a ‘question of principle’ – but is it a done deal?

Constitutional lawyer Daniel Turp hopes the answer is no. He’s leading a court challenge against the federal government, hoping a judge will block the sale due to Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations.

“The principle here is about protecting human rights,” Turp told Chris Hall on CBC Radio’s The House. “I think that’s the issue that concerns Canadians.”

Canada releases redacted report on human rights in Saudi Arabia

As Liberals defend Saudi arms deal, U.S. report highlights human rights concerns

When the Conservative government originally made a $15-billion deal in 2014 with Saudi Arabia to sell the country combat vehicles, it was heralded internally as a success. Despite the deal proving more politically complicated for Justin Trudeau, he has repeatedly said his government will not intervene to cancel the contract.

The Canadian government’s rules state it will not export arms to countries that perpetrate consistent human rights violations, with the exception of there being no reasonable risk the arms could be used against civilians.

Justifying the approval of export permits to send $11-billion worth of combat vehicles to Saudi Arabia, Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion said he has seen no evidence that the country would use Canadian arms against its own people.

“As with all export permits, the Minister of Foreign Affairs retains the power to revoke at any time the permits should the assessment change,” Dion said this week. “Should I become aware of credible information of violations related to this equipment, I will suspend or revoke the permits.”

Turp isn’t buying that explanation.

“The one thing that’s so unconvincing is the argument Minister Dion made,” Turp said.

“To say you will suspend or revoke the permits if you become aware of violations…well, that will be a little bit late, you know? Too little, too late. Those vehicles will have been used to breach human rights.”

Turp said he understands that to cancel the contract would have “economic consequences” for Canada and specifically in London, Ont., where the light-armoured vehicles are produced by General Dynamics Land Systems.

“You clearly sense that what’s important here is the trade aspect of this contract. But it’s not about stability, it’s not about strategy. It’s about human rights. It’s about not exporting military equipment to countries that routinely and severely breach human rights.”​

2016-03-03 Can Trauma be Passed on through our DNA? By Jonathan Davis

 Epigenetics  Comments Off on 2016-03-03 Can Trauma be Passed on through our DNA? By Jonathan Davis
Apr 202016
 

Can Trauma be Passed on through our DNA?

 

This is a topic we’ve followed.   Links to the set of related articles is included in:

2015-06-06 Epigenetics, is it the same as, or different from, cellular memory passed inter-generationally? (Residential Schools. Trauma)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Text of  Can Trauma be Passed on through our DNA?   By  Jonathan Davis  appears below, in case the original article disappears.

Learning to release trauma before we pass it on to the next generation

PTSD is a whole-body tragedy, an integral human event of enormous proportions with massive repercussions. ― Susan Pease Banitt

Intergenerational Trauma is the idea that serious trauma can affect the children and grandchildren of those who had the first hand experience, due to living with a person suffering from PTSD and the challenges that can bring. What’s new is that, thanks to the emerging field of epigenetics, science is discovering that trauma is being passed down to future generations through more than simply learned behaviours.

One widely reported example is of holocaust survivors passing on the effects of trauma to children and grandchildren. It seems that trauma or its effects are being passed down through our genes, and it has enormous consequences for us as a species.

Alt text hereScience is showing that intergenerational trauma is a reality

What are we Passing on our Children?

The single most dangerous idea I learned in school is that the genes you get from you parents are passed on to your children, and nothing you do in your life changes them. Thankfully, however, the findings of the new scientific field of epigenetics is starting to change this dangerous attitude. We do indeed pass on the exact same chromosomes from parent to child, however the quality they are in when we receive them can be improved or diminished according to what happens to us and the choices we make during our lifetime.

The reason why it’s dangerous for us to believe otherwise is that it has lead to entire generations of people believing that their choices concerning their own body and the environment affecting it have no detrimental effect on the genes of future generations. In short it has the potential to see us devolve, simply out of ignorance. Fortunately, as awareness of epigenetics spreads, it’s helping people understand that how we live our lives can change the quality of our own genes for the better and those we pass on to our offspring.

Alt text hereIs trauma passed down through our DNA?

What Is Epigenetics?

