Sandra Finley

Feb 262015
 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/elizabeth-may/2015/02/harpers-anti-terror-law-will-turn-canada-police-state

By Elizabeth May    | February 24, 2015

I remember the events of October 22. While I was in lock-down on Parliament Hill, I remember who hid in a closet and who ran toward gun fire. The guy in the closet is now planning to concentrate the powers of the state in his own hands while converting the Canadian spy agency into a secret police with virtually unlimited powers. And, at the same time, he has decided to demote the security team that performed its role heroically, the House of Commons Security, led by former Sargeant at Arms Kevin Vickers , and put the RCMP in charge of Parliament Hill. Of the two moves, clearly creating a secret police is the most dangerous, but upending the Constitutional principle that the government reports to Parliament is no small matter (and, as a Member of Parliament, I would prefer security to be in the hands of the people who paid attention that day and not the RCMP who somehow missed an armed man running past their multiple idling vehicles.)

 

Here is what Stephen Harper wants Canadians to think:

We are at war. We face a massive terrorist threat. We must be very, very afraid and we must not question any law brought in allegedly to fight terrorism. Anyone who raises finicky, lily-livered concerns about civil liberties is a fellow-traveller of ISIS.

Here’s the truth:

Naomi Klein’s book

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate”

We are not at war. We are at peace. (Would Harper’s most trusted lieutenant and Minister of Foreign Affairs quit if we were really at war?)

Acts of terrorism are a threat. They are criminal acts of horrific cruelty and sadism. Luring of disenfranchised, disenchanted, alienated Canadians into their barbaric crusade must be addressed, but the new law, C-51, is not primarily an anti-terrorism law. And legal experts are already pointing out it “undermines more promising avenues of addressing terrorism.” (Bill C-51 backgrounder, Professors Kent Roach and Craig Forcese)

In terms of Canada’s future, the climate crisis is a much larger threat.

We must not be afraid. We must be smart. It’s really hard to think when paralyzed by fear. Any thinking person will stand up and oppose C-51 with every ounce of their strength.

Harper claims to believe Canada is a freedom-loving country. If he’s right, he miscalculated in hoping we could be scared out of our wits.

We already have anti-terror laws. Terrorism, treason, sedition, espionage, proliferating of nuclear and biological weapons and other offences repeated in C-51 are already illegal. The police already have expanded powers in relation to terrorism. RCMP have powers to disrupt terrorist plots. That’s how they broke the Toronto 18, the VIA rail plot and ISIS sympathizers in Ottawa before they could move their plots into action. Full marks to the RCMP for these proactive successes. Those suspected of terrorism already have a second set of Kafa-esque laws to allow their detention through security certificates. Oversight of the operations of CSIS was reduced in the 2012 omnibus bill C38. Put simply, Canada has already significantly intruded on Charter rights to give the RCMP, CSIS and Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) broader powers and less over-sight. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we now know that CSEC has been gathering millions of internet communications every day from Canadians — even though CSEC’s mandate was supposed to apply only to foreign activities. Under project “Levitation,” CSEC collects as many as 15 million records of uploads and downloads every day.

No one from the security establishment has made a case for requiring expanded powers.

C-51, the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act, creates new powers for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. CSIS was created to keep the RCMP policing functions separate from intelligence work after the fiasco of burning down the barn in an FLQ sting operation. This bill gives CSIS the power to do anything. (Okay, not anything. It specifically says CSIS cannot directly kill or harm people or “violate the sexual integrity of an individual,” but otherwise, CSIS will have a vague set of sweeping powers).

CSIS will be able to conduct any operation it thinks is in the interests of protecting the security of Canada. The definition of “undermining the security of Canada” is more a list of suggestions than a definition, using the word “including” before listing nine types of threats. Using “including” as the heading for its list leaves open the possibility that CSIS may think something else should have been on that list.

