Sandra Finley v. Her Majesty the Queen
SCC File No.: 35431
. . . Further to a communication from the Supreme Court of Canada today, please be advised that the judgment in the above-referenced Leave to Appeal will be rendered at
9:45 a.m. on (Thursday) October 10,2013.
(Ontario time)
Thank-you StatsCan, for selecting 89-year-old Audrey Tobias to prosecute! Way to go, Audrey!!
Lockheed Martin is becoming a household name in Canada. They and their evil deeds were little known in Canada 7 years ago.
Audrey Tobias did not fill in her 2011 Census form because of Lockheed Martin’s involvement. She’s on trial.
The Judge’s decision will be known October 9.
In the witness stand . . . Tobias explained she was a member of the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service during the Second World War.
She became a committed peace activist after viewing movie footage of the war and the atomic bombing of Japan, and touring a desolate post-war Europe.
“I recall the great pain of that,” she said, as a court full of supporters watched.
I’ve appended links to some of the on-line news reports. And used their “comments” section to correct some of the misinformation – – my way of supporting Audrey in whatever way possible.
RE: (Excerpt from news story) In 2011, StatsCan received 13 million completed census forms, a 98 per cent response rate. Overall, it referred 54 people for prosecution for failing to complete the mandatory census form.
2% of 13 million is 260,000.
For previous censuses, StatsCan and the Justice Department have consistently referred 62 to 65 people for prosecution; 54 is a decline in the numbers prosecuted.
SOME OF THE NEWS REPORTS:
– http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/03/trial_begins_for_89yearold_who_wont_fill_out_census.html
– http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/03/audrey-tobias-census-fine-stephen-harper_n_4034723.html
– http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ww-ii-veteran-audrey-tobias-census-objector-in-court-1.1893927
– http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-woman-89-pleads-not-guilty-in-census-protest-case-1.1481472
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/03/trial_begins_for_89yearold_who_wont_fill_out_census.html#
Audrey Tobias was joined by about 80 supporters as her lawyer argued for her stand against the census software provided by Lockheed Martin.
By: Liam Casey
An 89-year-old woman believes she won her case for refusing to fill out her census form. But the judge will make his decision next Wednesday. Yet Audrey Tobias expects to lose.
“I think it went quite well and everyone listened to everyone nicely,” Tobias said afterward.
Added her lawyer, Peter Rosenthal: “It went very well, I thought. It’s a tough case, but she was able to express her opinion, so in that way we’ve won.”
At the heart of Tobias’ stand against the census is Lockheed Martin, the American weapons manufacturer who provided Statistics Canada with the software to process millions of forms.
Rosenthal argued that forcing Tobias to fill out the form would be against her Charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.
Tobias also expressed concern about the security breaches revealed by Edward Snowden, who has explained how the U.S. National Security Agency used “back doors” to access Americans’ telecommunications.
About 80 of Tobias’s friends packed the courtroom on the second floor of Old City Hall Thursday, many of them retired. The overflowing courtroom had some sitting in the prisoner’s box.
When Crown attorney Maria Gaspar stood up to read the agreed statement of facts, the courtroom erupted.
“Please speak up,” one man shouted.
“Louder,” yelled an older woman.
“There’s a lot of seniors here,” another man said, fiddling with his hearing aid.
Once the microphones were working, Yves Beland — the director of census operations, and the Crown’s only witness — explained the security of StatsCan’s network. The data, he said, is maintained on a secure network with “no connection to the outside world.”
He detailed the minutiae surrounding how people log in to the Internet to fill out the census form. Just as he was about to explain how the paper form and telephone census worked, Justice Ramez Khawly cut him off.
“Do we have to go through this?”
He explained the security of Statistics Canada’s census network.
“There have been no breaches of the 2006 and 2011 census data,” Beland told court, referring to both censuses processed with Lockheed Martin’s software.
The census has a 98 per cent response rate and about 330 refusals, of which 54 are being prosecuted, Beland said.
He said that a few companies bid on the 2006 census, which Lockheed won. The American company was the only company to bid on the 2011 census, primarily because Statistics Canada had such specific requests to update the software Lockheed built for them earlier that they were the only company that even qualified.
