Sandra Finley

Aug 262013
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/10/julian-assange-obama_n_3736933.html

By Paige Lavender

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on President Barack Obama’s proposed surveillance reforms Saturday, calling the new measures “a victory of sorts for Edward Snowden.”

 

“As Snowden has stated, his biggest concern was if he blew the whistle and change did not occur,” Assange said in a statement. “Well reforms are taking shape, and for that, the President and people of the United States and around the world owe Edward Snowden a debt of gratitude.”

 

On Friday, Obama proposed the first of several steps “to help restore public confidence” following revelations in June that the federal government was secretly mining millions of Americans’ phone and electronic communications. HuffPost’s Sabrina Siddiqui reported earlier:

 

The president’s proposed measures focused on reforming Section 215 of the Patriot Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, under which the NSA’s surveillance programs are considered lawful. The reforms would focus on creating more oversight and greater transparency, particularly through modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which currently authorizes the surveillance through highly classified opinions.

 Obama specifically discussed creating a special advocate who could challenge the court on the basis of privacy and constitutional concerns. He also expressed support for making more information public, and upon his directive, the Department of Justice released the legal rationale for the government’s collection activities under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

 

 

Obama also shared his thoughts on Snowden during the remarks, making it clear his embrace of reform did not mean he was justifying the whistleblower’s actions.

 

“No, I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot,” Obama said. “The fact is, Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies.”

 

Assange’s full statement below:

 

Today the President of the United States validated Edward Snowden’s role as a whistleblower by announcing plans to reform America’s global surveillance program. But rather than thank Edward Snowden, the President laughably attempted to criticize him while claiming that there was a plan all along, “before Edward Snowden.” The simple fact is that without Snowden’s disclosures, no one would know about the programs and no reforms could take place. As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently once stated, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Luckily for the citizens of the world, Edward Snowden is one of those “people of good conscience” who did not “remain silent”, just as Pfc Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg refused to remain silent.

Ironically, the Department of Justice is betraying two key principles that President Obama championed when he ran for office ­ transparency and protection for whistleblowers. During his 2008 campaign, the President supported Whistleblowers, claiming their “acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled.” Yet his administration has prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers than all other administrations combined

Moreover, the US government’s hypocrisy over Snowden’s right to seek asylum has been stunning. America offers asylum to dissidents, whistleblowers and political refugees without regard to other governments opposition all the time. For example, the US has accepted 3,103 of their own asylees, 1,222 from Russia and 1,762 from Venezuela – http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf.

Today was a victory of sorts for Edward Snowden and his many supporters. As Snowden has stated, his biggest concern was if he blew the whistle and change did not occur. Well reforms are taking shape, and for that, the President and people of the United States and around the world owe Edward Snowden a debt of gratitude.

 

Aug 242013
 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/22-2

by Sonali Kolhatkar

 

When I first met Reverend Rick Hoyt he said, “You don’t have to call me Reverend – just Rick is fine.”The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles has taken a stand against the NSA surveillance program. (Photo via Uprising Radio)

The bespectacled and youthful pastor sporting a salt-and-pepper beard, certainly didn’t look like a conventional “man-of-God.” In fact, the Unitarian Universalist church to which Rick belongs is known for defying Christian theological convention. And, Rick’s home at the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles also has a history of defying political convention.

The church, according to Hoyt, has been a “fierce advocate for personal liberties.” Even before Edward Snowden became a house-hold name, the First Unitarian Church of LA became a named plaintiff in a major lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) over privacy violations.

Nineteen organizations have joined Hoyt’s church in an unusual coalition that includes the Marijuana legalization group, NORML, and gun rights groups like the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees.

Hoyt admits that some of the groups are those his church doesn’t normally work with and “aren’t necessarily politically sympathetic with.” But the right to personal privacy is a libertarian position deeply held by both ends of the political spectrum.

The coalition also includes Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, Free Press, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And while they may have some strange bedfellows particularly with the gun-rights organizations, the groups have found common ground in what they see as an attack by the US government and the NSA on Americans’ First Amendment Right to Assemble.

The lawsuit is based on the NSA’s indiscriminate telephone tapping program, about which suspicions have existed long before recent leaks of classified documents. Rev. Hoyt fears that NSA surveillance aimed at political groups impacts the right of people to freely assemble in those groups: “People need to feel that they have the freedom to join an organization …and use the power of a group to amplify their voices.”