Most listed activities are already illegal, such as treason , espionage, causing serious harm, etc. To this is added “interference with critical infrastructure,” raising legitimate concerns that the bill is targeted at First Nations and environmental groups opposing pipelines. There is a caveat in the Act: “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”

I have now twice asked the public safety and justice ministers in Question Period to clarify if the act will apply to non-lawful, non-violent civil disobedience, such as blockading along a pipeline route. Neither Stephen Blaney nor Peter MacKay would provide that assurance.

This act could apply to Rosa Parks sitting in the “Whites Only” section of the bus. It could apply to anyone who talked with her about it ahead of time. It could apply to journalists who wrote she should be commended for breaking the law.

The vaguest of those things that undermine the security of Canada reads as follows:

“Interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations or the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

That list of vague activities has the same status as terrorism in launching CSIS operatives into a murky world with powers to “take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce the threat.”

So, Saudi Arabia pumping out enough oil to cause the dropping price? Global currency speculators? Judges’ decisions the PM doesn’t like? Calling this section vague is an understatement. And CSIS only needs to go before a judge for a warrant in cases where it decided for itself that its actions will violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then it goes to a judge for a secret warrant process. The warrant can allow break and enter to take anything and to install anything.

Here’s what I could do with this section as Prime Minister. Climate change is surely a threat to public safety and the economic stability of Canada. So let’s launch CSIS at messing with the heads of all those in the fossil fuel business. Install malware. Implicate them in bogus child porno charges. Break and enter and see if they have been hiding the patents for photovoltaic, electric vehicles, better batteries. A secret police at the PM’s beck and call. Of course, if I ever were Prime Minister, one of the first things I would do is to repeal this act.

It’s not enough to call for better citizen oversight as one opposition party urges. And it is certainly an act of egregious cowardice for the other opposition party to support this bill.

It is trite to say that when we surrender our freedoms, the terrorists win. Even to level that charge at this bill is to fall into the Harper trap of making this bill about terrorism. It’s not. It’s about creating a secret police. It’s the death of freedom.

 

Feb 252015
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Sr96TFQQE

Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald explain things very well. This interview of Snowden is informative.

Snowden describes that once “backdoor access” is established, it is there and available to more than the NSA (if it is an NSA backdoor, for example).

When time permits I will relate this to the extensive data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada.  The Government awarded contracts for census work to Lockheed Martin; Lockheed Martin works for the NSA,  one of its specialties is surveillance.

You have to be pretty gullible to believe that the FBI/NSA does not have back-coor access to the StatsCan data base on Canadians.  Even if StatsCan discontinues the Lockheed contracts.

Feb 252015
 

At the bottom of this article on the Huffington Post website are

“12 Things Harper Doesn’t Want You to Know”.  

I recommend you read them, along with the article, of course! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/03/edward-snowden-ucc-canada-surveillance_n_6601812.html 

 

Back-up copy of “Edward Snowden Warns Canadians…”:   

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden addressed students at a Toronto private school via video link on Monday to warn about the perils of being complacent as the government makes sweeping changes to Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.

“I would say we should always be extraordinarily cautious when we see governments trying to set up a new secret police within their own countries,” Snowden said in a livestream feed from Russia. He made reference to Bill C-51, legislation tabled by the Conservative government days earlier.

More than 900 students attended the talk titled, “Privacy vs. Security: A Discussion of Personal Privacy in the Digital Age” hosted at Upper Canada College. Nearly 1,400 watched the live broadcast online.

Snowden urged the audience to be adept at lining up facts versus rhetoric with emergency legislations born from times of “fear and panic.” He added though Canada is not unique in its anti-terrorism laws and surveillance programs, it’s important to be critical toward political arguments championing their necessity.

“Once we let these power get rolling it’s very difficult to stop that pull through,” Snowden said. “So I would say that we need to use extraordinary scrutiny in every society, in every country, in every state to make sure that the laws we live under are the ones we truly want and truly need.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald was also on hand for the keynote via conference call.