On cross-examination, Rosenthal asked if Beland had ever heard of Edward Snowden.
“No,” Beland said.
Beland said Statistics Canada hired hackers to try to break into its own system, but were unable to. He also said it hired companies to monitor the code that Lockheed Martin provided for any suspicious activities, of which, he said, there were none.
“That you know of,” asked Rosenthal.
“Yes,” Beland said.
Then Rosenthal called Tobias to the stand. Everyone clapped, with the odd “Woot!”
“Listen, I run a pretty loose courtroom, but this is not a movie,” Justice Ramez Khawly said with a big grin. Everyone laughed.
Tobias has said she has no problem with the census itself, but takes issue with how the information is processed. She spoke of her lengthy involvement against military action, which dates back to her involvement in the Second World War.
“I would like our country to be peaceful,” Tobias told court. “Giving (the contract) to a military company sends a message that we support military solutions.”
She had the courtroom laughing on several occasions. Rosenthal asked her to explain how she became a peace activist.
“Well, it won’t be brief,” she said.
And, when asked her age: “I’m 89 — I’ve seen better days.”
Rosenthal also called Arcady Genkin, who helps protect the University of Toronto’s networks. The judge and Crown had issues with Genkin, since he wasn’t an official “expert,” which limited his testimony to the university’s network and meant he was not able to give a opinion on Statistics Canada’s.
“It sounds like they are doing what they should be doing, but those are precautionary measures,” Genkin said. “There are no guarantees for any network. They all have vulnerabilities.”
It’s a sentiment that a security expert echoed when speaking with the Star Thursday.
“There is no such thing as a secure network,” said Christian Leuprecht, a professor at Queen’s University and the Royal Military College of Canada. “But you are taking a far greater security risk with your phone than you are with Lockheed Martin or StatsCan.”
Rosenthal said Lockheed Martin could, in theory, build a backdoor and access the census data. Under the U.S. Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can demand American companies hand over their data, regardless of where it comes from.
But even in the age of NSA snooping on companies like Google and Microsoft, there is simply too much at stake for both Lockheed and the Canadian government.
“For one, if the census data were ever hacked, no one would ever fill out a census again,” Leuprecht said.
Rosenthal also had a lengthy tête-à-tête with the judge about the finer details of freedom of expression.
“The question is, how does this really affect Ms Tobias should it get out?” the judge asked, adding that the short-form census doesn’t have much besides her basic personal information.
“Where do you draw the line?” the judge asked, seemingly leaning toward the Crown’s argument that this doesn’t violate her freedom of expression.
“There isn’t much case law supporting Mr. Rosenthal’s client.”
The judge will give his decision on Oct. 9.
Tobias left the court exhausted, but pleased. And off she went for a late afternoon dinner across the street.
The words out-of-the-mouth of the MP who defends the expropriation and expansion of CFB Trenton is in the video at the bottom of the article – see the URL. http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/01/85-year-old-farmer-loses-land-battle-though-military-grants-him-one-last-harvest/
(I copied the Text of the article below for backup purposes.)
Member-of-Parliament Rick Norluck’s argument is the one used by the War Corporations in the U.S. (I wonder who scripted it for him.) It is an unsound economic argument, easily refuted.
Rick Norluck, MP for Northumberland-Quinte West parrots:
” . . . It’s good for the area . . . It is in the national interest that we proceed with this. The vast majority .. want this to go ahead sooner .. because they know the economic implications. This means a lot to this community. This is about jobs and family’s incomes and economic development.. .”
IT IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT:
What happens when you invest in wheat? . . . you develop an economy based on wheat (grain production).
What happens when you invest in the tar sands? . . . you develop an economy based on petroleum. If the amount of money invested is huge, other industries are starved of investment (the Ontario manufacturing base).
What happens when you invest in War? Your economy becomes dependent upon war.
What happens when you invest in destructive industries – – the only jobs available to young people are jobs that kill either the environment, or people, or both.
The farmer at the heart of the expropriation, Frank Meyers, understands what the First Nations people know: take away people’s ability to feed themselves, you make them dependent and impoverished.
What happens when you invest in solving the problems of our society – – we’ll never know because we keep sending our taxes and pension money for investment in the industries that create destruction and waste resources.
Let Rick Norluck know. His contact info: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=170175
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Farmer loses land battle, though military grants him one last harvest
Fighting to save his beloved farm from Canada’s elite soldiers, Frank Meyers is finally forced to surrender
by Michael Friscolanti
In Frank Meyers’s eyes, the view from his dining room window is priceless. Literally. He can see the old wooden house where he lived as a little boy. The family barn, rebuilt with his talented hands. Rows and rows of sweet corn, sprouting from prime Ontario soil. No matter how many federal bureaucrats knocked on his door—or how much cash they offered to pay—the 85-year-old farmer refused, again and again, to sell his beloved land. As he likes to say: “You can’t eat the money.”
But as Frank Meyers learned today—in a heartbreaking moment he’d been dreading for years—you can’t stop the government, either. If the feds want your property (in his case, to build a state-of-the-art training ground for the Canadian military’s elite special forces commandos), fighting back is futile. “In other countries, they’re crushing you with bullets and guns and ammunition and tanks and explosives,” Meyers says. “Not in Canada. It’s pencil and paper here, and then they’ve got control.”
A senior military officer from CFB Trenton—joined, just in case, by members of the Ontario Provincial Police—visited the Meyers farm Tuesday morning to explain the inevitable next step. Effective immediately, for the first time in his life, Meyers has no legal right to step foot on “his” property. First thing Wednesday morning, the Department of National Defence will erect “No Trespassing” signs around the fence line, as contractors begin preliminary work on what will become the new headquarters of Joint Task Force 2. (Those “No Trespassing” signs would have gone up today, a military spokesman says, but the base is doing everything it can to be “sensitive” to Frank Meyers. “We are concerned about his emotions,” says Captain Christopher Daniel. “His condition is our top priority. We want to make sure he’s okay.”)
Meyers, of course, will never be okay. For a man who knows every square centimetre of his farm—and the rich history that defines it—today’s news could not be more devastating. “I’m going on 86 years old, and they’re harassing a man like me?” he says. “I haven’t done anything wrong and I’m not doing anything wrong. They’re just mad at me because I didn’t roll over and say: ‘Yes, yes, yes, yes.’ ”
Since the Harper Conservatives were first elected in 2006, they have proclaimed their plans to bring a specialized army unit to CFB Trenton, the country’s largest and busiest air force base. In 2009, Ottawa revealed that the incoming unit would be none other than JTF 2, Canada’s top-secret special forces squad, currently based on the outskirts of Ottawa. The move is the highlight of a massive base expansion project that will inject millions of dollars into the local economy (not to mention hundreds of heavily trained counterterrorism troops).
But as Maclean’s first reported, the plan didn’t sit well with a few local landowners, whose properties—unbeknownst to them—had been selected for JTF 2’s new 400-hectare home. “Our world has been crushed,” one owner said at the time. “Somebody somewhere has decided they want to move JTF 2, but did they ever take into consideration what that was going to do to other people? They drew a red line around these pieces of property, and ever since then everybody in there has been screwed.”
Angry or not, the 12 landowners were left with only two real options: sell now, or be expropriated later. One by one, they agreed to sell—until there was just one holdout left: Frank Meyers.
When the government officially filed expropriation papers in February 2012, the Meyers family hired a lawyer and launched their only available appeal: an objection in front of an independent hearings officer. Their central argument was that the military had more than enough land to extend the base, and the Meyers’ 90 hectares weren’t necessary to complete the project. They also trumpeted the historical significance of the farm: the direct descendant of Capt. John Walden Meyers, a Loyalist war hero and founder of nearby Belleville, Ont., Frank Meyers farmed a portion of the very same plot of land King George III awarded to his legendary forefather for his service during the American Revolution. As Frank Meyers has said many times: “This property didn’t come from the Canadian government, it came from the British government. So if the Queen wants it, let her come and see me.”
The Harper government was unmoved. After reading the hearing officer’s report in May 2012, then-Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose declared the Meyers land “absolutely essential for the safety and security of Canada” and rubberstamped the expropriation papers. The final selling price was the only thing left to negotiate.