His suspicion that the government is likely spying on his church is not unfounded. Hoyt cited the church’s long arc of political activism, going as far back as the late 1800s when people like Caroline Severence, the prominent suffragist, joined the Unitarian Church. Unitarians also historically embraced abolitionism and later the Civil Rights and modern feminist movements.

More relevant to today’s suit is the position the church took in the 1950s against the McCarthy-era anti-communist witch hunts, coming to the defense of the black-listed “Hollywood Ten” writers and actors in Los Angeles.

That stance provoked a very real FBI surveillance program against the church. Plainclothes agents attended worship services and caused anxiety among the congregation. Hoyt says the church responded at the time by refusing to publish its membership directory in order to protect its congregants, and told me, “[w]e’re very familiar with the kind of chilling effect that these government actions can have on the individual person’s right to come together into churches and social and political groups to do the kind of work that we want to do as people of faith.”

Reverend Rick Hoyt went further, saying it was incumbent on his church to take a strong position against government abuse of power: “[i]t is one of the foundational principles of our faith that individuals have power to affect change in the world and that we have a responsibility as people of faith to bring our values into the public sphere and to make change in this world.”

Watch my recent and complete interview with Rev. Hoyt:

(Please go to the URL:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/22-2 )

The church remains politically active today strongly engaged in issues like marriage equality. Mass government surveillance, argues Hoyt, could scare off potential congregants from politically active organizations like the First Unitarian Church. And that, according to him and his fellow plaintiffs, violates the First Amendment.

The lawsuit – First Unitarian Church Vs. The NSA – was filed in mid-July of this year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group that has been around for almost as long as the internet. After months of laying the groundwork for the suit, the EFF’s timing could not have been better, with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s explosive revelations coincidentally sparking a heated global debate over the US government’s unchecked powers.

Snowden’s documents, doggedly disseminated almost daily by Glenn Greenwald and his fellow reporters at the Guardian newspaper of London, have only served to strengthen the suit. Hoyt says the revelations underscore some of the very arguments made by the plaintiffs and now, thanks to Snowden, “we actually have some factual basis to say ‘yes, what we suspected is actually happening.'”

While he hesitated to call Edward Snowden a “patriot,” the Unitarian pastor credits Snowden with “speeding up the process,” and helping to “ignite this public discussion.” He added, “[a]nybody whose actions bring this kind of program to light and encourages national discussion is to be applauded.”

When I asked Reverend Rick Hoyt if he mentioned the lawsuit during his church service, his eyes lit up and he enthused, “Oh yes, I have! We’ve actually been very excited about the lawsuit!” He is hopeful that his church, which he says is a “small group,” and “not a particularly powerful group,” in attempting to defend against mass government surveillance, may now, thanks especially to Snowden’s revelations, stand a decent chance of preserving the First Amendment and people’s right to privacy.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Aug 242013
 

See also:   The POwer of Fun. Fun in the streets. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/sustainability-joy-power-of-fun

A healthy dose of joy could transform the corporate sector and put it on a more sustainable footing.

By  Jo Confino

 

Do you ever have the feeling that we spend our lives trying to learn the same lessons over and over again? We hope always to find answers but perhaps a better approach is to ask more profound questions.

I mention this because of a story told to me at a meeting of 300 CEOs and senior executives at the Brainstorm Green conference in Laguna Niguel, California.

It was not a story about energy efficiency, nor was it a story about how to convince your chief financial officer to invest in greener technology. Instead it was about a chief executive who did not know how to incorporate fun into his work.

It goes like this. The businessman was having an interview for a senior position and told the CEO he had three main criteria for taking any post: it had to have a purpose, it had to be fairly paid and it had to be fun.

The feedback he received was that the CEO was comfortable with the first two but just could not get his head around what the third one meant. Quite understandably, the gentleman in question did not take the job, and learnt a year later that the CEO had died at the age of 58.

Are we having fun?

And therein lies a question we could all do with asking; are we having fun and does it matter?

My own feeling is that the adrenaline of making money and beating the competition can seem fun for a while, but like any drug it wears off over time and then people need a bigger dose to try to recapture the original thrill. At its worst, this pattern can end in naked greed and disaster, as we have seen in the financial markets.

By contrast, the ability to have fun is a gift of nature that is like a perfect dynamo. It keeps replenishing itself and never diminishes in its intensity.