Using ‘fearmongering’ as vehicle for legislation

Despite the sharp uptick in terrorism rhetoric after two Canadian soldiers were killed within days of each other last year by “radicalized” attackers, the former Guardian journalist says a Canadian’s real-world chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is “infinitesimal.”

“If you are a Canadian citizen, you have a greater chance of dying by being struck by lightning; or by going to a restaurant and eating a meal that will give you an intestinal disease; or by slipping in your bathtub, hitting your head on the ceramic tile than you do dying in a terrorist attack,” said Greenwald.

He criticized what he sees as the Conservative government’s tactic of using fear to untether the weight of public scrutiny to push the anti-terrorism measures into law. “Your government continuously hypes the threat and tells you that unless you give it more and more power it will be incapable of saving you from this threat,” he said.

“And this fearmongering is a very dangerous, yet very effective form of persuading people to submit to things you otherwise wouldn’t submit to.”

New anti-terrorism measures ‘more about politics’

On Friday, the Harper government tabled its much-anticipated anti-terrorism legislation designed to give Canadian security and intelligence services more powers and more flex from the RCMP.

If passed into law, changes would see the standard of evidence needed to obtain warrants lowered. Police would also be given authority to extend the amount of time they can detain someone without charge if that person is suspected to be involved in terrorist activity.

“Jihadist terrorism is not a future possibility, it is a present reality,” Harper said at the announcement. “It seeks to harm us here in Canada, in our cities and in our neighbourhoods through horrific acts.”

The measures are intended to curb nine interpretations of “activities that undermine the security of Canada” — including a broadly-worded clause criminalizing any “interference with the capability of the government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada.”

But the omnibus legislation isn’t bringing peace of mind to one prominent Ottawa-based human rights and civil liberties lawyer.

Paul Champ told The Hill Times the election-year timing of the bill utilizes it as a “political wedge issue of sorts” that has already tempered NDP and Liberals reaction to be “in kind” than “taking a principled stand on civil liberties.”

“I think it’s clear both from the manner of the prime minister’s announcement, and unfortunately the response of the opposition parties, that this bill is far more about politics than public safety,” Champ said.

Reporters were supplied information about the anti-terror bill in a controlled media briefing a day before the legislation was announced by the prime minister at a Toronto-area community centre.

Harper was joined by Justice Minister Peter MaKay, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, and associate National Defence Minister Julian Fantino at the Jan. 30 event.

“They’ve been creeping over that line from surveillance to operational for some time,” Champ said. “Now we see it confirmed in legislation.”

With files from The Canadian Press

Read a copy of Bill C-51 here:

Bill C-51: Tories’ Anti-Terrorism Bill

Feb 252015
 

Was Ottawa “Terror” Arrest Timed to

Support Repressive New Legislation?

(an edited version of this article appears in NOW Magazine, February 12-19)

https://nowtoronto.com/news/features/maximum-effect-terror-threat/

By Matthew Behrens

When the RCMP announced an Ottawa anti-terrorism arrest last week, the timing could not have been better for a federal government that appears to thrive on national security hysteria. After all, Prime Minister Harper, positioning himself as a wartime leader protecting Canadians from terrorists, had just introduced legislation (C-51) that would vastly increase the powers of Canada’s state security agencies, a bill that’s met with equal alarm from civil rights groups and the Globe and Mail’s editorial board.

Facebook feeds were immediately full of Conservative-sponsored “Protecting Canadians From Terrorist Threats” clickbait, leading to a personal message from Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney proclaiming, “Jihadists have declared war on us all.”

There’s a critical question about the political timing of last week’s arrest and the issuance of arrest warrants for two overseas Canadian fighters. Why was it so important, in the midst of a debate over controversial new policing powers, to now detain 25-year-old Awso Peshdary – who appears to have been under surveillance for a good five years – for the alleged crimes of raising money to send two Canadians to fight in Syria in 2012 and 2014? There was no imminent threat, beyond the apparently existential concern that Peshdary was corrupting young minds. In addition, why were the Mounties suddenly issuing warrants (one for a man reportedly killed last December) that named individuals whose activities have long been public knowledge?

