Sandra Finley

Oct 162013
 

You increasingly see this – some “organization” sets up the event, it is hard to pin down who they are.  See below.

In this case it’s the International Economic Forum of the Americas (I notice that it has a “Director of Security “.)

The registration form is on-line.  (Don’t see one person who is responsible)

Here’s the guys behind it; their contact info is included.  (UPDATE:  I’d say we’re having an impact!  By October 25 all the contact information for “the guys” has been removed from the website.  There is one general email contact address.)

http://forum-americas.org/toronto/team

The”Partners” include 2 universities (Concordia is one).

http://forum-americas.org/toronto/2013/partners

/Sandra

—– Original Message —–

From: Sandra Finley

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Subject: Raise some hell.   Cheney is a war criminal.

There are 75 confirmed speakers for a 2-day conference?

Anyhow – they are corporate types, for sure.   It looks as though there was a 2012 Conference – – Harper spoke.

I looked at just 3 of the speakers.   Complicit.

FROM  The list of Confirmed speakers to date  :  http://forum-americas.org/toronto/2013/speakers

 

Maha   K. Al-Ghunaim
Chairperson & Group Chief Executive Officer
Profile
Mrs. Maha Al-Ghunaim, along   with other distinguished members, founded Global Investment House in 1998.

Can send an email to her company from this page:

http://www.globalinv.net/contentdisp.asp?pageId=268

Message her by facebook?  https://www.facebook.com/maha.alghunaim.39

Does she know that Cheney is a speaker?  What about Islam’s belief in helping society.  They have a strong commitment to that principle.

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

How about this fellow ?   How does he see his role?

He is a member of the council of Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and is a board member of Evangel Hall, a social housing provider and inner city centre for Toronto’s homeless and working poor.

He is currently serving at McMaster University as Special Advisor to the President. Paul is pursuing a Master of Theological Studies, M.T.S., at McMaster University’s Divinity College. 

Paul K. Bates

Special Advisor to the President, McMaster University, Chair, Investor Education Fund, and Chair, Investor Advisory Panel, Ontario Securities Commission (OSC)

A Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), Fellow of the Society of Management Accountants (FCMA) and Certified Management Consultant (CMC), Paul’s career has spanned: senior academic administration; business and divinity school lecturing;

Paul K. Bates, FCMA
Special Advisor to the President, McMaster University
batesp  AT  mcmaster.ca
905-525-9140 Ext. 20512

= = = = = = = = = = =

Otaviano Canuto

Senior Advisor on BRICS, Development Economics Department, World Bank

Otaviano Canuto is the Senior Advisor on BRICS in the Development Economics Department, a new position established by President Kim to bring a fresh research focus to this increasingly critical area.

He previously served as the Bank’s Vice President and Head of the Poverty Reduction Network (PREM), a division of more than 700 economists and other professionals working on economic policy, poverty reduction, gender equality and analytic work for client countries.

Here is Otaviano, on Huff Post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/otaviano-canuto/bucking-the-trend-poverty_b_1574987.html

 

He blogs and is on F/B:  https://www.facebook.com/ocanuto

Oct 162013
 

How ironic is this:  twice – in the Throne Speech today – –  The Government is committed to  “The Rule of Law”.

Let’s see what the value of their words is.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 16, 2013

 

Contact:

Gail Davidson, Lawyers Against the War (LAW), 1-(604) 738-0338, law  AT  portal.ca

Professor Francis Boyle, LAW, Tel: + 1 217-333-7954; email: fboyle@  AT  llinois.edu

Elizabeth Ramos, War Criminals Watch/World Can’t Wait, (866) 973-4463,

warcriminalswatch  AT  worldcantwait.net*

Nancy Mancias, CODEPINK, (415) 342-6409

Tasha Moro, National Lawyers Guild, (212) 679-5100 ext. 15, communications   AT   nlg.org 

 

Harper Government Ignores Torture Opponents’ Call to Ban Dick Cheney from Canada or Prosecute Him 

Protest Planned on Halloween at Metro Toronto Convention Centre 

(Toronto) Lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild (U.S.), International Association of Democratic Lawyers, European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (Germany), Brussells Tribunal (Belgium), International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq (Iraq, Egypt, Spain), Lawyers Against the War (Canada) and Rights International Spain (Spain) are urging Canada to either bar Dick Cheney from Canada – as a person credibly accused of torture – or to arrest and prosecute him on arrival, as required by the Convention against Torture. A letter from Lawyers Against the War (LAW) sent to Canada’s Prime Minister, Attorney General and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration has been gravely ignored. 

 

“It is long overdue for Cheney and other Bush administration officials to be held to account for the high crimes of instituting and implementing the systematic practice of torture. This record of impunity must not be allowed to stand.”

Azadeh Shahshahani, President, National Lawyers Guild.

 

Torture and war crimes suspect Dick Cheney is scheduled as a keynote speaker at the October 31st luncheon of the Toronto Global Forum, hosted by the International Forum of the Americas.  Should Cheney be allowed to freely enter Canada despite the illegalities involved, civil society groups are planning a rally beginning at 11:00 am on Halloween, Oct. 31st, outside the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

 

The Facebook page for the protest can be viewed here.