We all know the image of a DNA double helix. Imagine now that each of the thirteen rungs in the spiral ladder that makes a chromosome is not simply a rung, but a binary, amino acid on/off switch. You may have received an exact same chromosome that your mother or your father carried, but this chromosome has been changing according to the way you’ve been living your life Some rungs in the ladder are off where they were once on and vice versa. Your genes are responding to the environment like you are, because like you are, they are alive.

Our DNA exists at the heart of our cells and provide the instructions for new cells to be created, so better quality DNA equals better quality instructions for cells to be created and in turn a happier, healthier body. On the other hand continued degradation of the epigenetic structure of our genes could be leading to lowering of immunity and fertility, and increased susceptibility to cellular mutation.

When Emotional Trauma Becomes Overwhelming

In simple terms trauma occurs when we reach a point where we can’t cope, we are overwhelmed and we don’t have the tools or skills to find our way through. We find ourselves in a state where our sympathetic nervous system goes into overdrive and we can get stuck in fight or flight mode for far longer than our body is designed to remain that way. Sustaining this state of high alert causes depletion and disruption of the normal functions of our system. In our culture we refer to acute cases of this as PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder.

Alt text herePTSD is widespread among survivors of war and other traumatic events

Thanks to this diagnosis, we have this somewhat arbitrary boundary which almost says that the truly traumatised people are on one side and the rest of us are on the other. The reality is that the boundary between those who suffer from PTSD and everyone else was invented, created, made up by the human mind with little regard for the fact that trauma is carried within us all in varying degrees. Each of us is on a sliding scale that goes all the way up to and past the line that tips a person into being diagnosed with PTSD.

The kind of trauma we all carry can include the smallest things like the time we were laughed at for not knowing the answer to a question, or other seemingly insignificant things like being teased as a child. It can include any moments of pain and tragedy that have occurred throughout our life, but by far the biggest factor of whether the pain remains with us as trauma is whether it was overwhelming, and whether it continued to be overwhelming.

Alt text hereWe need support to be able to feel and process our trauma

According to transpersonal psychologists, when the trauma is so overwhelming that our only defence mechanism is to avoid feeling it, then we continue to carry it until someday we have the courage and strength to finally feel all of it and come to emotional completion, though the physical event may have ended long ago. A number of problems can prevent this: a person may not feel like they are in a safe enough environment, or not supported enough to go into the vulnerability of feeling their old pain in order to release it. The person may struggle with being re-traumatised by going back in to the memory of what happened.

Releasing Our Trauma So It Doesn’t Get Passed On

For some people, it’s enough to explain to them that they simply need to accept and allow the feelings of pain and discomfort to exist instead of trying to hide them, avoid them or push them away. As soon as as a person judges and labels their inner pain as something bad or something they don’t want or don’t like, they are inadvertently and unwittingly grabbing and holding their pain and preventing it from leaving.

Alt text hereLearning to release trauma before it is passed on to our children

Allowing the pain to flow instead of trying to stop it from happening is how we allow it to leave us and be released, however there is considerable risk of re-traumatization. In my opinion, this occurs when a person wakes up their old pain and trauma to try to release it, but then instead of accepting and thereby allow it to flow out of them they contract contract around it with their judgment that this is something they don’t want. So they experience the pain again, but do so without actually releasing it.

For many at the extreme end of the trauma scale known as PTSD, these experiences of past pain and trauma coming up in order to be released are uninvited and involuntary. During these bouts which can be triggered by anything that remotely resembles the original trauma or nothing at all, re-traumatisation is occurring repeatedly and compounding the problem.

Alt text hereRe-traumatisation can compound the problem

What Happens When We Can’t Release Our Old Pain and Trauma?

If a person experiences trauma and they are never able to come to emotional completion because it is simply too overwhelming then the environmental influence of those events on the body through immense amounts of stress hormones signal to the genes that the environment is hostile and unsafe, and this has an effect on the epigenetic quality of the genes. The epigenetic structure of the genes changes and these genes in this state can then be passed to subsequent generations.