More than that, while competition for its own sake is always a great taker, joy is a generous giver and people find it infectious, as long as they are not threatened by it.

This is all obvious when we take a moment to stop and think, but in the hurly burly of life, we forget it. Go into a meeting that includes one person who is sour and negative and the energy of the meeting sinks like a soufflé taken out of the oven before its time. Go into the same meeting where someone is emanating the spirit of joy, and everyone benefits, with the result that space and possibilities open up.

Integrating a sense of joy

I have to say that the sustainability practitioners I meet who are taking the most risks and doing the most to transform their businesses are people who are able to integrate that sense of joy into their work. In fact it is the very feeling of joy that allows them to wake up every day with the knowledge of impending environmental and social catastrophe and still come to work with a cheerful demeanour.

I remember many, many years ago being shocked when an executive coach told me that business leaders become increasingly isolated and lonely as they move up the corporate ladder. No wonder they find it difficult to think deeply beyond shareholder value to the role of business in society. Because they feel trussed up in the straitjacket of their work lives, some love nothing more than bringing in outsiders who are able to inspire and challenge them in new ways.

I have written before about the power of epiphanies

(INSERT:  I found the link worthwhile, and the link at the bottom of that page (The full filmed interview with Lynda Gratton can be viewed here.)  also worthy.   Gratton is a professor of management practice at the London Business School.)

to create radical change, because those who experience them first hand are freed, even if only for a moment, from the constraints they falsely believed were holding them down like a ball and chain. Second best, however, is being in the company of people who are able to represent that.

At Brainstorm Green, a few people suggested I meet Jib Ellison, who helped to create the Blu Skye consultancy, which concentrates on systems change. He was a prime mover in Walmart’s journey towards being a more sustainable company. What I was told was not that Ellison had the sharpest mind or the greatest ideas, which may or may not be the case, but that CEOs enjoyed his company.

At its heart, joyous people help to create a feeling of trust. They tend to be better collaborators because they like nothing better than finding common solutions, and don’t feel they have to go into personal sacrifice to achieve them.

Collaboration and competition

There may be lots of people who dismiss what I am writing as naïve. In fact, several people have said to me in recent weeks that collaborating is all well and good, but competition is what really drives innovation and technological advances. But those critics are looking to mark a spot on a spectrum that we have already moved beyond.

Collaboration and competition can be happy bedfellows, if you feel comfortable with both. Those people who bring joy to their work do not see them as polar opposites.

A couple of years ago I attended a meeting at the Houses of Parliament between the Zen Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh and a group of MPs, members of the House of Lords and others. One member of parliament said that political parties thrived on being competitive and in opposition and asked Thay, as he is known, about the Buddhist view of competition. Thay looked at him and asked the simplest of questions: “Does it make you happy?” The ensuing silence spoke volumes.

One of the more popular stories on the Guardian last year was about a palliative nurse who asked all those dying in her hospice what their greatest regrets were. The top five included: “I spent too much time in the office” and “I wish that I had let myself be happier,” which translated into the fact that they had pretended to be content “when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again”.

There was one, however, which particularly caught my eye because it had a certain subtlety, which made it all the more potent. “I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me”.

One of the reasons society gets itself into a mess is because certain ideas or thoughts become so embedded in a culture that those who come along later feel they have no choice but to fit in, for fear of being marginalised.

So may I humbly suggest taking a small chunk out of your work day, sitting quietly and asking yourself a question; “How well am I doing at bringing more joy into my life?” Better now than on your deathbed.

– – – – –

From the “Comments” on the Guardian website,  Jo Confino  . . .  love without action does not work, neither action without love.

Aug 202013
 

http://front.kinja.com/nsa-surveillance-scandal-feds-shut-down-snowdens-secu-511588927

By Ken Lane

A legal website used by attorneys to privately discuss case law is shutting down after 10 years because the owner no longer feels the site’s users are protected from government spying. After federal threats led to the closure of several secure email providers, the publisher of Groklaw closed her own operation last night, saying she could no longer promise security to the lawyers who had used the forum to openly discuss legal situations with other users. It’s the latest repercussion from former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations about the massive illegal spying operations American intelligence and law enforcement agencies have engaged in since the 9/11 terror attacks.

The fallout from Snowden’s secrets is now affecting the reporter who first brought this summer’s NSA spying scandal to the world, Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald—his partner was detained by British intelligence agents for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport, not because of any suspicion of wrongdoing but simply because he lives with Greenwald.