 

Brussells Tribunal (BT)is peace organization and think tank with a special focus on Iraq. BT founded IAON, the International Anti-Occupation Network which continues to monitor Iraq.  Members of the BT network include Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, Tun Mahathir, Richard Falk, Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, Eduardo Galeano and many others. 

 

Canadian Peace Alliance(CPA) is Canada’s largest umbrella peace organization working for global nuclear disarmament and peace. CPA organizes campaigns, facilitates actions and provides education for peace. Since its foundation in 1985 the organization has been helping member groups to act as a broad network, in order to provide a strong, coordinated voice for peace issues at the national level.

 

CODEPINKis a US women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end US- funded wars and occupations, to challenge militarism globally, and to redirect our resources into health care, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities –www.codepink.org.

 

European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights(ECCHR) is an independent, non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting civil and human rights throughout Europe. ECCHR engages in innovative strategic litigation, using European, international, and national law to enforce human rights and to hold state and non-state actors accountable for egregious abuses.

 

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) is committed to the principle of equality among peoples, the rights of all peoples to self-determination, the elimination of imperialism and colonialism and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. IADL has members in over ninety countries and has consultative status with ECOSOC and UNESCO of the United Nations.

 

International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq  is mainly concerned with possibilities for legal action against those responsible of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide in Iraq.

 

Lawyers Against the War(LAW) is a Canada-based committee of jurists and others who oppose war and advocate for adherence to international humanitarian law and against impunity for violators.

 

National Lawyers Guild (NLG) is a U.S. national non-profit legal and political organization comprised of lawyers, legal workers, law students, and jailhouse lawyers, founded in 1937.

 

Rights International Spain(RIS) is an independent, non-profit, NGO, composed of jurists specialized in international law, human rights, transitional justice and criminal law. RIS mission is to strengthen human rights accountability in Spain by monitoring government activity, with a particular focus on rule of law and access to justice, as well as raising civil society’s awareness and mobilize support to demand justice.

 

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War(TCSW) is the largest peace organization in the Greater Toronto Area and represents over 60 labour, student, faith and community groups. The TCSW opposes war and occupation and supports civil liberties.

 

World Can’t Wait  is a US-based movement formed to halt and reverse the terrible program of war and repression, initiated by the Bush/Cheney regime as well as the on-going crimes that continue to this day – www.worldcantwait.netWar Criminals Watch is a project of World Can’t Wait – www.warcriminalswatch.org 

  – 30 –

Oct 162013
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: September 30,2013.

Torture Opponents Say Ban Dick Cheney from Canada or

Arrest and Prosecute Him


(Toronto) Torture suspect and former U.S. Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney is scheduled to speak at the Toronto Global Forum, October 31, 2013, at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The event is hosted by the International Economic Forum of the Americas. 
 

Lawyers and others are urging Canada to either bar Dick Cheney from Canada as a person credibly accused of torture – or to arrest and prosecute him on arrival, as required by the Convention against Torture. That Dick Cheney authorized, directed and failed to prevent the widespread use of torture by US officials on non-Americans detained in off-shore prisons is no longer open to question. The United Nations Committee Against Torture has determined that torture suspects temporarily in Canada must be dealt with in accordance with the Convention.

A letter has been sent to Canada’s Prime Minister, Attorney General and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration advising them of Canada’s legal obligations.  For a complete copy of the letter submitted click here.

Gail Davidson, spokesperson for Lawyers Against the War noted, “Evidence of Dick Cheney’s involvement in torture and other gross human rights abuses is overwhelming.  It is time for the law to step in.

“Former Vice President Cheney led the Bush administration into a war based on lies which destroyed Iraq, directing a far-flung regime of torture, rendition and detention he referred to as ‘the dark side.’ He should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of the conventions against torture,” stated Debra Sweet, director of World Can’t Wait.

“Thus far the U.S. has failed to prosecute anyone up the chain of command for abuses that have occurred in the highest offices of the United States of America, setting a precedent for future leaders to repeat the same crimes,” states Nancy Mancias, CODEPINK organizer. “We look to the leaders in Canada to take steps to ban former Vice President Dick Cheney from entering the country because of his involvement in torture and the Iraq war.”

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) is a Canada-based committee of jurists and others who oppose war and advocate for adherence to international humanitarian law and against impunity for violators.

World Can’t Wait is a US-based movement formed to halt and reverse the terrible program of war and repression, initiated by the Bush/Cheney regime as well as the on-going crimes that continue to this day – www.worldcantwait.netWar Criminals Watch is a project of World Can’t Wait – www.warcriminalswatch.org.

CODEPINK is a US women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end US- funded wars and occupations, to challenge militarism globall, and to redirect our resources into health care, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities –www.codepink.org.