But in the 17 months since, Frank Meyers has refused repeated offers from the government. He did sign a licensing agreement that allowed him to continue farming the property while he removed his belongings, but when that deal expired at midnight on Monday, the government refused to extend it. Nearly seven years after his fight began—and more than two centuries after his family first moved to the farm—Meyers has no choice but to finally surrender. “Without enough public support, I don’t think there is anything more we can do,” says John Meyers, Frank’s son. “It is difficult to know that you’re losing everything you’ve got. You try to remain optimistic that things will work out, but you just don’t know.”
Technically, the Meyers are not completely banned from the farm. Not yet, at least. Col. David Lowthian, the new wing commander at CFB Trenton, has ordered his staff to be as accommodating as possible as the Meyers adjust to their new reality. For the next month, they will be allowed to enter the property during the day to continue removing their belongings (as long as they notify the base in advance), and when the corn is ready, they can also request permission to harvest their crop one final time. “Throughout the process we have remained respectful and non-confrontational with Mr. Meyers,” says Daniel, the base spokesman. “That is what we have been doing, and that’s what we’ll continue doing.”
John Meyers admits that DND has been “fair” with his family. The department of public works is completely different story, he says, as they continue to haggle over the final selling price, including moving costs. (The Meyers house, and a small piece of surrounding land, were spared from expropriation). But whatever the final result, whatever the final selling price, one thing is certain: at some point, as winter settles in, the gates will be locked for good. And the view from Frank’s front window, a source of pride for so many decades, will be a painful sight to see.
Note: Italicized bold underlined text is a link
Re: seeking leave-to-appeal to the SCC (Supreme Court of Canada), R v Finley
1. SCC Objective Summary Sep2013
As at Sept 30, 2013,
this two-paragraph Summary of the issue in my trial has the potential to decide whether we have the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, or not.
2. MY RESPONSE TO THE SUMMARY
The Summary is misleading. The reasons why are in To lawyer re SCC Objective Summary.
Lawyer Steve responded:
– The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process.
– I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.
– – – – – – – – – –
The Objective Summary was prepared by a lawyer who works for the Supreme Court.
It will be given to the Panel of 3 Justices to aid their decision whether leave-to-appeal in my case, R vs Finley, is granted.
3. SCC Referral to Panel Sep2013
Names the 3 Justices who will decide whether leave-to-appeal is granted. One of them is Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for whom I have respect, we’ve referred to her work in a number of postings (for years she has been telling the Judges and Lawyers that they have to reform the Justice system).
4. Canadian Law, the Charter Right to Privacy
Effectively, this will be lost, if I lose the court case:
“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.”
(I was found guilty of non-compliance with the Statistics Act; I did not fill in and return the 2006 Census Long Form with its 50+ questions, many of them personal. Lockheed Martin Corp (the American military) is involved in the StatsCan data base.)
5. It is more than the Charter Right. Please see “What is at Stake?” in
I need your critical thoughts! (Census Lockheed Martin, trial, appeal to Supreme Court).
It documents the intrustion into Canadian affairs of the American power elite and their desire to have access to personal records on Canadians.
(Background for newcomers, see: Lockheed Martin, . . . Census, Surveys, Charter Right to Privacy, On Trial
(SCC = Supreme Court of Canada)
NEED CRITICAL INPUT
Will some of you please read the Objective Summary (2 paragraphs) and provide your critical thoughts to me?
At this juncture,
a two-paragraph Summary of the issue in my trial has the potential to decide whether we have the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, or not. (Never mind the question of whether we have Lockheed Martin involved!)
I am concerned that the Summary is not Objective. I am unwilling to run the risk that, in a very busy world, summaries may have undue influence.
The Objective Summary has been prepared by a lawyer who works for the Supreme Court.
It will be given to the Panel of 3 Justices to aid their decision whether leave-to-appeal in my case, R vs Finley, is granted.
The naming of the 3-Justice panel is at: SCC Referral to Panel
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is on the panel. I have respect for her, we’ve referred to her work in a number of postings.
But I also know the Justices receive hundreds of applications for leave-to-appeal. And they are human.
Knowledge of What’s at Stake? (below) drives me to ensure that the best possible be done. I know that “the best” comes from your ideas in combination with my own.
Today I sent an email outlining what I see as the basic problem: To lawyer re SCC Objective Summary.
Steve responded: The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process. I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.
What are your thoughts about the Summary? Time is short. I want to forward your input to Lawyer Steve in anticipation of a green light on getting the Summary changed.
Thanks,
Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
(This is a reminder because we are forgetful creatures.)
– Lockheed Martin is involved in the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada that is continuously being added to.
– Under the Patriot Act, American corporations and their (Canadian) subsidiaries, if requested, must supply data bases to which they have access, to the American Government (think NSA, their National Security Agency).
– From testimony given at my trial by the then-head of the Census operations at Statistics Canada, I know that NAMES are on the individual records on the StatsCan data base. The information is NOT “anonymous”.
– The data on individuals being collected by StatsCan is increasingly comprehensive. The number of questions went up to more than 50 in the 2006 Census (once every five years). The Census long form then became the (on-going data collection) National Household Survey. Within a couple of years the number of questions was up to approximately 80. StatsCan uses coercion and manipulation to force people to answer the questions (see on-going people’s stories on my blog).
– We have known from newspaper reports that the Americans want the information on all Canadians. Excerpt from CHRONOLOGY: …
2008 November: OTTAWA CITIZEN, “CANADIAN OFFICIALS .. WILL MEET THE NEW STANDARD” FOR SUPPLYING DATA ON CANADIANS TO THE AMERICANS…”
“… American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians, says an influential analyst on Canada-U.S. relations.
“Not only about (routine) individuals, but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there’s no indictment and there’s no charge,” Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute told a security intelligence conference in Ottawa yesterday. . Canadian officials have said this country will meet the new standard, “plus or minus a little,” by 2011, he said. “But there’ll be tremendous pressure (from the U.S.) to get there faster.“
(Link no longer valid) http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=64f59d78-ce97-48dc-b2fd-381859ce6c84
What better vehicle for the American military to get information on all Canadians than through the Census with Lockheed Martin as the conduit?
– We have known HOW it is to happen. Maclean’s Magazine Sept 2006:
The President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin, Ron Covais, active on the SPP with Stephen Harper, tells Macleans Magazine in an article entitled Meet NAFTA 2.0,
“We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes, because we won’t get anywhere.” The main avenue for changes would be through executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulations, he said, adding: “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘Tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen.‘”
(Link no longer valid) http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20060911_133202_133202
– There is harmonization and integration of data on citizens through Census Bureaux in Western Nations, under the influence of the American power elite and their puppets.
In the early stages of my trial I represented myself. I did the cross-examination (not well!) of the StatsCan witness who was head of the Census operations. Because of similarities I was seeing between the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. census operations I was curious about the extent of “harmonization and integration”.
It was told to the Court that the Census Bureaux from numerous Western nations meet and cooperate, etc.
Lockheed Martin in involved in the U.K. census data base, as it is in the Canadian and American. I don’t know the full extent, other nations.
– We have known since 2009, NSA to Build $1.6 Billion Storage Facility to House Personal Surveillance Data, Utah (The amount increased to $2 billion and the centre is now in operation.)
– The “revelations” by Edward Snowden only confirmed what we have known. From the last email I sent out (Who will win? Our feudal lords or us?!):
It’s rather exciting when the New York Times publishes an editorial that explains, in easy to understand language, how the NSA gets into “secure” data bases: Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial
– There is much more, e.g. the deployment of drones all along the Canada-U.S. border, but surely the preceding is more than sufficient motivation to share information with more Canadians.
– If I lose the request for leave-to-appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be the end of the legal process. The decisions of the lower Courts would prevail: I would remain “guilty”. Which would mean that Effectively we do not have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.
– It will not be a disaster if that happens. It is one skirmish in the larger battle for democratic values. But it would be very nice to win this one!
– Right now, the best way to help is to just pass the information along. And trust that it will fall into the right hands through those “6 degrees of separation”!