 

 

Aug 062013
 

Canadians’ private digital information is inevitably being caught up in the U.S.’s massive surveillance dragnet, and Canada’s government has both the capability and the legal loopholes needed to spy on its own citizens as well, experts say.

The Obama administration was rocked this week by revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency collects millions of phone records from Verizon daily, and another report that a secret program called PRISM monitors users’ communications on the networks of numerous tech giants, including Apple, Facebook and Google.

The NSA has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants … which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats,” the Guardian reported.

That has raised concerns among privacy rights advocates that Canadians’ personal information may be getting caught up in the U.S.’s programs. Many experts say there is no “if” here; because of the integrated, international nature of online communication, it’s inevitable Canadians’ communications are being collected as part of the U.S. programs.

“There is no border,” Ronald Deibert, head of the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, told the Toronto Star. “The way telecommunication traffic is routed in North America, the fact of the matter is about 90 per cent of Canadian traffic — no one really knows the exact number — is routed through the United States.”

That data passes through “filters and checkpoints” and is “shared with third parties, with law enforcement and of course intelligence agencies that operate in the shadows,” he said.

But Canada may be carrying out its own versions of mass, warrantless surveillance; at the very least, experts say, treaties Canada has signed and clauses in national security laws give Canada’s government the legal leeway to do so.

Unbeknownst to most Canadians, Canada has laws on the books enabling monitoring that are very similar to the controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Michael Geist, a leading tech law expert, points out in a recent blog posting that section 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Act is “arguably similar” to a section of the Patriot Act.

Both do not require probable cause and both can be used to obtain any type of records or any other tangible thing. Moreover, the target of both warrants need not be the target of the national security investigation,” Geist wrote.

Canada has its own version of the NSA as well — the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), an extremely secretive government agency responsible for monitoring foreign communications related to Canada’s national security. The agency can officially only monitor Canadian communications when a foreign party is involved.

But CSEC’s no-spying-on-Canadians rule apparently disappears when the agency is asked for help from other agencies, such as the RCMP, border services or CSIS, according to CSEC expert Bill Robinson, as quoted at the Ottawa Citizen.

No one can say for sure how much spying on Canadians CSEC may be doing, but Geist argues that the agency’s own explanations of how Canadians can end up under surveillance “sound awfully similar to the powers in the U.S. Given the lack of transparency, it certainly seems possible that there are similar activities taking place here.”

CSEC’s budget and staff have more than doubled since 9/11, to 2,000 people and $400 million annually. And the agency recently got even more secretive, to the point that an annual report on the agency’s priorities is now classified.

Can we find out for certain what CSEC is doing? Probably not, Halifax privacy lawyer David Fraser says — at least not without the sort of whistleblowing that brought the U.S. surveillance programs to light.

The CSEC told the Star Friday it “operates within all Canadian laws,” but went on to say it “cannot comment on its methods, operations and capabilities. To do so would undermine CSEC’s ability to carry out its mandate.”

Additionally, Deibert and others point out that Canada has long been part of an agreement with the U.S., U.K. Australia and New Zealand to monitor communications worldwide. This surveillance network was built in “conjunction and co-ordination with the National Security Agency,” Deibert says.

Known alternately as “Five Eyes” or ECHELON, the program reportedly began as a Cold War-era surveillance network, and continues to operate to this day.

Its existence has been part of the public record for more than a decade.

Some speculate that Five Eyes was created with the very purpose of evading domestic laws that prohibit the agencies from collecting communications on their own citizens,” the Star reports.

 

Jul 092013
 

Because of my trial over the involvement of Lockheed Martin in the StatsCan data base on Canadian citizens, we have followed the piece-by-piece integration of the Canadian military with the American through the SPP and then the “Canada First Defence Strategy”.

We saw the introduction of “unmanned aerial vehicles” (drones) that dropped bombs on first Yemen, and now a number of countries.  Imagine the terror of citizens in those countries.

Lockheed Martin is a manufacturer of drones (also of land mines and cluster munitions, both outlawed by International Law).  They set up in my city of Saskatoon.  Drones are being manufactured here (I do not know if it is Lockheed Martin drones that are being manufactured).

THANKFULLY, Mines Watch Canada has started a campaign (as have citizens in other countries) to stop “killer robots“.  More on that later.