 

Contact:

Ø  Gail Davidson, LAW, +1 604 738-0338, law@portal.ca

Ø  Professor Francis Boyle, LAW, Tel: + 1 217-333-7954; email: fboyle@illinois.edu

Ø  Elizabeth Ramos, War Criminals Watch/World Can’t Wait,  (866) 973-4463,   warcriminalswatch@worldcantwait.net

Ø  Nancy Mancias, CODEPINK, (415) 342-6409

Oct 152013
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-making-of-the-harper-court/article14844626/

By Lawrence Martin

 

It’s been an extraordinary period for the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court. In fewer than eight years in office, Stephen Harper has appointed six of the top court’s nine justices. Next year, he gets to name another. It’s one of the biggest and quickest turnovers the court has seen. In short order, it has become the Harper court, one that differs widely from its predecessors.

As a staunch conservative, Mr. Harper was expected to change the court accordingly. He has done so. Most of his six picks, the latest being this month’s selection of Justice Marc Nadon, lean toward a tougher stance on crime and a limited interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Gone are more liberally inclined justices such as Ian Binnie (who left in 2011) and Morris Fish, who retired to make way for Justice Nadon, the Federal Court of Appeal judge from Quebec who sided with the government’s hard line against repatriating Omar Khadr.

Some analysts see the Supreme Court changes as being of such scope that it’s left with hardly anyone who will advocate for the rights of the accused. With the exception of Justice Marshall Rothstein, Mr. Harper’s appointees will be serving for anywhere from 10 to 20 years, meaning that the new court’s tilt will likely survive Mr. Harper for a while. In assessing the ways this Prime Minister has made Canada more conservative, his stamp on the high court may well be near the top of the list.

Mr. Harper, often called an incrementalist, has managed the transformation in a way that has stirred little controversy. He has avoided lightning-rod selections of right-wing ideologues, thus sparing himself from criticism that he has been politicizing the court. He has also instituted a modest parliamentary review process for the screening of appointments.

The selection of Justice Nadon has engendered more controversy than others, not only because of some his rulings but because of the gender imbalance perpetuated by the selection. Of Mr. Harper’s six picks, no fewer than five have been male, notes Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Mr. Harper received high marks for his first two selections: Justice Thomas Cromwell and the conservative-leaning Justice Rothstein. Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, a former Ontario Court of Appeal judge appointed in 2011, has yet to make an impact. (A key factor in her appointment, some groused, was her experience as deputy to Jim Flaherty when he was attorney-general of Ontario.) Justice Michael Moldaver is viewed as a strong law-and-order judge less sympathetic to Charter rights. Another appointment, Justice Richard Wagner, is seen as somewhat conservative, though not as tough as his father, Claude Wagner, who was called the hanging judge in Quebec and later sought the federal Tory leadership.

Overlooked because of their tilt toward judicial activism or somewhat liberal reputations, critics say, were outstanding candidates such as Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Justice Marie-France Bich of the same court in Quebec.

The court, which will soon make pivotal decisions on the future of the Senate and the issue of euthanasia, has been criticized for a lack of bold decision-making. Beaten down over the years by attacks on judicial activism, it lacks the fortitude, some analysts say, to guarantee fundamental rights.

In addition to gender imbalance and the screening process on appointments, the court confronts other serious problems. Justice Wagner said recently that the justice system is too laggardly, costly and opaque. He wants a national summit of lawmakers and the judiciary.

That might be a good idea, but it isn’t going to happen. Canada’s top court does not get nearly the exposure of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the identities of the chief justices are well known. There simply isn’t the degree of media interest or level of public engagement in our court. It’s an area where the Prime Minister, without facing much resistance, has been able to put a lasting conservative imprint on the country.

Earlier online versions and the original print version of this column incorrectly described Justice Andromache Karakatsanis as a top aide to Jim Flaherty when he was attorney-general of Ontario. She was deputy attorney-general, a public servant and not an aide.

Oct 132013
 

For health and other reasons:

The video at this link explains why the Washington State vote (labelling of GMOS’s) on November 5th is so important to all of us in North America, and in the world really.  The battle is peaking.

Please help spread the word.  Forward the link.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/13/cummins-gmo-labeling.aspx?e_cid=20131013Z1_SNL_Art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131013Z1

 

Note:  I copied the TEXT from the URL, for back-up purposes, at   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=10675

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

MANY THANKS to everyone around the world who was able to join a March Against Monsanto on the weekend.  It REALLY boosted the level of awareness.  The not-aware folks started asking questions!   Hoorah!

Oct 132013
 

If time is short, just catch the video at this link:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/13/cummins-gmo-labeling.aspx?e_cid=20131013Z1_SNL_Art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131013Z1

 

I recommend going to the above URL, even though for back-up purposes,  I copied the article – it is a good, comprehensive look at the problem:

By Dr. Mercola 

Between October 18 and November 5 the next big GMO-labeling vote will take place in the United States; this time in Washington State, where citizens will cast their votes for the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”

Initiative 522 (I-522) will require seeds, raw agricultural commodities, and processed foods to be labeled if they’re produced using genetic engineering.1

The success of this ballot initiative is dependent on public donations, and we’re up against industry giants with very deep pockets, so please, help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF) today. 

The video above features Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the Organic Consumers Fund—one of our allies in the movement to build a sustainable and healthy system of food and farming in the United States. 

Part of this food movement is the Millions Against Monsanto campaign, and campaigns pushing for labeling of genetically engineered foods across the US. 