Thanks,
Sandra
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NOW THE FUNNY SIDE!
We can’t hide behind the delusion that we are rational beings – – there is simply too much research to the contrary (3 examples below).
The funny side is related to the idea that Court cases, the law, is “Objective” – – ha! Ha! – – and intending no disrespect to the Justices. It is just the way we are as human beings.
Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves. (Carl Sagan)
No need for conspiracy theories – – although Lockheed Martin is certainly “conspiring”!
When you “see through” things, it usually makes you laugh, as when a child creates an imaginative but false reason for having their way.
THREE EXAMPLES, OUR DELUSIONS ABOUT OURSELVES:
– A very interesting, 17-minute presentation about the myth of rationality: The fiction of memory, Elizabeth Loftus, TED Talk.
– Some time ago we circulated the closely related: Perception, an illustration of our fallibility and our gullibility. Dan Simons. Basketball.
– The question of our rationality is addressed brilliantly by John Ralston Saul: Understanding why we flounder, help from John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”
“I’m a logician. No matter how wrong I am, I can always convince myself I am right. ” ― Jarod Kintz ( http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/delusion)
So let’s have a good laugh. When I wrote “What’s at Stake?” (above), it DID seem to me that we are collectively a bunch of lunatics! We are ludicrous to the point of being funny.
Maybe the system we have designed for “justice” and the preservation of democracy is even funnier. Or, the role we have assigned to it, and accept, is quirky. The issues in this case are extremely important, but the process so far, does not allow me to address “What’s At Stake?”
Some will say that is deliberate. I don’t think so. There is nothing to prevent us from evolving that which does not serve us well.
We have the freedom to make our minds known, the freedom to communicate with our fellow citizens . . . WHO THAT IS SANE would just give up the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information without a fight? If you have any idea about the role of detailed files on citizens – – it is symptomatic of a police/military state.
As R vs Finley moves through the Justice system, I see the possibility that an Objective Summary written by one lawyer, could halt the “Rational” consideration of whether, under Appeal, the Supreme Court will stand behind our Charter Right.
I better understand how it was that the “influential people of the day”, the lawyers and judges and academics, became participants in the run to power of the Nazis in Pre-World War Two Europe – -but not necessarily did they ALL act out of malice.
I have maintained that the Second World War could have been avoided – – IF the citizens of Germany had opposed early enough, what they knew was wrong.
But perhaps it is ALSO as Sagan says: Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves.
We believe ourselves to be objective. But the research shows we have misplaced faith in ourselves.
Canadian Law, the Charter Right:
“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”
If I lose the court case, we will have lost the Charter Right.
Uhhh . . . not exactly a laughing matter.
Elizabeth Loftus: The fiction of memory
17:36 minutes • Filmed Jun 2013 • Posted Sep 2013 • TEDGlobal 2013
Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back
“Our perceptions are fallible. We sometimes see what isn’t there. We are prey to optical illusions. Occasionally we hallucinate. We are error-prone.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
RELATED: Perception,
an illustration of our fallibility and our gullibility. Dan Simons. Basketball.
Concern: The Supreme Court of Canada Objective Summary prepared by an SCC lawyer for submission to the Panal of 3 Justices who will decide whether to grant leave-to-appeal is not objective.
I emailed my lawyer as follows.
He responded:
The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process.
I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Hi Steve,
What is the deadline for responding to the Objective Summary?
Marie-France’s fax to you (Sept 23) says we are receiving the Summary “to ensure no significant errors”.
It would be easier to correct a “factual mistake” than what has been done in the Summary (see APPENDED).
I think we have to try and get the Summary changed to be “objective”, which it is not.
What is the time-line for doing so?
Sandra
= = = = = = = =
APPENDED
Re: “only allowed to correct factual mistakes” in the SUMMARY
A few points:
1) The particular facts selected have a large influence on the viewpoint created in the reader/listener.
2) The repetition of a single argument in a brief document reinforces a particular viewpoint while simultaneously screening out all other equally valid facts.
3) The Objective Summary is two paragraphs.
PARAGRAPH 1: leads with “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”
PARAGRAPH 2: first sentence is “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”
4) A rational person who has only this Objective Summary for input, will be misled.
The Law as applied by Statistics Canada and the Justice Department does not provide for partial completion of the form. I had lengthy and on-going conversations with Statistics Canada about the dilemma with the 2006 census, starting two years (early 2004) in advance. They did not offer any option in choosing which questions to answer. It is all or nothing. Beginning in 2008 the consistent and repeated threat to me was to answer the questions and if not, face prosecution, a fine of up to $500 AND/or 3 months in jail.
The fact that there is no option – all or nothing – – is at the very least, equally pertinent to the statement “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”.
The Objective Summary presents and repeats one selected fact which significantly biases the Summary.
Sandra
I am betting on us!
For that to happen: pass along some information to just a few others.
Our Feudal Lords will win if we are unable to get the more accurate story into the hands of enough people.
There are some amazing initiatives that I will put into a later email.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1. Excellent: The war on whistleblowers and journalism (Panel discussion with Assange, Greenwald, O’Brien, Manning’s lawyer, ..)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2. UPDATE: AUDREY TOBIAS, 2ND APPEARANCE IN COURT, OCT 3 (From Audrey’s friends at VANA, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms)
Audrey Tobias, the 88-year old war veteran who didn’t fill in a 2011 Census form (INSERT: because of Lockheed Martin’s involvement) will be in Court on Thursday, October 3, at 10 am in the Old Toronto City Hall. You are cordially invited to attend to support Audrey. When you get to Old City Hall, ask at the security desk in what room the Audrey Tobias Census charge is being heard.
There’s a picture of Audrey (very colourful lady!), and her story (Jan 23/13) at http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/23/toronto_peace_activist_88_could_go_to_jail_for_refusing_to_fill_out_census.html
(We circulated the story and it’s on the blog.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
3. It’s rather exciting when the New York Times publishes an editorial that explains, in easy to understand language, how the NSA gets into “secure” data bases: Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
4. This was bound to happen, but is still a bit of a shock: The BRICS “Independent Internet” Cable. In Defiance of the “US-Centric Internet” (BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. . .).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
5. Ecuador suspends preferential trade with US over Snowden affair
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
6. Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters’ first amendment rights?
The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistleblowers undermines that assurance
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
7. Chris Hedges, Vast Underclass must rise up against global mafia: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16468-vast-underclass-must-rise-up-against-global-mafia-or-die
If you have time for only one thing, listen to this remarkable panel discussion from Australia, The war on whistleblowers and journalism, at
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/war-on-whistlelblowers-and-journalists.
(Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning)
THE PANELISTS ARE – – WOW!
Near the end of the discussion, panelist Robert Manne says there are people inside CORPORATIONS who can leak information. He was talking in relation to oil and gas companies / climate change. (Manning and Snowden blew the whistle on GOVERNMENT atrocities.) . . Yes, there are the corporate people who can help, AND
It seems to me that SCIENTISTS are in an excellent position to get information into public hands – – information that is NEEDED to help stop the insanity of what we are collectively doing to the planet, with climate change at the top of the list.
Manne emphasizes Assange’s belief: courage is contagious. You can see it: Daniel Ellsberg is acknowledged by Snowden; Manning’s bravery was influential on Snowden and more immediate. There are lesser-known whistle-blowers in the wake of Manning and Snowden.
We are seeing scientists in the biotech arena starting to speak up (maybe the March Against Monsanto has helped empower them). Now we need scientists in these other arenas (climate change, for example) to “leak”!
It is easier to be courageous if you know that you have support behind you. Keep that in mind when figuring out how to assist corporate employees and scientists.
An important reason to pass the above link to the Panel Discussion on to others:
when you see and hear these people, you know they are thoughtful people of courage who are working to serve OUR interests.
There are huge efforts to undermine their credibility, turn them into weirdos, or sexual perverts, or sick people (I monitor a google feed of “news” stories re “Assange”. 90% of it is garbage.) We can help protect the whistleblowers and the good journalists; more people have to see for themselves, to be able to distinguish what is the truth about them.
Megan wrote: Funny how the perception of the movement is painted in a radical fashion, when it is truly born from love and adoration of the planet.