Daniel Suarez does a nice job in this TED Talk of explaining the ramifications of drone warfare.  You`d like to think that for us it can`t be that we`re participating in this.  Sorry gang!  we are called to account.  No sitting on our backsides!

http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_shouldn_t_belong_to_a_robot.html

Jul 082013
 
From the TASC mailing list:
By Matthew Behrens

The July 1 arrests of B.C. residents Amanda Korody and John Nuttall — charged with planning to blow up a pressure cooker cluster bomb at the B.C. legislature — raise many disturbing questions about the nature of the Canadian government’s “counter-terrorism” operations. Equally troubling has been media coverage playing up hot-button themes that trigger fears of marginalized people, whether they be drug addiction and reliance on social assistance, to heavy metal music and the popular catch-all description for anyone who doesn’t quite fit into a sick society: mental illness.

As anyone can gather from news reports, the two suspects have not trod the easiest of paths, and the pair’s friends doubt they would be capable of planning, much less executing, the alleged acts. Their right to privacy has also been invaded, with media thumbing through their personal effects in an apartment that, remarkably, was not taped off as a potential crime scene by the police.

Interestingly, following a month of revelations about massive spying on the global citizenry, the attempt by the Mounties to scare up a little self-serving attention by trumpeting themselves as The Heroes Who Saved Canada Day appears to have fallen flat, as many are questioning what role undercover operatives may have played in facilitating the apparent attack. RCMP Assistant Commissioner Wayne Rideout noted at the press conference announcing the arrests, “We employed a variety of complex investigative and covert techniques to control any opportunity the suspects had to commit harm. These devices were completely under our control, they were inert, and at no time represented a threat to public safety.”

In other words, they appear to have had someone on the inside with a great deal of influence over events, either a Mountie or someone from CSIS, the spy agency that  allegedly spoke to the Mounties about the case in February. As the Vancouver Province noted in an editorial, “On April 2, police had enough evidence leading to charges of facilitating a terrorist activity and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, but the couple was not arrested. On June 25, there was enough evidence for Nuttall to be charged with making or possessing an explosive substance, but again there were no arrests.” Did the RCMP stage-manage things so that the connection to Canada Day would provide them with a blast of patriotic coverage?

Sting operations

The questions point to practices south of the border, where the great majority of so-called terrorism arrests are in fact set up by and facilitated by the agents who then bust them: the FBI. A 2011 investigation by Mother Jones magazine examined the FBI strategy of “pre-emption” and “disruption”
— the latter a term used by the RCMP in the present case — and found that the agency targets “tens of thousands of law-abiding people, seeking to identify those disgruntled few who might participate in a plot given the means and the opportunity. And then, in case after case, the government provides the plot, the means, and the opportunity.”

Mother Jones quotes lawyer Martin Stolar, who defended one man caught in a 2004 FBI sting, as noting that with many of the terrorism cases, “defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents. They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”

The magazine points out that with three exceptions, “all of the high-profile domestic terror plots of the last decade were actually FBI stings,” all of which tend to target socially marginalized individuals.

Were the B.C. arrests part of an RCMP/CSIS sting operation? Some recall that the so-called Toronto 18 case may never have gotten off the ground without the able assistance of undercover, paid government informants who facilitated key elements of the case. In the case of Mr. Nuttall, his paintballing friend was quoted as saying, “Personally, I think he was hanging out with the wrong people and they screwed with his head a little bit.” Was one of the apparent “wrong people” a government agent encouraging Mr. Nuttall? And is the RCMP above staging terrorism arrests?

History of illegal acts

If history is any indication, the answer would be no. Much of the Mounties’ lengthy history of corruption, illicit activity and outright lawbreaking was summed up nicely in a 1970 memo from then RCMP Commissioner W.L. Higgitt. Labelled “RCMP Protection for Members Engaged in Sensitive or Secret Operations,” the Commissioner wrote: “Though it has not been the subject of general conversation, and should not be, it may have been considered necessary in the past, and may continue to be necessary in the future, to transgress the common, civil, or criminal law of the Country in order to work effectively or to achieve the desired results in a given case. More recently it has come to my attention that some members involved in delicate operations are concerned with the protection they and their families will receive in the event that an operation goes sour and they become subject to civil or criminal processes as a result.”