The first March Against Monsanto, which took place in May, 2013 was really an extraordinary event that did not get the media attention it deserved. Some two million people in 450 cities and 50 countries took to the streets with the same message—that genetic engineering and Monsanto are out of control, and we need labeling and safety testing. 

According to Cummins: 

“We need to get these crops off the market or marginalized. That’s what worries Monsanto and the rest of the food industry. Last November, they came close to a disaster when the California ballot initiative Proposition 37 nearly passed. We got 48.5 percent of the vote. They beat us by one and a half percentage points. Well, Monsanto and their allies – Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, and the rest – they had to spend 50 million dollars to beat us in California.”

 

Why Are Chemical Companies in Charge of Our Food Supply?

For a long time, Monsanto appeared to be perched on top of the world, making enormous profits and wielding near unparalleled political clout. One of the most recent examples of their political power was the insertion of the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider into the appropriation bill, back in January, which basically eliminated the power of the federal judiciary to control genetically engineered crops. As explained by Cummins: 

“Under this Monsanto rider to the appropriation bill, even if a federal court rules that a genetically engineered crop has been improperly approved—that it could harm the environment or public health, they can’t stop it. Monsanto’s chief cheerleader in the Senate, Roy Blunt from Missouri, was very proud of this rider, and it went through.

But in a sign of change, millions of people complained, emailed and called Congress, and caused the backers of the bill to back off and say that, ‘Well, it’ll expire on September 30 and then it won’t be part of the Farm Bill or continuing appropriations.’”

Thankfully, the rider, which was renewed by the House of Representatives, was finally voted down by the Senate, thanks to your overwhelming support and affirmative action. As of September 30, the “Monsanto Protection Act” expired. It just goes to show how critical it is that we unite and address these issues together. It’s the only way we will make positive change.

It’s worth remembering though that Monsanto is not alone in recklessly pushing genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods. The following five multi-national chemical companies are also major players:

  • DuPont
  • Dow
  • Bayer
  • Syngenta
  • BASF

All of these chemical companies have tried to reposition themselves as “life science” companies, but, as Cummins points out, “they’re still the same old companies whose bottom line depends on selling as many toxic herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides as possible.” Disturbingly, these chemical companies have also bought out most of the seed industry, worldwide, making it extremely difficult for farmers to buy non-GE seeds. 

 

Monsanto’s Grip Slips as Americans Become Better Informed 

While the overall picture looks bleak, a number of things have happened in the last 12 months that have shaken Monsanto’s image of invincibility. For example:

  •  A growing epidemic of genetically engineered (GE) super weeds and super pests is spreading across US farm fields. As reported by Cummins, 49 percent of American farmers are now battling Roundup resistant weeds in their corn and soy fields. In an effort to get rid of them, they’re resorting to ever-increasing amounts of Roundup herbicide, Monsanto’s flagship chemical weed killer, and/or other even more toxic herbicides such as Agent Orange 2,4-D or Dicamba. If you look at the statistics over the last decade, there are actually more herbicides than ever being used. As a result, the industry’s promise that GE crops would allow for fewer pesticides to be used has taken on a distinctively hollow ring.
  • Also, part of the original rationale for using GE crops was that they could be sprayed with less toxic herbicides, such as Roundup—which was touted as harmless and biodegradable. Now, mounting research reveals that Roundup may actually be one of the most toxic chemicals ever to enter our food supply! Some scientists, like Dr. Don Huber, believe it may be even more toxic than DDT.
  • Genetically engineered Bt seeds are also soaked in toxic fungicides called neonicotinoids, which have now been linked to the mass die-off of bees in the US and around the world. This in and of itself threatens about 70 percent of the US food supply (fruits, vegetables, berries and nuts that rely on bees for pollination) and the rapid demise of these pollinators has gained worldwide attention.
  • Mounting research published in peer-reviewed journals reveals a wide variety of health hazards associated with consuming genetically engineered foods and the chemicals that accompany these crops.
  • The environmental impact of GE crops and associated agricultural chemicals, like Roundup, is also coming into clearer focus as research reveals how they destroy soil microbes and inhibit the fertility of the soil.

 

Recent Events Highlight Necessity for GMO Labeling 

In 2013, we’ve seen efforts to pass genetically engineered food labeling laws in 30 states, and the state legislatures in Connecticut and Maine have passed such laws. The next major event is November 5. The citizens’ ballot initiative in Washington State is very similar to the law that was proposed in California last year. Polls and focus groups indicate this ballot initiative is indeed going to win. A number of recent events have also heightened the public’s awareness of the necessity for GMO labeling, not to mention the need to implement the precautionary principle. For example:

  •  The federal government is considering approving the most controversial genetically engineered product since bovine growth hormone in 1994, namely genetically engineered salmon. Even FDA scientists are warning that the GE salmon created by Aquabounty appears to be allergenic to humans. Marine biologists and fishing communities are also pointing out that once these genetically engineered salmon escape into the wild, which they will, they will decimate the wild salmon population.
  • Industry is also trying to get approval for a GE apple, which is anathema to Washington State’s apple producers. This apple is genetically engineered to not turn brown once sliced. Here too, scientists are warning that the genetic manipulation involved in producing this non-browning apple is unpredictable and possibly quite hazardous to human health.
  • Unapproved genetically engineered wheat varieties, created by Monsanto, were recently discovered in the Northwest, causing overseas markets to temporarily cancel imports of American-grown wheat. This naturally caught the attention of wheat growers in Washington State as well.