The worst examples of intergenerational trauma occur when a generation is born carry the trauma of their parents, and their parents and now the children as well are still living in circumstances that are traumatic. In some cases this can go on for generations, particularly in cases of ongoing war, colonialisation and genocide. Prof. Judy Atkinson speaks about her work helping entire indigenous communities heal from transgenerational trauma in her book Trauma Trails, and the traditional approach she works with can be found in the following Uplift article. Techniques such as breathwork and vipassana have also been successful as well as severe cases of PTSD having been healed through psychedelic means such as MDMA assisted psychotherapy, or ceremonial use of Ayahuasca.

Alt text hereCan trauma be passed between generations?

Evolving, Not Devolving As A Species

I like to think that the epigenetic structure of our DNA can be like either a rock or a crystal. The molecules in a rock can be identical to those found in a crystal with the only difference being that the molecules in the rock are jumbled and those in the crystal are more aligned allowing light to pass through. In the same way, perhaps there are more jumbled and more aligned states that the those amino acid on/off switches in our DNA can find themselves in. The good news is that if our epigenetic structure can become relatively jumbled due to challenging and painful environmental factors, they may also become more aligned as we make healthier decisions about exposing ourself to less environmental contaminants and, if possible, less emotional contaminants like stress and trauma.

My personal theory about life is that the reality we live in is a rigged game; that all paths lead to learning and growth. The less gentle path may be for the quality of our DNA to degrade, perhaps increasing the likelihood that a) those that can’t adapt fast enough don’t survive, as well as b) sudden mutation jumping us to a different sub-branch of the evolutionary tree. The more gentle path to evolution may be by bringing our epigenetic code into higher states of alignment by healing our past pain and trauma and perhaps even healing the trauma that was passed to us from our ancestors. The only question that remains is: what kind of species do we wish to be?

How do you feel about this article? Join the conversation.

Words By Jonathan Davis

Amplifying personal healing and growth for collective evolution.

Apr 152016
 

Establishes:  Solo has docs.  Finley provided password.  Solo copied them.

The first document establishes GPC Ombuds Committee investigation of Ashu’s complaints about me.

The second document is evidence provided by Ashu that he saw and made copies of the posted material (286 pages).

Author:  Ashu Solo

Date: July 26, 2015

Recipients:   blawrence@sasktel.net, hvoth@sasktel.net, lynn.oliphant@usask.ca, lynn.oliphant@yourlink.ca, jannorri@gmail.com, ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard <mark@lowenergydesign.com>, patricia.farnese@usask.ca, Dave Abbey <turninggreen2014@gmail.com>, Larry Waldinger <lwaldinger@gmail.com>

Description:   Solo has docs.  Finley provided password.  Solo copied them.

– – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – –

From: Ombuds Chair [mailto:ombuds.chair@greenparty.ca]

Sent: June 1, 2014 9:36 PM

To: sandra.finley <sandra.finley@greenparty.ca> Subject: Ombuds issue

 

Sandra,

I am the chair of the remnants of the Ombuds Committee, and we have been asked to deal with complaints by Ashu Solo. There are a number of things we are not clear about; I hope you can help us understand the facts in the case, and the background, better than we do now.

It would help us to better understand the background of your complaint to Federal Council about Mr. Solo.  Are you willing to enable us to access the information about that, or to forward it to this address?

Thank you.

Sara Golling

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

June 20, 2014:    I removed the password so that the members of the Ombuds Committee and Ashu Solo could see the information I would use to defend myself against Ashu Solo’s 10 complaints against me, calling for the revocation of my membership in the Green Party of Canada.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THAT ASHU SOLO RECEIVED THE PASSWORD AND MADE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS:

I high-lighted the relevant text.

Note that there are many falsifications in Ashu’s text.

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject: CIVIL CLAIM AGAINST FINLEY AND GREEN PARTY OF CANADA: BULLYING OF ME IN SASKATOON EDA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 03:08:48 -0600
From: Ashu M. G. Solo <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>
Reply-To: amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us
Organization: Maverick Technologies America Inc.
To: blawrence@sasktel.net, hvoth@sasktel.net, lynn.oliphant@usask.ca, lynn.oliphant@yourlink.ca, jannorri@gmail.com, ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’ <mark@lowenergydesign.com>, patricia.farnese@usask.ca, Dave Abbey <turninggreen2014@gmail.com>, Larry Waldinger <lwaldinger@gmail.com>

 

Without Prejudice

Sandra Finley, the former CEO of the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association, has been spreading lies about me to try to drive me out of the green parties.  She did so as part of a vetting process on me for me to be a GPC candidate in which she was assisted by Vicki Strelioff and Penny Swartz.  This vetting process immediately turned into spreading lies about me.