The federal government’s apparent ability to create a mirage of cascading terror threats was no doubt further enhanced by introducing C-51 the Friday before two long-scheduled terrorism proceedings were set to begin. Those trials – the Toronto Via Rail plot and the B.C. Canada Day pressure cooker plan – began with suspiciously timed arrests as well.

Indeed, during the spring of 2013, the Harper government had been experiencing troubles reviving recently lapsed anti-terror legislation originally passed in 2001. Then, an opportunity arose following the Boston bombings. The Harper government suddenly cleared the Parliamentary schedule for a two-day discussion and vote on Bill S-7 (The Combating Terrorism Act), which revived preventative detention and investigative hearings.

On the first of those days, April 22, the RCMP’s actions once again coloured a Parliamentary debate, this time with the arrest of two individuals who had allegedly been talking about derailing a train.  “While the RCMP believed that these individuals had the capacity and intent to carry out these criminal acts, there was no imminent threat to the general public, rail employees, train passengers or infrastructure,” they reassured the public at an afternoon press conference.

Across town the next day, defence lawyer John Norris told media crowded on the Old City Hall courthouse steps that “the timing of the arrest is a bit of a mystery… The [RCMP have] been very clear there was no risk to public safety, and it’s surprising to say the least, that this arrest would be made now close on the heels of the events in Boston and timed perfectly with what was happening in the House of Commons yesterday.”

In Ottawa, NDP public safety critic Randall Garrison shared with House colleagues his fear that the Tories were using Boston and the VIA arrests “to create a climate that will cause people to not ask the questions they need to ask about this legislation.” The bill passed on April 24 and received Royal Assent the following day in the Senate.

            Just two months later, mere weeks before The Combating Terrorism Act came  into full force, the RCMP again took to the airwaves in a patriotic flourish to announce they had foiled a Canada Day plot to set off a pressure cooker bomb at the BC legislature.

Questions immediately arose after RCMP Assistant Commissioner Wayne Rideout told reporters, “We employed a variety of complex investigative and covert techniques to control any opportunity the suspects had to commit harm. These devices were completely under our control, they were inert, and at no time represented a threat to public safety.” As the Vancouver Province noted in an editorial, “On April 2, police had enough evidence leading to charges of facilitating a terrorist activity and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, but the couple was not arrested. On June 25, there was enough evidence for [one of the arrestees] to be charged with making or possessing an explosive substance, but again there were no arrests.” Did the RCMP stage-manage things so that the connection to Canada Day would provide them with a blast of feel-good coverage, especially following a month in which Edward Snowden’s startling revelations about global surveillance had sullied the reputation of state security agencies?

Canada’s national police force has never been above playing politics. Indeed, the RCMP Complaints Commission released a 2008 report finding that an unprecedented  decision to announce a politically sensitive investigation of then Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale – in the middle of the 2006 election campaign – likely influenced the outcome that brought law-and-order Stephen Harper to power.

Subsequently, in the June, 2006 case of the Toronto 18 – an informant-driven and -controlled plot – arrests occurred ten days before the Supreme Court was set to hear two days of historic argument on secret hearing security certificates. Needless to say, questions from the bench were clearly influenced by the recent headlines.

Other agents of government supposedly above partisanship are not immune from suspect activity either. The Ottawa Citizen recently reported that as shocked Canadians watched the parliamentary shooting saga last October, Canadian Lieutenant-General John Vance wrote an email that very afternoon about the need for the military to appear at an RCMP press conference to capitalize on the day’s events. Viewing the tragedy as further rationale for the controversial decision to dispatch CF-18s to bomb Iraq, Vance noted that Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Tom Lawson, had “indicated we should seek a strategic opportunity [to promote the mission] and this may be it.”

The Iraq bombing campaign and national security will no doubt be hot-button issues as a tight national election race heats up. What remains to be seen is how many more well-timed strategic announcements and arrests will pop up to reinforce Harper’s fearful wartime narrative.

Feb 252015
 

Breaking news: A new RCMP report identifies the environmental movement as a threat to the petroleum industry. This could open the door to being suspected of terrorism under the new Big Brother bill, ramping up surveillance for protesters. We need to kill this bill now…

Dear friends across Canada,

They won’t be able to kill or harm us, or “violate our sexual integrity” — but the Prime Minister just introduced a new anti-terrorism act that could let CSIS do just about anything else. Unless we make this Big Brother bill politically untouchable.

And worse, Stephen Harper is using the fear of terrorism to give our spy agency crazy new powers like letting them get secret warrants to break into our houses, copy or take documents, and even install monitoring devices. But we can still show him we won’t let trumped up fears override our freedoms.

The Conservative and Liberal parties are planning to vote for the bill — and the only way to stop it is to show them that Canadians value freedom more than fear. When 50,000 join we’ll build a non-partisan coalition of freedom-loving Canadians, and use every tactic in our toolbox to persuade MPs and Senators to split from their parties.

Click now to join: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/canada_secret_police/?bYHahab&v=53763

In 2006, PM Harper warned that “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through with it”, and now he’s making that promise come true. Under this bill, peaceful protests that break a law and challenge Canada’s economic stability — possibly even protests against a tar sands pipeline — could be considered terrorism.

Harper’s poisonous fearmongering threatens our freedoms, but we can make this bill political poison to any MP supporting it. Harper’s implied that the horrific attacks in Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu make this bill necessary. But experts say that our security agencies already have the powers needed to stop terror attacks, and there’s no proven link between these lone killers and terrorist groups.

This is an election year, and analysts say that leaders who oppose this law risk being seen as soft on terror. If we can show our politicians that this isn’t true — that our basic freedoms can not be traded for fear — we can win.

Click now to take action: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/canada_secret_police/?bYHahab&v=53763

Prime Minister Harper is always telling us that we’re at war, and now he’s trying to turn this fear against us and trample on our rights. Our community is bigger than this fear. Let’s stand up to the government and show them that when it comes to our freedoms, Canadians stand united.

With hope, Danny, Jo, Ari, Ricken, and the rest of the Avaaz team

SOURCES

Parliament must reject Harper’s secret policeman bill (Globe and Mail) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/parliament-must-reject-harpers-secret-policeman-bill/article22729037/

Anti-terror bill: Experts worry about sweeping powers for CSIS (Ottawa Citizen) http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/anti-terror-bill-experts-worry-about-sweeping-powers-for-csis

Security bill risks too much (Winnipeg Free Press) http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/security-bill-risks-too-much-290752621.html

Canada Seeks to Strengthen Spy Agency After Attacks (New York Times) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/world/americas/canada-seeks-to-strengthen-spy-agency-after-attacks.html?_r=0

‘Anti-petroleum’ movement a growing security threat to Canada, RCMP say (Globe and Mail) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/article23019252/

Avaaz.org is a 40-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Feb 252015
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/article23019252/ 

SHAWN McCARTHY

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

The RCMP has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation.

In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.

“There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” concludes the report which is stamped “protected/Canadian eyes only” and is dated Jan. 24, 2014. The report was obtained by Greenpeace.

“If violent environmental extremists engage in unlawful activity, it jeopardizes the health and safety of its participants, the general public and the natural environment.”

The government has tabled Bill C-51, which provides greater power to the security agencies to collect information on and disrupt the activities of suspected terrorist groups. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has identified the threat as violent extremists motivated by radical Islamic views, the legislation would also expand the ability of government agencies to infiltrate environmental groups on the suspicion that they are promoting civil disobedience or other criminal acts to oppose resource projects.

The legislation identifies “activity that undermines the security of Canada” as anything that interferes with the economic or financial stability of Canada or with the country’s critical infrastructure, though it excludes lawful protest or dissent. And it allows the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service to take measures to reduce what it perceives to be threats to the security of Canada.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has already launched challenges to the RCMP complaints commission and the Security Intelligence Review Committee – which oversees the Canadian Security Intelligence Service – over alleged surveillance of groups opposed to the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C.

“These kind of cases involving environmental groups – or anti-petroleum groups as the RCMP likes to frame them – are really the sharp end of the stick in terms of Bill C-51,” said Paul Champ, a civil liberties lawyer who is handling the BCCLA complaints. “With respect to Bill C-51, I and other groups have real concerns it is going to target not just terrorists who are involved in criminal activity, but people who are protesting against different Canadian government policies.”

RCMP spokesman Sergeant Greg Cox insisted the Mounties do not conduct surveillance unless there is suspicion of criminal conduct.

“As part of its law enforcement mandate the RCMP does have the requirement to identify and investigate criminal threats, including those to critical infrastructure and at public events,” Sgt. Cox said in an e-mailed statement. “There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.”

But Sgt. Cox would not comment on the tone of the January, 2014, assessment that suggests opposition to resource development runs counter to Canada’s national interest and links groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club to growing militancy in the “anti-petroleum movement.”

The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, and adds that many environmentalists “claim” that climate change is the most serious global environmental threat, and “claim” it is a direct consequence of human activity and is “reportedly” linked to the use of fossil fuels. It echoes concerns first raised by Finance Minister Joe Oliver that environmental groups are foreign-funded and are working against the interests of Canada by opposing development.

“This document identifies anyone who is concerned about climate change as a potential, if not actual – the lines are very blurry – ‘anti-petroleum extremist’ looking to advance their ‘anti-petroleum ideology,’” said Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

“The parts that are genuinely alarming about this document are how it lays the groundwork for all kinds of state-sanctioned surveillance and dirty tricks should C-51 be passed,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Public Safety Canada said Bill C-51 does not change the definition of what constitutes a threat to Canadian security, and added CSIS does not investigate lawful dissent.

“CSIS has a good track record of distinguishing genuine threats to the security of Canada from other activities,” Public Safety Canada’s Josée Sirois said. “The independent reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee attest to CSIS’s compliance with the law.”

Feb 252015
 

Dear Sandra,

You’ll never believe what a leaked RCMP memo from last week says about you. If you oppose the furious rush to build pipelines and expand the tar sands like I do, then you’re considered to be a “violent anti-petroleum extremist.” The Harper government will stop at nothing to bully and silence its critics. The memo literally says that those of us who oppose pipelines should be seen and treated as potential criminal and security threats. I honestly could not believe what I was reading.

Click here, refuse to be bullied, and sign the petition telling Mr. Harper and the RCMP that opposing pipelines is not a criminal activity.

We all know that the proposed pipelines are the real threat – not responsible Canadians standing up for their coastlines and the climate. The Kinder Morgan pipeline alone would increase the number of oil tankers passing through Burrard Inlet from one or two to 10 tankers every single week! More tankers means more potential oil spills. Experts have said over and over again, it’s not a question of if there will be a major spill, but when.

Canada is supposed to be a free country where we have the right to disagree with our government without the fear of being treated like criminals. If we don’t stand up now and make our voices heard, who knows what the future will hold for Canadians who stand up to our government. Click here and tell Harper that protecting our coastlines and opposing the limitless expansion of the tar sands is not a criminal activity.

In freedom,

Sven Biggs Campaigner, ForestEthics Advocacy

P.S. Five signatures are even more powerful than one – after you take action, forward this email to your friends!

Sources:

McCarthy, Shawn (2015 February 17). “Anti-petroleum movement a growing security threat to Canada, RCMP say.The Globe and Mail.

Vancouver Observer Staff. “Kinder Morgan Pipeline.Vancouver Observer.

Feb 252015
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1083640,00.html

Cabinet papers warn Canada off GM crops
Farmers fear long-term threat to food exports

Paul Brown, environment correspondent

Thursday November 13, 2003

The Guardian (UK)

A secret briefing to the Canadian government has warned that the country’s massive food exports are at risk from its continued use of GM crops.

The paper, which has been obtained under the Access of Information Act, warns the cabinet of the “pressing need to immediately address these concerns”.

Such fears contrast with the government’s repeated endorsement of GM crops and technology as a great opportunity for Canada.

The paper, which was drafted by a senior civil servant, says that “producers are becoming worried about losing markets and losing choice over what they produce”, while consumers are becoming more worried that they cannot distinguish between GM and non-GM products.

“These concerns could precipitate a loss of confidence in the integrity of the Canadian food system, which could be very disruptive to the domestic system as well as Canada’s ability to export to demanding markets.”

Some pages of the secret document, which have been blanked out, concern advice on how to deal with the growing public fears and the potential loss of further export markets for Canadian goods.

Canada is the third-largest producer of GM crops after the US and Argentina.

But the paper says that the production of GM canola (oilseed rape) is affecting the value of non- GM canola in some markets. It says: “The EU was effectively closed to all Canadian commodity canola.”

The Canadian farmers’ greatest fear, however, is the introduction of GM wheat, of which trials are imminent.

The Canadian Wheat Board has just surveyed its overseas customers in Europe, Japan and the US, with 82% saying that they would not take GM wheat. The export market for milling wheat into bread is worth £2bn a year to Canada.

The paper says that large Canadian producers in other fields have already taken defensive action. Flax producers, for instance, will not produce a GM version, while the largest potato processor, McCains, has declared it will not purchase GM potatoes. Jim Robbins, a farmer and business consultant for the Canadian National Farmers Union said that large exports of oilseed rape had been lost to Europe as it was impossible to separate GM and conventional crops. In Canada, they had all been mixed together. Cross contamination, it said, was now “irreversible”.

Canadian farmers feared the same would happen with wheat, prompting a loss of exports and a crash in prices.

“I cannot see how it would be possible to separate GM wheat and non-GM wheat,” Mr Robbins said. “It is also very difficult, not to say impossible, as we have discovered with canola, to prevent the spread of GM canola plants into conventional crops.”

He said the Canadian government’s problem involves the lack of legal regulation to thwart the introduction of GM wheat, prompting the potential for contamination of conventional crops.

Mr Robbins believes fears for the environment could be a useful defence, pointing out that if GM wheat – basically a grass – escaped into the Canadian countryside it might become an extremely difficult weed to eradicate because it would be herbicide resistant.

He said: “That might provide an escape route for Canada, like the GM field trials have in Britain.”

 

Feb 252015
 

From: Sandra Finley   Sent: February-17-15  To: bill.durodie at  royalroads.ca Subject: Calls for mandatory long form census

 

Dear Professor Durodie,

 

RE:  your Shaw interview last summer,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76uBmi5IAuk.

 

If what I say has merit, I would appreciate if you would share it with interested others.

There are complexities with the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada that are unknown in some circles.

You will know of the leaks about NSA surveillance by Edward Snowden.   Because you were interviewed in relation to the trial of Eve Stegenga, I think you will know of Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the data base on Canadians at StatsCan.

Further to that:

 

  • Lockheed Martin Corporation works with the NSA
  • Lockheed’s website tells that an area of expertise they offer is surveillance
  • Snowden explained the NSA’s “back door entry” to data bases, if the NSA/FBI cannot gain front-door access.
  • Ladar Levison’s story is one example of what the FBI is doing to forceably gain access to personal information without court orders.  In case you are not familiar with Levison’s story:     2014-05-29  Lavabit founder, Ladar Levison, fought 9-month legal battle with FBI  &    2014-06-27 Ladar Levison: The American who shut down his business when he felt his government wanted too much
  • Many Canadians are not aware of the extent of the data collection being done, and illegally by StatsCan.  The long form census in 2006 had approximately 50 questions.  It has been replaced by the National Household Survey with a > 50% increase in the number of questions.   Racial and sexual profiling, the NAME (not just the industry sector) of your employer, and so on and on.  The building of files on individuals is on-going weekdays and weekends (“Surveys” are not confined to once every 5 years).  The illegal part is that StatsCan pronounces that people can/will be prosecuted and potentially sent to jail if they don’t answer the questions.   But under the governing legislation, the Statistics Act, surveys are voluntary, only the census is mandatory.  (You may be interested, 2014-05-26 Census, Surveys & Lockheed Martin. More concise argument? (conversation with JoAnne)

Canadian citizens began protesting in 2003 against the involvement of Lockheed Martin, effectively the American military, in the data base on Canadians at StatsCan.   (People in the UK also objected to the involvement of Lockheed Martin in their similar data base.)

Humans have experience with Governments that build data files on citizens.  It was specifically through censuses in the case of Nazi Europe  (ref IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black).   Because of the known association between police states and detailed files on citizens, Canadians have  THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION:

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.”

A large and growing number of Canadians understand that the assaults on democracy in Canada need to be vigorously challenged.

(An irony to me is that the intention of the American militaristic forces vis-a-vis Canada have been spelt out through the years in our own media.   It’s as though we didn’t believe them,  but lo and behold today – – they have almost succeeded in their intentions to have access to all the data on Canadians, including for example, those who oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline – – one example among many.)

I hope that this additional information might bring about a re-evaluation of support for making it an offence for Canadians to defend the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.    We should not walk blindly.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

 

Feb 252015
 

From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013  Subject: The Greatest Generation?

 

The Greatest Generation?

Oh really?

If they were so great

Then why did they send

Their Sons so willingly

Off to die

In Vietnam

A war  they started

While we suffered

 

58,000 young men

Of my generation

Were murdered

By The Greatest Generation

Hundreds of Thousands

Of our Lives were destroyed

Plus 3 million genocided Vietnamese

Not that “gooks” mattered to The Greatest Generation

Then  neither did we their Sons

 

Why  didn’t The Greatest Generation

Rise up as One

And tell the American Empire

That you will not have our Sons

 

Over our dead bodies!

Hell no!

They will not go!

 

Why did The Greatest Generation

Not fight for US their Sons

Against the American Empire

As they did against the German and  Japanese Empires

We the Sons of the Greatest Generation were not worth it

 

They said they were liberating Peoples in Foreign Lands

Then why did The Greatest Generation send   their Sons

To fight and die

In that God-forsaken Land?

And to murder millions living in their own Land? 

 

Was this some blood-sport

we had to play

With them as  pony riders

and US  as  buzkashi goat carcasses

 

Was it  reverse Freudian Oedipal Complex

Them killing us off

before we got to  them

And took their place

 

Were we  blood-sacrifice to Moloch

With them as  Priests

And we as  sacrificial lambs

 

Were they our   Abrahams

Actually murdering  US  their  Isaacs

In  a Holocaust

To their  Genocidal Yahweh

 

Hard to say

What was going on

In the Minds of The Greatest Generation

If anything at all

Mindless Patriotism

The last refuge of them Scoundrels!

 

They knew all about War

then sent their Sons marching off

 Into the Valley of Death

Charge of the Light Brigade

 

The result was predictable

A Decimated Generation

A Shattered Generation

MY GENERATION!

BUT WE ENDED THEIR DAMN WAR!

 

The Greatest Generation?

Hell no!

A Pathetic Generation!

 

May they  ever be  tormented

By Their Own  Son’s  Souls 

 

Professor Francis A. Boyle