 

Who Is Funding the Anti-Labeling Campaign? 

Monsanto has so far donated $4.8 million to the No on 522 campaign. Dupont has kicked in another $3.4 million,2 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) $2.2 million. Curiously absent from any list of donors are the big spenders from last year’s No on Prop 37 campaign. However, as explained by Cummins, this cannot be taken as a good sign: 

“I think we’re going to win on November 5th, and industry sees that, too. That’s the reason none of the Big Food companies have been willing to donate money to defeat I-522 in Washington State, or at least they haven’t been willing to publicly donate money. 

The main donations so far against labeling in Washington State, which is about two million dollars, have come disguised as a donation from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The Grocery Manufacturers Association is basically a trade association of 300 large corporations – food and manufacturing corporations – and supermarket chains. 

No one wants to be identified with being against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, so they’re trying to conceal their donations by giving them to the GMA, and then the GMA launders the money for them. But that’s not going to work. It’s going to be coming out more and more: Who is providing the money to try to keep consumers in the dark about labeling?”

 

New Hurdles to Be Faced as Big Biotech Fights to Maintain Control

Recent polls show that 64-66 percent of likely voters in Washington State strongly support GMO labeling, which puts further pressure on companies who’d rather not disclose such ingredients. So what is Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association apt to do, knowing that the Washington State ballot initiative is likely going to pass on November 5th? 

According to Cummins, they’re presently hard at work on a number of fronts. For example, they’re trying to insert a measure into the Farm Bill—known as the King Amendment—which could make it very difficult for states to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. They also tried and failed to keep the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider in the appropriations bill. 

Worse yet, Big Biotech and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are also working on two secret trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). You can learn more about these trade agreements on Organic Consumers Association’s web site.3 As explained by Cummins: 

“These so-called free trade agreements are expansions of the highly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization Agreements (WTO) that has been described as NAFTA or WTO on steroids. Basically, these are secret trade agreements that are being worked on now by representatives of 600 large corporations that are designed to increase the power of corporations to stop nations, states, and municipalities from passing pro-consumer, pro-natural health, or pro-environmental laws. 

Believe it or not, these negotiations are being conducted in secret, where not even the US Congress is allowed to look at what’s being discussed or what’s being proposed. The bottom line is that the reason why Monsanto, the biotech industry, and the Big Food corporations are fully in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is that corporations under these new trade rules will be able to force countries to lower their standards, their safety standards, labeling requirements, labor standards, and so on and so forth… People who have looked at them, like Alan Grayson from the US Congress, have said, ‘This is worse than you could even imagine.’”

 

Let’s Not Allow for Half-Measures… 

On July 10, the Grocery Manufacturers of America held a closed-door meeting in Washington DC, to which 300 large food and chemical companies had been invited.  According to Cummins, one of the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s suggestions for addressing the impending crisis of GMO labeling is to push for a labeling law via the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law, of course, would be likely be merely voluntary, or else full of loopholes and exemptions, such as allowing products that contain five percent or less genetically engineered ingredients to avoid labeling. In short, we can expect them to use every trick in the book to defeat us. 

“But the great thing is, I think, we have now built a coalition that understands food, farming, things like genetic engineering, and things like natural health,” Cummins says. “There are more people who understand these issues now than ever before: millions of readers of Mercola.com, we have a million people in our Organic Consumers’ Association network across the country, and we have millions of people who are members of our allies’ networks. We may not control the mass media like big corporate entities do, but we do have a lot of influence, dominant influence, on the Internet and the social media, and the message is getting out. 

We can win this battle, at least stage one of this battle, but it’s going to take financial contributions. It’s going to take millions of hours literally of volunteer labor on the part of people – educating their friends and families and getting involved in activities in their local communities. It’s going to involve building a broader and broader coalition. 

One of the very exciting things about Prop 37 in California last year was it was the first time in modern history that you saw the organic community and the natural health community working together. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen libertarians, liberals, radicals, and conservatives work together. I think what we realized now is that issues like food and farming, natural health, and the deterioration our environment and climate, these are not partisan issues.”

 

Why GE Cotton Is a Major Health Hazard 

About 20 percent of genetically engineered (GE) crops are used in processed food. The remaining 80 percent of GE crops go into (non-organic) animal feed, cotton, biofuels, cosmetics, and nutritional supplements. This is one of the reasons why I recommend eating organically-raised, grass-fed or pastured meats only and shopping for certified organic clothing and other consumer products whenever possible. A major GMO crop that we need to think more about is genetically engineered cotton. More than 90 percent of the cotton grown in the US is so-called Bt-cotton—genetically engineered to contain its own pesticide, Bt. Sixty percent of what you harvest from a cotton field by weight is the cotton seed, which not only ends up in some processed foods in the form of cottonseed oil, but also in animal feed.  There are a couple of health hazards at play when it comes to genetically engineered Bt cotton:

  •  Bt cotton is engineered to produce its own insecticide inside the plant itself, hence it cannot be washed off—it’s an integral part of the cellular composition of the plant—and its seeds. Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed the Bt toxin would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on humans eating Bt crops, such as Bt corn. However, in 2011, researcher discovered Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women, completely shattering the industry’s claims.
  • The US government, and many other nations, permits cotton to be sprayed with some of the most toxic herbicides on the market, including chemicals not permitted on other crops. The rationale is that cotton is not a food crop, so it “doesn’t matter.” But 60 percent of the cotton harvest DOES go into the food chain! The average American dairy cow, raised in a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) consumes six to eight pounds of cottonseed every day, at least in the Northern climates, as a source of protein. When a cow eats these cotton seeds, these toxins are accumulated in its fatty tissues and milk.

 

As Cummins suggests, we have to start thinking in larger terms. The hazards of GMOs go far beyond the health ramifications of just eating a particular GMO grain. As he says: 

“You go to the clothing store… and you see something labeled ‘All cotton.’ Well, I mean, it should say, ‘All genetically engineered cotton sprayed with ungodly amounts of pesticides whose waste product is in the food you’re eating (if you’re not eating organic food. Organic food, as you know, bans the use of genetically engineered inputs or ingredients and synthetic herbicides and pesticides.) We need to care about what we wear. We need to start thinking. We got millions of us now. When we pull out our wallet at the grocery store, we’re thinking about what we’re buying. Let’s spread that to clothing.’”

 

Opt for REAL Food   

(INSERT:  CAFO = Confined Agriculture Feeding Operation.  In Canada more commonly called an ILA, Intensive Livestock Operation)

Why do Americans continue to buy 90-95 percent of the meat and animal products from factory farms, where animals are raised in wholly unnatural ways and on completely unnatural diets? Lack of truthful information is likely part of the equation. People just don’t know how their food is produced. “Meat is meat, right?” most assume. But there is actually very little similarity between CAFO beef, meat and dairy and grass-fed beef, meat and dairy. 

CAFO beef and dairy comes from animals fed genetically engineered grains and often cotton seed, both of which are heavily contaminated with potent toxins. They’re also raised in crowded, prison-like conditions where they’re drugged with antibiotics and hormones to keep them relatively free from disease and to force them to grow faster. The end result is a meat product that is inevitably not going to be healthful for human consumption… 

As Cummins says: 

“Grass-fed meat, dairy, and eggs are the way to go. Organic production is the way to go… We need to know what we’re eating. We need to live in a country where we believe that if you give people information, objective information, if you give them a choice, they will do the right thing. This idea that Americans will always go for the cheaper food – that’s the reason why we have this factory farm system and this GMO system, why we have this obesity and heart disease epidemic, and why we spend twice as much money on so-called healthcare as any other industrial nation – it’s not true. 

… I’m very happy to say that the Organic Consumers Fund, which is the lobbying ally of Organic Consumers Association, and Mercola are two of the major donors to the Yes on 522 so far. We’re well on track to raise enough money to have a full month or six weeks of TV and radio ads, so that we’re not going to be outspent on the advertising front in Washington. Spending one dollar on TV or radio ads in Washington is the equivalent of spending eight dollars in California. We don’t need to raise quite as much money as we raised in California. 

Of course, it’s extremely important that the readers of Mercola.com and our nationwide network of organic consumers make financial contributions. The reason we were able to basically put in two and a half million dollars into the California effort last year was that 40,000 people made small contributions of 50 dollars or more. If you go to OrganicConsumers.org or Mercola.com, you’ll see that you can make a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund that will go into this decisive battle in Washington.” 

 

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled! 

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have. 

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). 

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  •  No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

 

Oct 122013
 

These three are connected.  I don’t need to explain how:

1.    I hope that people, including Law students, will challenge the idea that the Government, in over-riding a Charter Right, has to meet strict standards that protect the Charter Rights.

There is little protection because the process is flawed.  It’s not too hard to see.

(Explanation – it’s short!)   The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.  The obvious remedy is presented, too.  Based on experience from my trial.

 

2.    Here is a warning for Canadians, if ever there was one.  See ERNST VS ENCANA.   Jessica Ernst’s water supply was destroyed by “fracking”.

How has the Government set it up and how must (?) the courts respond?

Excerpt:

(Alberta ERCB = Energy Resources Conservation Board)

the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Maybe the better question:  how do citizens respond?   Where is the tipping point?   . . . check out

 

3.    The East  (a movie)

 

Oct 122013
 

I recommend The East.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1869716/ 

Find it in a theatre or on-line.

It is timely, provocative, and well-done.

Excerpt (lower down on the website):

The film follows Jane Owen (Marling), an undercover security agent, as she leaves behind her doting boyfriend (Jason Ritter) to infiltrate an eco-terrorist group known as The East, who have publicly targeted massive corporations for their covered-up crimes against humans and nature.  . . .   Jane slowly grows fascinated with the group, its morals and goals, and its core, . . .  observing with a mix of horror and infatuation as they execute their violent “jams” on the corporations’ key members. 

. . .  It makes for an uncomfortably provocative watch: as we learn more about the characters, their backgrounds, and the corporations’ crimes (which are based in fact), it’s hard to determine who the “bad guys” are.  I saw the film at a festival where Batmanglij gave a short Q&A after and he revealed that he, Marling, and Page had lived with similar groups (without the terrorism) before and were sympathetic with the East’s cause, if not their methods.

I highly recommend making time to find and see this movie.

Whether it’s

  • the petroleum industry (in the movie, in the Tar Sands, in Jessica Ernst’s life, or elsewhere)
  • the pharmaceutical industry (in the movie, and discussed many times in emails)
  • the war industry (Audrey Tobias, my trial, etc.)
  • the uranium/nuclear industry
  • the chemical/biotech corporations  (March Against Monsanto)
  • all of them in Government and in the Universities

it is past time to figure out what to do about them.

There are more than enough of us.

Join and support

  • Idle No More
  • Occupy
  • Marches
  • Whistleblowers
  • Your choice

We know what DOESN’T work.

Oct 122013
 

Here is a warning for Canadians, if ever there was one.

The immunity of the oil and gas companies in Alberta, as spelt out in this court decision, is appalling – – more evidence that we have a “petro-state”, not a democracy.

The legislation that made this possible was fought unsuccessfully;  now we have the consequences:

(Alberta ERCB = Energy Resources Conservation Board)

Excerpt :

the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing (INSERT:  fracturing – explained below), after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts.

Bless Jessica Ernst for her tireless and expensive efforts to educate and to launch legal action against fracking.

 

—– Original Message —–

The Lawsuit:  ERNST VERSUS ENCANA

UPDATE / October 9, 2013

PRESS ADVISORY

(French translation of advisory: http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit)

Chief Justice rejects Alberta government’s attack on Rosebud water contamination case – but dismisses case against Alberta’s key energy regulator, the ERCB.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing – injecting fluids (gases or liquids, sand and toxic chemicals) under high pressure to shatter deep and shallow rock to stimulate hydrocarbons to flow – has raised serious economic, political, legal, health and environmental issues around the world.

In a judgment  recently released by the Alberta Court of Queen’s bench,  Chief Justice Neil Wittmann ruled on the first skirmishes in a landmark multi-million dollar claim by Jessica Ernst against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) regarding water contamination caused by fraccing.

Key parts of the judgment include:

The court rejected the Government of Alberta’s attempt to attack portions of the lawsuit, thereby paving the way for the claim against the Government of Alberta to proceed.

Justice Wittmann agreed there were valid claims asserted against the ERCB for breaching Ms. Ernst’s fundamental and constitutional right to freedom of expression. The court also found “the ERCB cannot rely on its argument on the Weibo eco-terrorism claim, in the total absence of evidence. There is none.” However, the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing, after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts. Ms. Ernst was ordered to pay the ERCB’s costs.

Ms. Ernst has instructed her legal counsel to appeal the decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the ERCB.

“I think Albertans will be disturbed to learn that their energy regulator has total and blanket immunity, even in cases where the regulator has breached the fundamental and constitutional free speech rights of a landowner,” said Murray Klippenstein, lead legal counsel for Ms. Ernst.

“It is very worrying that citizens are unable to hold the energy regulator accountable for failing to protect citizens from the harmful impacts of fraccing,” said Cory Wanless, co-counsel for Ms. Ernst. “If the energy regulator won’t protect citizens, who will?”

For more information, including Encana’s Statement of Defence, refer below:

-30-

CONTACT:

Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:

Murray Klippenstein
(416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634

Cory Wanless
(416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914

Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074
contact  AT   jessicaernst.ca

– – – – – –

France upholds constitution (fracking ban):
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/frances-fracking-ban-absolute-after-court-upholds-law-frac-ban-in-france-is-constitutional-judgement-schuepbach-energy-llc

Alberta spits on it:
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/gerard-prottis-alberta-energy-regulator-given-immunity-in-frac-suit-ok-to-violate-constitutional-rights-of-canadians-i-have-no-choice-but-to-appeal-says-jessica-ernst

– – – – –

Alberta Energy Regulator Given Immunity in Landmark Fracking Suit  http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Regulator-Fracking-Suit/

‘I have no choice but to appeal’, says plaintiff Jessica Ernst, who alleges industry polluted her water.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, October 9, 2013, TheTyee.ca

Alberta’s chief justice has ruled that a landmark lawsuit against the Alberta government and the energy giant Encana Corporation over groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracking can finally proceed to court.

But in the same lengthy 41-page ruling, Justice Neil Wittman also struck the province’s energy regulator from the lawsuit.

His decision found that the Alberta government had granted statutory immunity to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) from all legal claims.

In other words, the board cannot be sued when oil and gas activities regulated by the agency poison livestock, devalue property, sicken landowners or contaminate ground or surface waters.

The lawsuit, filed by oil patch environmental consultant Jessica Ernst, alleges that Encana drilled and fracked shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst’s water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.

In addition, Ernst’s claim details how Alberta’s energy regulators — the ERCB (now called the Alberta Energy Regulator) and Alberta Environment — “failed to follow the investigation and enforcement processes that they had established and publicized” despite direct evidence of industry-caused pollution and public admissions that shallow fracturing puts groundwater at risk.

The regulator is 100 per cent funded by industry and directed by a former oil lobbyist and Encana vice president, Gerard Protti. Landowners generally regard the AER as a reactive agency that works for an industry-friendly government and that now garners one-third of its revenue from the extraction of hydrocarbons.

MORE:

Encana Files Defence in Lawsuit with Fracking Folk Hero http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/09/20/Encana-Fracking-Lawsuit/

Landmark case could change how shale gas industry is regulated in Canada.Alberta’s Top Judge to Hear High Profile Fracking Case http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/29/Alberta-Fracking-Case/

Flaming tap water lawsuit by Jessica Ernst faced delay after previous judge promoted.   Fracking: Feds Throw Wrench in High Profile Lawsuit  http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/22/BC-Fracking-Lawsuit/Judge suddenly promoted; plaintiff Ernst sees strategy to ‘delay and exhaust.’

Oct 122013
 

ITEM  A

Page 1 of 3

2013-10-12    The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.

 

This arises from my experience in trial over the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.

I hope that people, including Law students, will challenge the idea that the Government, in over-riding a Charter Right, has to meet strict standards that protect Charter Rights.  That is a myth.  It is not true.

In reality, there is little protection because the procedure is flawed.  It’s not too hard to see.

The following may be useful to someone, sometime.

THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK: 

If the Government wants to over-ride a Charter Right, it must successfully argue the OAKES TEST in front of a Judge.

MORE  – – see Items # 3 & 4  in   Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy . . . Oakes Test to override.

 

THE WAY IT WORKS IN PRACTICE –  HOW IS THE OAKES TEST CIRCUMVENTED?  . . . EASILY

The test has to be triggered by the Crown (the Prosecutors).   All they have to do (as they did in my case), is DECLINE TO ARGUE THE OAKES TEST – – make some other argument.   They can thereby extinguish a Charter Right without ever having to justify doing so.

It is a sound strategy if you are the Prosecutor, trying to win a case against a Charter Right.

But it has the consequence of making a mockery of the Oakes Test, AND of  the Section 1 Over-ride, AND of the Charter Right.

 

Page  2 of 3

WHAT SHOULD BE

In defending a Charter Right, the Defence has to be able to compel the Crown to meet (to argue) the requirements of the Oakes Test.

The Test is irrelevant, unless there is some way in which the DEFENCE is able to trigger it?  Or unless the Judge can order it?

UNTIL THEN   Charter Rights in Canada are extremely vulnerable, maybe non-existent.

My Direct Experience,   Excerpt:

  1. IMPORTANT: IN MY TRIAL, THE CROWN DID NOT ARGUE AN OVERRIDE OF THE SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT. BUT THE CHARTER RIGHT WAS IN FACT TAKEN AWAY.

Steve (lawyer) writes, 2013:   (I, Sandra,  added the parentheses.)

The “override” you’re talking about is section 1 of the Charter, which was not raised by the Crown, so it was not considered by Judge Whelan (Provincial Court, guilty decision) or Justice Conkin (Court of Queen’s Bench, guilty decision upheld).

Judge Whelan’s decision focused on whether the search was “reasonable” under section 8 of the Charter.

As I had previously understood lawyer Steve’s explanation:

  • under the procedures we, the defendants, could not place the argument against an override of the Section 8 Charter Right before the Court. The argument for an override had to be originated by the Crown, and then we could have placed the opposing argument, defending against an override.

(INSERT:  The Judge asked the Prosecutor a few times if he was going to argue a Section 1 override of my Charter Right to privacy of personal information. The prosecutor consistently said “no”.  I was confused by this.  My understanding of the law was that the Crown effectively wanted to extinguish my right to Privacy.  And would therefore be compelled to successfully argue the Oakes Test (which I didn’t think they could do).   As became clear,  the Prosecution would have been crazy to follow the prescribed procedure for override on a Charter Right.  Read on.)

For me, the EFFECT of the Crown not arguing a Section 1 override:

 

Page 3 of 3

I was given a conditional discharge, but at the base, I was found guilty of non-compliance – – which has the effect of removing the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

The OAKES TEST is specifically a TWO-PART test, with a 1. AND a 2. The Crown Prosecutor and Judge did not consider it, although it is the procedure established by law to override a Charter Right.

We were denied the ability to make the Oakes Test arguments against an override of the Charter Right to privacy. The Judge did not have to address those arguments in her decision through the simple mechanism of not calling it a Section 1 override.

The “REASONABLENESS” addressed by the Judge, as I understand, was whether it was reasonable for the Government to collect the information (because it is valuable information).

The preceding,  (#4.)  is excerpted from:

2010-12-23 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state. Oakes Test to override.

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

UPDATE   Feb 2016:  From posting    2016-02-04 Census, Lockheed Martin & Charter Right. Replies to student research, Philosophy Class, Truth & Propaganda.  (Includes “What were my primary motivations?)

RE:    former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.

MY REPLY:

Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual.  However,

  1. The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that.  StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so.
  2. In order to override the Charter Right of an individual, the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.

If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test.   It has not done that.   So the Charter Right stands.