Later in the memo, the Commissioner advises that “where the member acts within the scope of the direction or the expressly approved plan, he will be protected to the greatest extent possible from criminal, quasi-criminal or civil responsibility. In the event complete protection cannot be afforded, a solicitor will be appointed to protect the member’s interests. The Force will accept responsibility to pay any fine or reward levied against our member. In the event of incarceration for a period of time, the member will be paid as usual and on release will be employed again by the Force… Information contained herein should be disseminated on a ‘need to know’ basis to the members of your command.”

This attitude of impunity for crimes committed riddles the RCMP like a cancer. It is why the RCMP authorized the questioning of Canadian Abdullah Almalki, then detained in Syria, knowing those questions would lead to his torture, without a thought for his human rights, much less the complicity in torture provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada or Canada’s legally binding obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

Things are no better at CSIS where, as investigative reporter Andrew Mitrovica pointed out in his expose Covert Entry, Canada’s spies have “routinely broken the law, treating the rights and liberties of Canadians as no more than a nuisance…[it is] riddled by waste, extravagance, laziness, nepotism, incompetence, corruption and law-breaking.” There is a culture of impunity at CSIS, whose agents often refer to a Ways and Means Act: “if you have a way to get things done, the means — legal or not — are justified.”

Throwing in Islam

Meanwhile, less attention has been paid to pathetic attempts to throw Islamic references into the mix, with desperate efforts to find a landlady or neighbour who can testify to hearing loud “Islamic” recordings coming from the basement and the RCMP’s bizarre contention that although there is no international connection, the two appear to be “Al-Qaeda-inspired” and “self-radicalized,” two canards that have little connection to reality. (While the Globe and Mail was invading the couple’s privacy, they reported on finding amongst their books a copy of the Bible, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and albums by Jethro Tull and Nine Inch Nails.)

“She was into the rave scene, and then she became goth, then she was a big activist, then she was someone who worked out hardcore,” a friend of suspect Amanda  Korody was quoted as saying. “Before he was a proud Canadian,” said a friend of John Nuttall. “Later he said, ‘All I care about is Allah’ and that Canadians and Americans shouldn’t even be in Iraq or Afghanistan at all.”

Taken together, these quotes represent a broad swath of Canadian opinion and experience, with the underlying brush that now tars as tainted anyone associated with such activities or beliefs. Yet, unlike some leaders in Canada’s diverse Muslim community, no one from Canada’s goth or workout scenes has been called upon to condemn the alleged acts or to engage in RCMP “community consultations.” Nor is it likely that LA Fitness chains will now be infiltrated by undercover agents to root out the discontented health nuts pedaling their sweaty way atop an elliptical while reading rabble.ca columns on their iPads.

Continual references to the two as apparent “converts” to Islam begs the question: what religion were they following during previous years of mixed up lives, and why has that not been part of media reporting? It also plays into the insidious idea that, regardless of how many times Muslim community leaders plead that they are loyal and peaceful Canadians, the “influence” of their religion is what is ultimately dangerous, a powerful subtext that is repeated with each new scare headline about the growth of Islam in Canada (now estimated at a whopping 3.2 per cent of the total population). In other words, it is bad enough when people born Muslims are alleged to be involved in nefarious activities; it appears to be even worse when “one of ours,” i.e., white Canadians, are sucked into the faith. Such pernicious thinking underlined much of the Red Scare: it was not so much the danger of Communists themselves as it was their ability to infect our precious bodily fluids with their subversive thoughts, and before one knew it, former Boy Scouts were marching against the bomb and for civil rights.

Mounties want you to like them

Like the scandal-plagued CSIS, the RCMP is desperate for good press these days, and the language in their early July press conference verged on a plea to like them on Facebook.  “These arrests are another example of the effectiveness of our Integrated National Security Enforcement Team who worked tenaciously to prevent this plan from being carried out,” said RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia, perhaps a shout-out to CSIS, still reeling from revelations in late May that they failed to inform the RCMP about the Canadian navy’s Jeffrey Delisle selling secrets to the Russians.

But the RCMP love-in that followed the arrests of two people in the alleged VIA Rail plot in April does not appear to have been replicated here. (In April, NDP leader Tom Muclair discarded the niceties of presumption of innocence when he led a standing ovation in the House of Commons for the Mounties after he said, without offering any proof of the allegations, that “I’d like to begin by thanking law enforcement officials, as well as a brave religious leader from the Toronto Muslim community who, as we learned yesterday, helped to prevent a potentially devastating attack on Canadian soil.”)