As part of this vetting process, Finley created 52 blog posts about me containing over 175 lies about me and my family as well as personal information about me and my family.  After Finley posted my family address, there was vandalism at their house probably because I have a lot of enemies from my civil rights cases.  My damages include, inter alia, loss of high paying employment opportunities for me, loss of other opportunities, medical damages, and numerous other damages.  Finley will be liable for my damages.  I won’t repeat the lies in an email, but I’ll show them to you in person if you like.  Is this something that you think is acceptable of your friend Finley?

Finley’s 52 blog posts about me were 286 pages when printed out.  286 pages.  Think about that.  Doesn’t your buddy Finley have anything better to do with her time?  Anyone could find a more useful way to spend that time.  If I were writing 286 pages, I would write a book or numerous research papers and articles, not 52 blog posts to defame someone.

My lawyer filed a statement of claim against Finley, Finley’s current and former web hosting companies, and the GPC and served it to the defendants.  Finley has hired a lawyer for $300/hour to defend herself.  Finley previously refused to listen to demand letters from my lawyer and me.  Several days after being served with a statement of claim, Finley finally took down her 52 blog posts about me.

I have seen absolute proof in the form of emails on Finley’s blog that Finley sent the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association some of these lies and that this was part of her vetting me to be a candidate on behalf of the EDA and GPC.  This is why the GPC is liable for her actions too.  Patricia tried to convince me that the GPC won’t be liable probably because she doesn’t want me suing the GPC, but I know the GPC is liable and my lawyer strongly believes that the GPC is liable.

The EDA let someone who they knew was hostile toward me, Finley, vet me without my knowledge and send the EDA lies about me without even giving me a chance to defend myself.  They should not have done this.  THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE LET SOMEONE WHO THEY KNEW WAS HOSTILE TOWARD ME DO VETTING OF ME OR DO SO WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR SEND THEM LIES ABOUT ME WITHOUT GETTING MY SIDE OF THE STORY.  They made the GPC liable for Finley’s actions by letting Finley vet me.  Finley’s vetting of me was an attempt to drive me out of the GPC, as she repeatedly openly admitted on her blog.

Furthermore, the EDA didn’t forward me the emails containing lies that Finley sent them about me and give me a chance to defend myself.  THEY SHOULD HAVE FORWARDED ME THESE EMAILS AND GIVEN ME A CHANCE TO DEFEND MYSELF.  I’ve seen these emails because Finley posted them on her blog and Larry has now forwarded them to me.

The EDA was angry and crying at me for repeatedly emailing the EDA about what Finley was doing, but they were the ones who let Finley vet me, which consisted of her lying about me to try to drive me out of the GPC.  Patricia said that I should deal with the ethics committee, but they didn’t even respond to or deal with my complaints.  Then the Ombuds Committee later took over the matter.

The EDA didn’t want me suing Finley.  I should have sued her much earlier than I did.  That would have stopped her from posting 286 pages full of lies about me on the Internet.  The problem is I had a lawyer before who was too busy with his corporate cases to write the statement of claim.  Now I switched to a less busy lawyer who filed the statement of claim.

I was driven out of the EDA by Finley spreading lies about me and endangering my family.  Instead of getting mad at her, the EDA got mad at me fighting back against it.  I’M JUST GETTING STARTED IN FIGHTING BACK AGAINST IT. 

Under Canadian common law (Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Crookes v. Newton), web hosting companies are liable for defamatory content by their clients once they’ve been made aware of it.  For this reason, Finley’s current and former web hosting companies are defendants in this civil claim too.  After Finley’s first web hosting company received the demand letter from my lawyer (they ignored my demand letters), they discontinued Finley’s web hosting service and then Finley moved her blog (including her libelous blog posts about me) to a web hosting company in Russia, who we are also suing now.

Furthermore, some of you turned a blind eye to Strelioff cutting Larry off the EDA mailing list, even after I informed the EDA of this multiple times.  YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS TO A GOOD PERSON LIKE LARRY WHO HURT NONE OF YOU.

Kaitlyn, who was on the executive, said it’s not in her job description as financial agent to worry about Strelioff cutting Larry off the EDA mailing list.  It wasn’t in Kaitlyn’s job description to take pictures of Elizabeth May when she came here to promote a book, but Kaitlyn did that.  Then Kaitlyn had the audacity to say she would like the help of Larry on doing the financial agent work.

Lynn Oliphant started forwarding EDA emails to Larry.  Jan Norris complained about Larry being cut off the EDA mailing list and then I believe Strelioff cut her off the EDA mailing list too at least in one email I saw.  This is the kind of totally dysfunctional social club that you belong to.  It’s a dysfunctional social club, not an EDA.

The former Federal Council president told Strelioff to add Larry back to the EDA mailing list and Federal Council assumed she did and didn’t even bother telling Larry they had requested this.  But Strelioff never added Larry back to the EDA mailing list.

Strelioff and Swartz were helping Finley in vetting me, which was really driving me out of the green parties as Finley openly admitted on her blog.  They may be added as defendants in the civil claim later too.

I only found out that Finley was vetting me when she made her blog posts on me visible to the public.  Why didn’t I find this out earlier?  What’s with this secretive vetting bullshit?  Why aren’t people asked about doubts about their qualifications instead of just assuming that the lies are true?  I indicated an interest in being a candidate, but never said for sure that I wanted to be a candidate, so there was no reason to even vet me.

The EDA had three people with no engineering or advanced math education reviewing my refereed (peer-reviewed) research papers in engineering and advanced math.  Engineering and advanced math research papers are incomprehensible to laypersons.

The EDA should have told me in August 2013 when Finley was claiming that I’m faking employment in an American company with a similar but clearly different name to my company name and when she sent you a research paper I didn’t even write and never claimed to write and falsely claimed I wrote it and it’s nonsensical.

Finley also posted on her blog all of my emails to the EDA because Strelioff forwarded these to her.  In these emails, I was complaining about Finley’s lies and mentioning some of them while complaining.  Finley is going to be liable for this too.  Don’t give Finley more lies to post by forwarding to anyone these emails in which I’m complaining about Finley’s lies and the EDA’s approval of Finley secretly vetting me.  This is a confidential email.

Is it racism, gender bigotry, religious bigotry, or blind friendship that caused Strelioff to try to drive me and Larry out of the party when her friend Finley was spreading lies about me and to turn a blind eye to Finley’s lies?  What would cause the EDA to turn a blind eye to Finley sending libelous emails about me that I didn’t know about from August 2013?

Sean Turner quit the EDA too because of Finley spreading lies about me.  Larry resigned as financial agent because of Finley spreading lies about me.  The EDA has been destroyed by all of these unprofessional and unethical acts and the truth is going to come out in court.  Finley, the GPC, and Finley’s web hosting companies are going to pay for my damages.

Following is Finley’s motivation as she wrote on her blog.  This is bullshit about me threatening people’s safety, etc.  On her blog, Sandra Finley made the following bizarre statements about her motivation in spreading lies about me:

TITLE:  Why bother with Ashu Solo?  What do I want for others?  and Women Who Run with the Wolves.

Why am I bothering with Ashu Solo?

I take my lessons from “Women Who Run With the Wolves” and the child’s book, “Julie and the Wolf Pack”.   And many, if not all indigenous groups:  you develop a way to deal with those who are destructive of the fabric (health) of the community or the pack.   Failure to do so means that the pack or the group will not survive.

Ashu will destroy the Green Parties in Saskatoon with his attacks.  He has to be removed from the group.  It might be unpleasant to do so, but one person should not be allowed to exercise his destructive powers.  He drives people out;  the opposite is required – – – – without even mentioning his threats to personal safety of people in Saskatoon.

The parallel in the Wolf Pack is the lead female who barred a lone male from joining because she intuited trouble.  Another pack accepted him;  he had rabies.  End of that pack.  It’s about survival.  Of the pack, but also of the individual because you do not survive in the Arctic on your own.   For survival (Arctic), it is essential to be in a group working together.

Here’s an excerpt from the amended statement of claim on Finley’s motivations:

  1. Furthermore, Finley was actuated by malevolence toward the Plaintiff, her statements were knowingly false or knowingly likely to mislead the public, and she made the statements with the intention of harming the Plaintiff’s reputation. The intentional wrongs of Finley as pleaded herein are shocking and egregious and warrant an award of punitive, aggravated, and/or exemplary damages.
  1. Example 1:  Finley published this statement by herself password protection on her Blog in or about 2013 or 2014 and made the statement visible to the public on or about June 20, 2014:

TITLE:  Why bother with Ashu Solo?  What do I want for others?  and Women Who Run with the Wolves.

Why am I bothering with Ashu Solo?

I take my lessons from “Women Who Run With the Wolves” and the child’s book, “Julie and the Wolf Pack”.   And many, if not all indigenous groups:  you develop a way to deal with those who are destructive of the fabric (health) of the community or the pack.   Failure to do so means that the pack or the group will not survive.

Ashu will destroy the Green Parties in Saskatoon with his attacks.  He has to be removed from the group.  It might be unpleasant to do so, but one person should not be allowed to exercise his destructive powers.  He drives people out;  the opposite is required – – – – without even mentioning his threats to personal safety of people in Saskatoon.

The parallel in the Wolf Pack is the lead female who barred a lone male from joining because she intuited trouble.  Another pack accepted him;  he had rabies.  End of that pack.  It’s about survival.  Of the pack, but also of the individual because you do not survive in the Arctic on your own.   For survival (Arctic), it is essential to be in a group working together.

  1. Example 2:  Finley published this statement by Jane Doe using the fake name Tonia Zimmerman under password protection on her Blog in or about 2013 or 2014 and made the statement visible to the public on or about June 20, 2014.  This statement is about using Finley’s Blog posts against the Plaintiff to drive him out of the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Saskatchewan:

That is likely the wisest course of action–I can definitely be patient about seeing the other material–I hope that he backs away from the Greens willingly so that we really don’t need to use ANY of it, though it is so good and vital to have it all documented, and by someone with a sterling reputation.

  1. Example 3:  Finley emailed the following statement by herself to Jane Doe on or about December 13, 2013, published this statement under password protection on her Blog in or about 2013 or 2014, and made this statement visible to the public on or about June 20, 2014.  This statement shows that Finley’s motivation was to drive the Plaintiff out of the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Saskatchewan:

Do not worry about drawing me into this fracas.  I feel badly for you!  My Green friend and I had hoped that we might have convinced Ashu that the Green Party was not a good place for him.  But he is persistent.  And has a couple of supporters.  He can be convincing when he wants something.

  1. Example 4:  Finley emailed the following statement by herself to unknown individuals on or about August 28, 2013, published this statement under password protection on her Blog in or about 2013 or 2014, and made this statement visible to the public on or about June 20, 2014.  This statement shows that Finley’s motivation was to drive the Plaintiff out of the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Saskatchewan:

But your idea is important.  And there’s a down-side to not taking action, things get “put off” and then permanently “put off”.   Until he’s in and then there’s a crisis.   We don’t need that!

The practice of driving people out of the party is absolutely disgraceful, totally unprofessional, and extremely unethical.  And it’s illegal if it involves spreading defamatory lies about someone.  It’s also highly  unethical, disgraceful, and unprofessional to cut people off the EDA mailing list.

Finley falsely claims that I am the principal of a U.S. defense contractor that is among the top eight contributors to politicians and that does data surveillance.  Finley claims this because I have a company called Trailblazer Intelligent Systems, Inc. and the Natural Security Agency has a Trailblazer Project.  Just because of the common word “trailblazer,” Finley claims that I operate a U.S. defense contractor.

Finley sent the EDA a research paper that I didn’t even write, never claimed to write, and never even heard of and then claimed that I wrote it and it’s nonsensical.

Finley found a company with a similar but clearly different name to my company and suggests that I was faking employment in this company with a similar but clearly different name.  (Mark has a company called Low Energy Design.  There is a company called Low Energy Designs in Europe.  Finley never claimed Mark is faking employment with that company because she isn’t targeting Mark.)

Finley said repeatedly on her blog that she was driving me out of the GPC because she thought it would protect the party.  Therefore, to retaliate against her and the EDA that let her vet me, I’m gonna do my best to lawfully destroy the GPC with the truth about what they did to me.

FINLEY PICKED THE WRONG PERSON TO MESS WITH THIS TIME BECAUSE I’M GOING TO LAWFULLY RETALIATE WITH EVERYTHING I GOT.  The same goes for her minions Strelioff and Swartz.  But my civil claim is not about revenge.  It’s about getting compensation for my damages, getting a permanent injunction against the defendants so they can’t defame me now or in the future, and getting a judgment that what they said was lies to protect my public reputation.

People can hate my guts for lawfully retaliating, but they should hate the guts of the people who started this.

I’M BURNING WITH RAGE about how much time of mine this EDA has wasted by letting Finley vet me.

Like I showed you above, Finley openly admits that she was trying to drive me out of the party.  Finley had blog postings showing that Strelioff and Swartz were helping her with this

For the actions of Finley, Strelioff, and Swartz in trying to drive me out of the party, I’m lawfully retaliating against all of them and the EDA.  I’m also lawfully retaliating against Strelioff for forwarding all of my emails to Finley.  I’M GOING TO LAWFULLY GET JUSTICE WITH EVERYTHING I GOT.

By letting Finley secretly vet me without my knowledge, which quickly became her spreading lies about me, THE EDA CAUSED ME SO MUCH IN DAMAGES including, inter alia, loss of employment, depression, and numerous other damages.

This case is going to trial because I’ve spent a fortune on legal fees now and lost a helluva lot of money from her damage to my reputation among other major damages to me.  I won’t settle out of court with Finley.  Finley is going to pay for, inter alia, my major damages, loss of employment, medical damages, and legal fees and I’m going to get a court judgment that her lies are lies.

Finley concluded that I’m bad for the party because of my civil rights cases and because she thinks I’m a “destructive force” in her words according to her blog, but she recruited the notorious criminal Brendan Cross to be a Green Party of Sask. nominee and made him the face of the party as the media spokesperson:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/brendan-cross-a-prospective-green-party-candidate-1.1046266

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/26/brendan-cross-pantless-regina_n_938629.html

Did they really think that I was worse for the green parties than Brendan Cross?

Finley repeatedly stated in her blog posts about me that they were GPC vetting results.  Finley took down her blog posts about me after being served with a statement of claim.

The Green Party of Canada is liable for Sandra Finley’s actions because of the following:  Sandra Finley is a volunteer operative for the Green Party of Canada.  Green Party of Canada electoral district association (EDA) executives and volunteers have broad discretion to do whatever they think is in the party’s interests and only other Green Party of Canada executives, staff, electoral district association executives, and volunteers can stop them.  Sandra Finley says repeatedly in her Internet postings about me that they were part of a vetting process on me to be a Green Party of Canada candidate for the House of Commons.  Sandra Finley says repeatedly that two other Green Party of Canada members (Strelioff and Swartz) helped gather the information on me.  Sandra Finley shows that she emailed a branch of the Green Party of Canada called the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association with the lies as part of the vetting process and nobody in the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association objected or told me about it and the financial agent for the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association agreed with her that it’s good to vet people, but said they should check with me about any questions they have on my qualifications.  Also, Sandra Finley includes in her Internet postings a bogus complaint made against me to the Green Party of Canada by a person using a fake name.  I made many ethics complaints against Sandra Finley on January 15, 2014 with the Green Party of Canada and they waited months to start processing them.  Finley openly admits that she did what she did because she thought it was in the party’s best interests to drive me out of the party and she did so as an active Green Party of Canada member.  There is a breach of fiduciary duty by the Green Party of Canada and Sandra Finley in making public vetting results as Sandra Finley has done.  The vetting results contain over 150 lies and distortions.  There is a breach of fiduciary duty by the Green Party of Canada and Sandra Finley in making public the private email conversations of EDA operatives.  There is a breach of fiduciary duty by the Green Party of Canada and Sandra Finley in making public a complaint, particularly a bogus one, to the Green Party of Canada about a member.  All of this makes the Green Party of Canada liable for her actions.

Apr 152016
 
CONTINUING,  Court dismisses charges against London arms fair protesters: 
The Guardian, The Independent in the U.K.  and Common Dreams,  URLs for three versions of the story:
The Guardian version of the story:

 Police move a protester from the road as a truck tries to make a delivery to the DSEI arms fair in London. Police move a protester from the road as a truck tries to make a delivery to the DSEI arms fair in London. Photograph: Peter Marshall/Demotix/Corbis

A court has dismissed charges against protesters who blocked the road outside a major London arms fair, after they argued that they acted to stop greater crimes being committed using weapons bought in the UK.

District judge Angus Hamilton, sitting at Stratford magistrates court, said the defence had presented clear and credible evidence that illegal activity had been conducted at the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in previous years, and that police arresting the activists had failed to investigate to ensure it was not happening again.

Five men and three women had been charged with wilful obstruction of the highway after attempting to block military vehicles from entering the ExCel centre in Docklands, east London, in September. They said they had acted to stop the sale of weapons to regimes accused of human rights abuses, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Other non-direct actions, such as writing to MPs, had failed to block arms sales to authoritarian regimes, the defence claimed, with support from expert witnesses from Corruption Watch UK, the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (Bird), and Amnesty International.

The prosecution lawyer had argued that no arms sales would be blocked by the demonstration and that protesters could have no idea where the arms were going. She said that if the eight were acquitted, protesters could resort to more violent direct actions in the name of stopping the arms trade. This argument was dismissed by the judge.

Defendants and their supporters burst into applause as Hamilton dismissed the charges on Friday against Isa al-Aali, Angela Ditchfield, Lisa Butler, Thomas Franklin, Javier Gárate Neidhardt, Susannah Mengesha, Luis Tinoco Torrejon and Bram Vranken.

Aali, a Bahraini refugee granted asylum in Britain after he was tortured in his home country for taking part in protests against the regime, said he was delighted with the ruling.

“I was unjustifiably imprisoned in Bahrain on an unfair trial and today I have seen a day of justice,” he said. “The fact that the weapons which were used to kill and torture people in Bahrain and Saudi is something that the court has seen to be legitimate, that there are violations committed by these totalitarian regimes. My role in taking direct action was important in circumstances where legal remedies were exhausted.”

Mengesha said the ruling confirmed everything the protesters knew. “We already knew about the illegality at DSEI but it’s great to see it publicly accepted. At the start of the case it was one where they would be trying the defendants; by the end it seemed that we tried Saudi, Turkey, Bahrain and the DSEI arms fair.”

Butler had just returned from Kurdish areas of Turkey, which was an international partner of DSEI 2015, when she was arrested outside the arms fair. “At the time, and even right now, Turkey has been conducting massacres of civilians in Kurdish towns and cities,” she said. “I blockaded DSEI arms fair to try to prevent greater crimes from being committed by the Turkish state.

“Police definitely didn’t take our concerns seriously. Not only is there illegal torture equipment in DSEI, there are also arms that are sold by legal means and then used illegally. With Turkey, the arms companies are complicit; if those arms companies know that Turkey is massacring civilians, then arms companies are complicit in those war crimes.”

Sayed Ahmed, director of advocacy at Bird and one of the expert witnesses called on behalf of the defence, said: “Sending arms to totalitarian regimes which are certainly used to repress the people in their millions and also to cause wars in the Middle East region is not acceptable.

“The direct actions by the activists was clearly needed as legal remedies didn’t find a way to stop the UK government in arming one of the most repressive regimes on earth.”

A spokesperson for DSEI said the fair takes legal compliance seriously and representatives from HMRC, the Department for Business and other government agencies were present in the run up and throughout the 2015 event.

“They had free and totally unrestricted access to all exhibitors to in order to undertake checks that all equipment, services, documentation and any other forms of promotion complied with UK, EU and international law,” the spokesperson said.

“As a result of this close cooperation, and the processes put in place, compliance regulations were not breached at DSEI 2015.”

= =  =  = = =

Court Challenge in Canada to Saudi Arms contract by Constitutional lawyer Daniel Turp

The protests in Canada mount over the $11 billion armaments contract with Saudi Arabia.     – –  see the “Comments” below.

Lyle’s input (Canadian Wheat Board   CWB)