In a final irony, the week before the Mounties rode to the rescue to save Canadians from folks who allegedly planned to “produce explosive devices designed to cause injury and death,” those very same weapons, cluster bombs, were the subject of an ongoing attempt by Ottawa to water down the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Senate hearings. Rather than ratifying the convention as is, Ottawa has introduced a range of measures that, as the Mennonite Central Committee points out, “Creates loopholes and exceptions on the use of cluster munitions that undermine the Treaty as a comprehensive ban on an inhumane weapon; omits many of the positive obligations of the Treaty, including the destruction of stockpiles; the promotion of Treaty norms; the prohibition of investment in cluster bomb production; and the provision of support for victims.”

Ultimately, a government that seeks to enable state use of cluster munitions appears possibly involved in an effort to encourage two hapless souls to build such a bomb, then arrest the couple as a notch in the war on terror, and convince Canadians that the authorities have decent human values at their core. Such logic would appear, in the words of a song in Mr. Nuttall’s Jethro Tull collection, to be thick as a brick.

Matthew Behrens is a freelance writer and social justice advocate who co-ordinates the Homes not Bombs non-violent direct action network. He has worked closely with the targets of Canadian and U.S. ‘national security’ profiling for many years.

Jul 082013
 

Saskaboom is supposed to make our lives better, isn’t it? It may be making some of us richer – there are now 8,000 millionaires in the province – but the evidence suggests Saskatchewan’s booming economy has not translated into a better society.

Sure, there are many hundreds of new trucks lined up in the car lots and plenty of young men with big wages eager to buy them. The suburbs are expanding, couples are building houses and buying big screen TVs, but where are the social goods that make for a strong community?

Some countries see wealth as an opportunity to create public or social goods. These are goods or services that benefit the largest number of people in the largest possible way. Classic examples include clean air and water, streets, health care and literacy. Such goods are “non-excludable” and “non-rivalrous,” meaning some individuals cannot be excluded from their use and usage by one individual does not reduce availability to others.

It seems our booming economy mainly creates private goods that are excludable and rivalrous, in that they are exclusive to those who can afford them. And because we have adopted an ideology were economic winners feel entitled to all the income they earn – even though that income often results from exploiting publicly owned resources – tax revenues are insufficient to generate the public goods that build communities.

With all the money being generated in the province, why are universities cutting budgets? In other wealthy societies, such as Denmark, which has fewer resources than we do, most higher education is free.

Supposedly, Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction in Canada running budget surpluses. The provincial auditor says this is a polite fiction and a fuller analysis of costs and revenues reveals deficits in nine of the last 10 years. Why, when our economy is booming?

Despite the boom, inequality is growing in this province. The top 20 per cent of families with children earn 40 per cent of after-tax income, the bottom fifth only six per cent. Rents and other living costs are rising due to the boom, making life harder for low-income families.

Whole segments of the population – including most First Nations and Metis citizens – continue to be excluded from the boom. Inequality results in social problems. Aboriginal kids often land in jail instead of university. Yet reserve schools get less money than other schools. Why is that? And northern Saskatchewan reportedly has among the highest levels of poverty in the country when resource extraction there generates hundreds of millions of income for mining companies.

We are booming, but Saskatoon doesn’t have enough money to fix its potholed roads. Traffic is increasingly unpleasant and as the city expands, time spent in cars can only rise. Yet there is not enough money to provide effective public transit.

Meanwhile, the federal government is systematically cutting every measure designed to protect our most important public good, a clean and sustainable environment.

There are other models. In Denmark, for example, social policy in areas such as health care, child care, education and protecting the unemployed are part of a “solidarity system” that makes sure almost no one falls into poverty. Danes pay very high taxes, but in return en-joy a very high quality of life due to the proliferation of public goods. It may be difficult to become very rich, but it is also difficult to be poor.

Denmark’s minimum wage is double North American levels and people who are totally out of the labour market have a basic income guarantee of about $100 per day. Unemployment insurance covers up to 90 per cent of earnings for as long as two years. Every worker in Denmark is entitled to five weeks of paid vacation plus 11 paid holidays. The state covers three-quarters of the cost of child care, more for low-income workers.

Despite high taxes, the Danish people rank among the happiest in the world, according to an OECD study. They are also highly engaged citizens: In their last election, which had no TV ads, 89 per cent of Danes voted – for governments that tax them heavily.

Why is there so little public benefit from Saskatchewan’s boom?

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix