Sandra Finley

Apr 282013
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/the-slow-and-painful-deat_b_2946418.html

 

Less than a generation ago, Canada was a world leader when it came to the fundamental democratic freedoms of assembly, speech and information.

In 1982, Canada adopted the Access to Information Act — making it one of the first countries to pass legislation recognizing the right of citizens to access information held by government, and as recently as 2002, Canada ranked among the top 5 most open and transparent countries when it came to respect for freedom of the press.

Fast-forward a decade, and we’ve become a true north suppressed and disparate — where unregistered civic demonstrations are inhibited and repressed, rebellious Internet activities are scrutinised and supervised, government scientists are hushed and muzzled, and public information is stalled and mired by bureaucratic firewalls.

In the 2013 World Press Freedom Index — an evaluation done by Reporters Without Borders on the autonomy of a country’s media environment, Canada came in at a paltry 20th, putting us behind liberal-democratic powerhouses such as Namibia, Costa Rica, and the Western Hemisphere’s new champion of free media — Jamaica.

 

So what the devil is going on?

According to page 8 of the report, this uneasy drop “was due to obstruction of journalists during the so-called ‘Maple Spring’ student movement and to continuing threats to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and Internet users’ personal data, in particular, from the C-30 bill on cyber-crime.”

Yet perhaps more distressing than the consistent during Quebec’s Maple Spring has been the abrupt confiscation of the right of citizens in the province to spontaneously demonstrate and protest in public spaces — seen recently at the totalitarian debacle known as the Anti-Police Brutality Protest, where over 250 people were arrested for failing to register with authorities before assembling.

Passed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people to register the details of any demonstration with the police at least eight hours before it begins. Anyone who does not comply with the law faces a fine from $1000 up to $125,000 depending on his or her involvement and leadership in the protest.

Not to be outdone by Quebec’s anti-demonstration legislation however, the federal government decided to continue the trend with Bill C-309 — criminalising the act of covering one’s face during any sort of display of civil disobedience. And as opposed to the customary fine, the bill carries with it a penalty of up to five years in prison.

But don’t worry — it’s for our protection.

Speaking of our “protection,” Bill C-30, or the Lawful Access Act — proposed by the Harper government in February of last year, attempted to grant authorities the power to monitor and track the digital activities of all Canadians in real-time.

This internationally-condemned Orwellian “cyber-crime legislation” planned to force service providers to log and surrender browsing information about their customers upon government request as well as permit the remote access to any personal computer in the country — all without the need of any sort of warrant.

And while Bill C-30 has been tabled for the time being, Bill C-12 — which similarly authorises the warrantless acquisition of customer information from ISPs, email hosts, and social media sites on a voluntary basis, looks poised to creep in and achieve many of Bill C-30’s initial objectives by reducing the need for warrants, and gradually circumnavigating safeguards that protect our personal information online.

Of course we’ve all had the rhetoric jammed down our throats — these adjustments to a citizen’s right to public assembly, defiant anonymity, and digital privacy are the necessary sacrifices we must be willing to make in order to shelter ourselves from half-heartedly articulated illusory threats such as “terrorism” or “extremism”.

But the undemocratic stifling doesn’t stop here either. Even our taxpayer-funded government scientists — the last line of defense against ignorance and uncritical thinking, are increasingly coerced into suppressing unwelcome findings.

According to a report by researchers at the University of Victoria titled Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, “the federal government has recently made concerted efforts to prevent the media – and through them, the general public – from speaking to government scientists, and this, in turn, impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern.”

When Canadian scientists are permitted by their handlers to speak to journalists or international colleagues, they are forced to regurgitate pre-approved party findings that rest neatly within the confines of official government policies — regardless of what the yields of their research and expert opinions may actually be telling them.

What’s even more concerning is that in a recent study by the Center for Law and Democracy — which classifies the strength and effectiveness of access to information laws in 93 countries, Canada ranked an utterly humiliating 55th, thanks in large part to the bureaucratic red tape that smothers requests for access to public records.

So perhaps it is time for us Canadians to wake up and smell the suppression — no longer are censorships solely the purview of tin-pot dictators in far away regimes.

These seemingly gradual erosions to the freedoms of assembly, expression and information in Canada are all very real — just last week, Parliament actually struck down a bill claiming that “public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making.”

And I have the sinking suspicion that whichever party is in power, these rights will continue to decompose unless the citizenry is willing to vocalise this as a major election issue. After all, even in democracy new governments seldom willingly return rights and freedoms back to the people once in office — power can be just too enticing.

One day it’s the right to spontaneously demonstrate, next it’s the right to wear a mask well doing so, then Internet privacy, scientific inquiry, public records, and so on as the vice compressing freedom and civil disobedience slowly tightens on us all.

 

But then again, this is Canada. That sort of thing could never happen here, right?

Apr 282013
 

http://rabble.ca/news/2012/10/oil-servitude-and-new-canadian-petrostate-interview-andrew-nikiforuk#.UWxxnW7EXUg.facebook

 

Andrew Nikiforuk is an Albertan journalist and author of several books, including the acclaimed Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Lori Theresa Waller interviewed him late last month on the eve of a talk he gave in Ottawa for the launch of his latest book, The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude. What follows is an excerpt of their conversation. Part II of this interview will be published later this week.

 

Lori Theresa Waller: You write, “When it comes to oil, there are only masters, traders and slaves.” Which category would you put Canada in?

Andrew Nikiforuk: We’re all three, right now. Canada has almost become a plantation economy where all conversations are about the production and export of oil. If you’re opposed to that agenda, you’re a radical and unpatriotic. That’s the kind of low-level conversation you have in petrostates. But we’re also a slave to oil in the sense that half the country is dependent on foreign oil from the Middle East and the North Sea. We are not an energy independent country at all.

LTW: This concept of a petrostate is one you discuss at length. What are the defining characteristics of a petrostate?

AN: The person who’s done the most work on this is Terry Lynn Carl, an extraordinary political scientist from Stanford University. Americans pioneered oil, and now we have an American who’s pioneered the study of how oil impacts states and governments. Technically a petrostate is any jurisdiction where approximately 20 per cent of its income is coming from hydrocarbons. Alberta was there a long time ago. The first thing that petrostates do is they dismantle the relationship between representation and taxation. They say, “We’re gonna make you all feel warm and fuzzy about oil production by lowering your taxes.” They don’t add the next part, which is “Oh, and by the way, if we’re not taxing you, we’re not going to represent you.”

Petrostates first and foremost represent the developers of the oil resources. The next thing that happens is that you have so much easy money flowing into a petrostate that all statecraft disappears. Whether you’re looking at Russia or Saudi Arabia or Iran or Nigeria, or Alberta, or Louisiana, Alaska, and Texas, you’re struck by the lack of innovation, the lack of smart public policy. Any and every problem is resolved by pouring petro-dollars on it.

Then the third thing is secrecy. Petrostates are not very transparent because there are so many issues about the money — who’s getting the money, who’s watching the money, and is any of the money being saved? That information is very hard to come by. In Alberta, there is a whole fog that surrounds any royalty issues. In fact the government actively discourages any discussion of royalties or corporate taxes.

The fourth characteristic would simply be hubris. When they’re sitting on top of all these hydrocarbons, governments act as though they’ve suddenly become wiser and nobler than the rest of mankind. Venezuela was going to have a grand experiment, Mexico was going to have its miracle, and Iran was going to create a new civilization. Alberta had the “new advantage,” and Canada is now going to be the “new energy superpower.” Oil and bullshit go together.

LTW: Do you see a danger of Canada overall becoming a petrostate?

AN: Absolutely. The governing party, its base largely comes from Alberta, and its financial backers are largely coming from the oil industry. Canada seems today to be only about one thing, and that is the production and export of oil — at any cost.

LTW: What are the essential changes that you’d like to see in the way Alberta and the federal government are managing the tar sands boom?

AN: Since 2008 when I wrote Tar Sands, I’ve advocated a set of principles that [former Alberta premier] Peter Lougheed outlined in 2006, when he was interviewed for Policy Optionsmagazine. The first was “we need to behave like owners” — we’re not. The second was “we need to collect our fair share.” In other words, control the pace and scale of development by imposing fair royalties and corporate taxes. Right now we’re giving away the resource; we have among the lowest royalties and taxes in the world.

His next principle was “we should be saving for a rainy day.” He was actually dealing with this whole issue of representation and taxation. He was saying the majority of this money should be saved for future generations; our government should be running on taxes, and not on these artificial oil revenue streams. Then the next one was “one project at a time, or go slow.”

His other principle was “add value.” We shouldn’t be exporting raw bitumen, any more than we should have been exporting raw logs and raw furs. We should add some value to this resource, because that’s where the real economic benefits come in terms of jobs — in the refining and upgrading of bitumen. Instead of peddling bitumen, we should be selling diesel, gasoline and petrochemicals.

His last point was that we should clean up the mess. You can’t develop a resource like this without adequate scientific monitoring, environmental regulation and enforcement. This is a program that has been entirely ignored in this country. It’s what we need to do.

LTW: At the federal level, a lot of the current policy approach was already in place when Chrétien and Martin were in power. Do you think a Liberal government in Ottawa would make much of a difference in terms of tar sands policy?

AN: No. The danger is that here’s this great pile of cash. Every political party’s going to look at this pile of cash and say, “Here’s an opportunity for us to push our political agenda.” Stephen Harper is using bitumen revenue the same way Margaret Thatcher used North Sea oil revenue to push her political revolution.

Only two parties have indicated they might do something differently: the Green Party and the New Democrats. It would take a courageous political party to say, “We’re not going to run on this revenue, we’re saving it for future generations.”

Lori Theresa Waller is a freelance writer and editor based in Ottawa. She has written for Briarpatch Magazine, The Dominion and The Ottawa Citizen.

Part II of this conversation will be published later this week.

Apr 282013
 

http://www.newsoficeland.com/home/business-economics/private-sector/item/1243-julian-assange-we-thank-the-icelandic-people

Wikileaks Press Release — Milestone Supreme Court Decision for WikiLeaks Case in Iceland — Today’s [April 24th] decision marked the most important victory to date against the unlawful and arbitrary economic blockade erected by US companies against WikiLeaks.

Iceland’s Supreme Court upheld the decision that Valitor (formerly VISA Iceland and current Visa subcontractor) had unlawfully terminated its contract with WikiLeaks donations processor DataCell. This strong judgement is an important milestone for WikiLeaks’ legal battle to end the economic blockade that has besieged the organisation since early December 2010. Despite the effects of the blockade having crippled WikiLeaks resources, the organisation is fighting the blockade on many fronts. It is a battle that concerns free speech and the future of the free press; it concerns fundamental civil rights; and it is a struggle for the rights of individuals to vote with their wallet and donate to the cause they believe in.

If the gateway to WikiLeaks donations is not re-opened within 15 days Visa’s Valitor will be fined 800,000 ISK ($6,830) per day.

WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, said:

“This is a victory for free speech. This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers”

“We thank the Icelandic people for showing that they will not be bullied by powerful Washington backed financial services companies like Visa. And we send out a warning to the other companies involved in this blockade: you’re next.”

“We hope that the that the European Commission also acknowledges that the economic blockade against WikiLeaks is an unlawful and arbitrary censorship mechanism that threatens freedom of the press across Europe. If it fails to do so, the Commission must be regarded as failing to live up to the founding European principles of economic and political freedom.”

Today’s [April 24th] verdict strengthens other fronts in this battle. There is an active legal action in Denmark against a Danish sub-contractor for VISA, equivalent to Valitor. The decision will also buttress the pre-litigation work already under way in various jurisdictions against the international card companies and financial services companies – VISA and MasterCard, Western Union, PayPal and Bank of America, and other payment facilitators that teamed with these giants to form a concerted, and equally unlawful economic blockade against the organisation.

In November the European Parliament passed a resolution which included a clause drafted specifically in relation to the economic blockade against Wikileaks. The resolution called on the European Commission to draft regulations that will prevent online payment facilitators from arbitrarily denying services to companies or organisations, such as WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has also launched a formal complaint to the European Commission on the basis that VISA and MasterCard, which together take up 95% of the European market, have unlawfully abused their dominant market position. The European Commission is still evaluating whether it will open a formal investigation but documents already submitted by the companies reveal that the credit card companies were in talks with powerful figures in the US Congress and Senate (Senator Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King). http://wikileaks.org/European-Commission-enabling.html

Although it is still not possible to donate directly to WikiLeaks via credit card, freedom of press campaigners including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Elsberg, the actor John Cusack, and the Founder of the California-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) John Perry Barlow, have set up the Freedom of the Press Foundation to collect money for WikiLeaks. It allows donors to make anonymous, tax-deductable donations. http://t.co/qpW57qquOf

Apr 222013
 

Janet writes:

 

The Halifax Herald Limited, owned and published by  the Dennis family of Halifax,  is one of the last independently-owned newspapers in Canada.

As a Nova Scotian I am grateful that the Herald provides space for Ralph Surrette’s weekly column – one  that provides astute and unabashed critical analysis of the  political and economic realities in Canada and Atlantic Canada.   And kudos to Ralph of course !

 

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

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1124311-surette-harper-on-the-skids-justin-or-no-justin

 

By RALPH SURETTE

 

Twice the same day recently I heard this, spoken in dismissive rage: “That idiot, Harper” and “that fool in Ottawa.”

 

In my decades watching politics, I’ve found that tone of voice is more indicative of political fortune than either polls or rational argument.

 

One speaker was a fisherman, angry at ham-fisted fishery management reforms, the other a guy who fixes houses for sale and had just been told by his bank manager that uncertainty over EI changes made an already catastrophic real estate market in Western Nova Scotia even worse.

 

Both probably voted for Harper last time, and neither thinks much about politics — the type of “Tim Horton’s crowd” voter the Conservatives target.

 

Now, however, the pileup of cuts, scandals, ideologically-driven “reforms” and assaults on democracy have little fires like this smouldering all over the Harper edifice, although the façade is still standing.

 

Yet even the façade has wear and tear. Harper supporters usually put it this way: He’s for self-reliance, smaller government and sound finances, so what’s wrong with that?

 

Up to a point, nothing. The problem is with the way he’s doing it. What Harper means by being self-reliant is having oil in the ground. People without are slackers, notably Maritimers. It’s simple neo-con theology: money is virtue.

 

As for smaller government, I agree with that, too, up to a point. We’ve been building up bureaucracy since the 1960s without really reflecting on it. The public service must deliver what we want as a society effectively and efficiently, and it’s necessary to make it do that. What Harper’s doing is the contrary: assaulting the public service in a spirit of vandalism, driven by party ideology.

 

And talking of oil, new discoveries of heavy oil in the U.S., plus conservation and a slack economy have got the Alberta oilsands on the skids. Since that’s the main pillar of the Harper view of the economy, and the basis of his claim to be a great fiscal manager, if they’re on the skids, so is he.

 

Plus the old black magic borrowed from the U.S. Republicans is arguably no longer working. The swift attack on new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is, by all appearances, just alerting media and public of the Harperites’ nasty habits. Dirtbag advertising, I predict, will rebound to their discredit, making them the issue rather than the intended target.

 

Besides, the Liberals and NDP are wise to the tricks. Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, off balance, were easy prey.

 

The Conservatives haven’t attacked NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, in part because he bites back. During a recent trip to the U.S., where he criticized the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives attacked him for badmouthing Canada. He merely pulled out old Stephen Harper quotes badmouthing Canada while in the U.S. and that ended that.

 

There’s a rich lore of Harper quotes ready to be thrown back at him from his less subtle days as a right-wing ideologue, and it’s time he got them back.

 

As for Justin Trudeau, I don’t much like the idea of a political royal family — it indicates that things are out of whack and that a society is desperate for someone to rally around — but I think the kid will get the benefit of the doubt until he finds his feet.

 

The only question in all this is how the Liberals and NDP will share the vote, which according to the latest polls, is 70 per cent between them.

 

The Conservative appeal in Ontario and beyond, through targeted tax cuts and giveaways to the politically half-conscious class, has been to put self-interest before country. I’ll make an act of faith and say that that’s changing.

 

As for Atlantic Canada, we wiped out both the Mulroney Conservatives and the Chretien Liberals in the 1990s when they were too annoying. Given Harper’s blatant contempt for the region, we’ll be pathetic indeed if we don’t do the same thing to him.

 

(rsurette   AT  herald. ca)

RALPH SURETTE

Apr 212013
 

Michael writes:

Here’s a charming story that caused me to choke on my muffin this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/obama-accused-nuclear-guided-weapons-plan

(Sandra speaking:

  • Reader “Comments” at the above link are worthwhile.
  •  Also, the links to information within the news article.
  • The article (without the Comments) follows

F35 fighter-bomber

Nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers. Photograph: EPA

 

 

Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor

Barack Obama has been accused of reneging on his disarmament pledges after it emerged the administration was planning to spend billions on upgrading nuclear bombs stored in Europe to make the weapons more reliable and accurate.

Under the plan, nearly 200 B61 gravity bombs stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey would be given new tail fins that would turn them into guided weapons that could be delivered by stealth F35 fighter-bombers.

“This will be a significant upgrade of the US nuclear capability in Europe,” said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of Nuclear Scientists. “It flies directly in the face of the pledges Obama made in 2010 that he would not deploy new weapons.”

In its Nuclear Posture Review in 2010, the US undertook to reduce the role and numbers of its nuclear weapons, in part by not developing new nuclear warheads, and pledging it would not “support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities”.

According to newly published budget figures, the US will spend about $10bn (£6.5bn) on a life extension programme for the B61 bombs, and another $1bn on adding controllable tail fins. Kristensen said the tail kit would give it a new mission and new capabilities, once some of the upgraded weapons were deployed as scheduled in Europe in 2019 or 2020.

“What will be going back to Europe will be a guided nuclear bomb,” he said. “Especially when you combine it with F35 with stealth characteristics, that expands the targets you can hold at risk from Europe, because by placing the explosion closer to the target you can choose a lower explosive yield. That is very important as there is less radioactive fallout. For many people this is a great concern because it means making nuclear weapons more ‘usable’.”

The new B61 Mk12 will be a 50 kilotonne weapon, like most of the “tactical” nuclear bombs currently in Europe. The bigger, strategic versions of the B61, stockpiled in the US, would be discontinued. Some European countries, led by Germany, have attempted to get the American B61 bombs withdrawn from Europe on the grounds they serve no military purpose following the end of the cold war and that they represent a security risk because of the possibility of their theft by terrorists. But some eastern European states have resisted their withdrawal, fearing it would show a weakening of US commitment to defend them against Russia.

US administration officials say the addition of tail fins to the bomb does not represent a significant change in its mission and therefore does not break the 2010 pledge. They insist that Obama remains committed to the disarmament agenda he outlined in a 2009 landmark speech in Prague, in which he promised to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons.

Since then, the US signed the new Start treaty with Russia, limiting both sides’ strategic arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads each. This spring, Obama was expected to make a speech outlining proposals to make further cuts to about 1,100 warheads. But US officials have said the crisis over North Korea and the time needed to install a second-term national security team have delayed the speech.

Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, went to Moscow earlier this month to deliver a message from the president to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, which included proposals to cut the two countries’ nuclear arsenals and finding a compromise in the long-running dispute over US plans for a missile defence system in Europe. Sources familiar with the talks described the Russian response as positive. Obama and Putin are to meet at the G8 meeting at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, but it is unclear whether the new nuclear weapons cuts will be ready by then.

Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, an arms control pressure group, said the B61 modernisation plans were largely driven by domestic political considerations but risked sending mixed messages to Russia at a time when Washington and Moscow needed to strike a deal.

“I’m convinced the president wants to continue his efforts to reform US nuclear policy,” Cirincione said. “But the administration had a schizoid approach on this issue. They believe they have to buy off legislators with billions of dollars in expenditure in their states in order to get votes for arms control measures later.

“The billions of dollars we are lavishing on the B61 is criminal. This is billions of dollars spent on a weapon whose mission evaporated at the end of the cold war. It’s clearly aimed at buying senators’ votes.”

Apr 182013
 

http://t.co/DT2JmNkZmC

By Don Braid

Mayor Naheed Nenshi is true to his school, no doubt of that.

His blast at the province for looming cuts to post-secondary education — especially at his own Mount Royal University — is emotional, personal, and absolutely correct.

Former MRU professor Nenshi says you don’t have great cities without great universities. Nor do universities thrive when sudden provincial budget cuts tear down a decade of growth, or when cuts threaten the philanthropy that fostered both.

Don Taylor and family, for instance, have given the astonishing total of $60 million to higher education in Calgary over the past few years — $40 million to the University of Calgary, and $20 million to MRU for construction of the Bella Concert Hall.

Now, MRU may be forced to cut some of the very music programs that support the Bella Hall. Other potential donors in any field might ask themselves, why bother?

Everybody knew this year’s provincial budget would be tough, but it remains a mystery why the province chose Advanced Education as a key victim, with $147 million in operating cuts.

One reason is they’re trying to force more efficiency and standardization. But at Mount Royal, what the province has induced is more like panic, as the young university tries to find $14 million in savings.

The early hints from Tuesday’s campus meeting are only the beginning. You don’t save $14 million by cutting programs like music performance, theatre arts and disability studies.

These are known as “low-yield” courses. This makes them easy targets for bean-counters, both in Edmonton and university executive offices.

But at MRU, especially, some are tremendously important.

Anyone who’s listened in awe to a jazz performance at MRU knows that greatness can emerge from the smallest corners of a school. With one wrong step, the province could obliterate MRU’s international reputation for musical excellence.

Advanced Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk now says he must approve cuts, after MRU’s board decides what it wants to do. Tuesday’s campus meeting was preliminary, he adds.

This raises some hope that the minister might back away from program losses. But how can he retreat when MRU’s overall target is so big?

In the end, he’s far more likely to approve much wider cuts to staff, administration and programs. There’s no other road to save $14 million.

You’d expect the universities to fight back hard, but they rarely do. Most board members are appointed by the government. They care about their schools, but rebellion is not in their nature.

Luckily, MRU has a powerful public champion — the mayor.

“I really urge the provincial government to walk this one back, to realize they made a terrible error in public policy, one that’s going to have implications on generations of students and on all of us in the community,” Nenshi said Wednesday, after releasing a letter that blistered the government.

The mayor says the decision puts university boards in “an impossible position. I would not want to be in that position today.”

In Edmonton, Mayor Stephen Mandel has been saying much the same things, often angrily, about the province’s assault on the universities.

This is a first. Mandel has usually been a quiet co-operator rather than a rebel. He watched and waited, for instance, while former mayor Dave Bronconnier took on the province over infrastructure funding in 2007.

But now Mandel is in lockstep with Nenshi. This should worry the Redford government.

The big-city mayors, when they unite, wield serious political power.

During last year’s election, they helped keep Wildrose out of power by blasting the party’s perceived intolerance and homophobia.

United again, they might push the PCs off their draconian, ill-planned agenda for higher education.

They would be doing everyone a favour — even the government.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald.

dbraid  AT  CalgaryHerald.com

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Apr 182013
 

RELATED:   2013-05-03  Anthropology students face abuse, even rape, at field sites.  Globe & Mail

Senator Dyck continues in her support role for persons of varous backgrounds who are subjected to exploitative behaviour in the University.

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

http://www.newstalk650.com/story/saskatchewan-senator-reflects-racism-and-discrimination/105926

SNTC play inspired by Senator Lillian Dyck’s experiences

Reported by Ashley Wills

A Canadian senator is the  inspiration behind a play that premiers in Saskatoon tonight.

“Cafe  Daughter” is about a young Chinese Canadian Cree girl growing up in a small  Saskatchewan town.

Senator Lillian Dyck said her father arrived in Canada  in 1912 to start a business. Since he was a Chinese immigrant, he was required  to pay a $500 head  tax.

“At that  time in history that would have been the equivalent of one or two years’ salary  just to get into Canada,” she said in a telephone interview from her office in  Ottawa.
The financial setback was not the only hurdle he would face because Saskatchewan and other provinces had a law that forbade Chinese men from hiring white women to work for them.

“Because they didn’t want  intermarriage between the Chinese and white people at that time,” said  Dyck.

That led her father to marrying a Cree woman from Gordon’s First  Nation who had begun working at his cafe.  “The discriminatory laws  actually enabled the marriage, had it not been for that, I wouldn’t be here, nor  would by brother.”

Dyck said she was teased and harassed as a child for  being Chinese. She said she followed her mother’s lead and never let anyone know  that she was also First Nation.

“To be Indian was something that you  didn’t want anybody to know because people would really look down on you,” she  said. Growing up was bad enough, but Dyck said that the worst treatment she  received was because she was a woman.

While studying and working at the  University of Saskatchewan (U of S) in the 1970’s she faced sexism, harassment  and racism.

“And I worked as a woman in science, which was a bit of an  anomaly in my time and still is,” Dyck said.

The experience at U of S  could have prevented the future senator from getting to where she is today, but  the self-described fighter said she refused to give up. The trials she faced  would only build her character.

Soon Dyck became the go-to person when it  came to equity problems. She said colleagues and students would approach her for  help when they thought they were not being treated fairly.

But it wasn’t  until Lillian Dyck was 36 years old and awarded her PhD in biological psychiatry  that she came to terms with her heritage.

“I said ‘that’s it, from here  on in I’m letting the world know that I’m not just Chinese, I am also Cree and  I’m proud of it’.” “No one can look down on my anymore, because now I’m Dr.  Lillian Dyck.”

Her advice for young people who are struggling with  identity is to find strength in what makes you feel weak.

“Every one of  us has the ability to be a leader and to be the best in our field, in however  you define success, just don’t give up,” Dyck said.

Playwright Kenneth  Williams interviewed the senator in 1999 because she was receiving a National  Aboriginal Achievement Award.

But Dyck said during the interview, the  focus shifted. She said Williams became very interested in the discriminatory  laws that affected her and her parents.

He later approached her to let  her know he would like to use her story as a script for a play.

The Saskatchewan Native Theatre Company is presenting the Saskatchewan premiere of  Cafe Daughter. The play runs April 18 – 28 in  Saskatoon.

awills  AT  rawlco.com

Follow  on Twitter: @ashwillsee

Apr 152013
 

News of Lockheed Martin’s recent publicity blitz:

–  links follow, with short excerpts

–  The information in Item #1 set me to laughing out loud (LOL).

The Darth Vader helmet that F-35 pilots would wear has to be “Boys and Their Toys”.     I hope the $1 million per helmet  (or is it  $2M per?) is included in the sticker price of the F-35s!

–  After Lockheed Martin:

  • tacked another $20 million onto the price tag of each F-35,
  • four days later they announced:  “one of the biggest myths” is the “rapidly rising costs“

I must say,  Darth Vader helmets put the finishing touch on the Theatre of the Absurd!

–   Get this:  if we DON’T buy their F-35 stealth bombers  . . .  see Item #5.  Boy! are we in trouble!

Lockheed Martin, the war industry, will NEVER have ENOUGH.   It’s obvious from the U.S. experience.  They mire the whole country deep in debt.  Tax-payers become their wage slaves, working to pay taxes – the taxes going straight to Lockheed Martin.   For Canadians the amount is projected to be $45 BILLION DOLLARS.  I don’t know if that includes the recent price hike of $20 million per stealth bomber.

THE RECENT NEWS

The last and most important item is: 

So what are we doing about Lockheed Martin and the F-35s?

 

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

1.   Lockheed Martin is not going to stop until Canadians are on the hook for F-35s – –  Lockheed’s new “publicity blitz“

… the giant U.S. defence contractor is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet  (April 8)

 (Ummm, that would be at a price of $45 billion, no wonder they’d like us to buy!)

(The full article:  2013-04-08 Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35, U.S. defence contractor takes F-35 simulator on road show, CBC)

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

2.   Lockheed says the price goes up (again!), but just by $20 million per stealth bomber

Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O’Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million. 

BUT!   See #8.  American tax-payers are hearing $137 million per F-35.

When one of these babies goes down, and one has already (even before they’ve been introduced into active service)  just think – – OOPS!  $137 million dollars (or maybe it’s only $85 million?)   of hard-earned tax money down the toilet.

WHO are the geniuses behind the Canadian war strategy?  (policies that bankrupt us are not a “defence strategy“.)

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

3.   Four days later:  Oh no, says he, the rapidly rising cost is a myth!

“One of the biggest myths is the cost of the F-35 is rapidly growing. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said O’Bryan.

(The full article:  2013-04-12 Lockheed Martin promos $75M fighter jet in Winnipeg, CBC)

 

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

 

4.  WHY this new push to convince Canadians to buy F-35s ? . . .  a mid-May deadline on Lockheed Martin.

 

The defence company has been given until mid-May to provide Ottawa with a status report on the jets . . .   

 And, they’re desperate.  American citizens are revolting.   The citizens in other countries that the Pentagon (Lockheed Martin) thought were going to pay for the F-35s are revolting.  WHO is going to bail them out?   . . .  how about dumb Canucks?

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

5.  Earlier, Lockheed Martin tried coercion.   If we don’t buy the F-35 stealth bombers, they’re going to take their money and go home! 

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though.  A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business — and jobs — if it didn’t buy planes. 

“If Canada did pull out of the program, all remaining aspects, including industrial participation, connected to the program would most likely be reviewed,” Michael Rein wrote in a Dec. 17 e-mail to Bloomberg Government.

See  2013-02-22 Flawed F-35 Fighter Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States, Bloomberg News

 

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

6.  A presentation by Michael Rein, the Lockheed spokesman who “raised the possibility”  that they’d leave the playbox, taking their toys with them:   “The F-35 Program:  Leveraging the Corporate Communications-PR Agency Relationship“

I was curious about what else is known about Rein.  Found this:

FPRA 2012 Annual Conference: Breakout Session, The F-35 Program: Leveraging the Corporate Communications–PR Agency Relationship, Michael Rein

http://fprablog.org/2012/08/07/fpra-2012-annual-conference-breakout-session-5b-the-f-35-program-leveraging-the-corporate-communications%E2%80%93pr-agency-relationship-michael-rein/

 

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

7.  A  page from Lockheed Martin’s textbook:  Winnipeg (Magellan Aerospace).

(From 2013-04-12 Lockheed Martin promos $75M fighter jet in Winnipeg, CBC)

some of the components for the F-35 are produced in Winnipeg by Magellan Aerospace. . . . “For us, it’s up to $2 billion worth of revenue over 25 to 35 years of production,” said Don Boitson, the general manager of Magellan Aerospace.

Exactly like they’ve done it in the U.S., make local economies dependent upon the war machine.  Never mind that overall you are bankrupting the nation, bleeding the tax-payers dry, and adding to global instability.   

I was thinking of the  mechanisms by which the American military-industrial-government-university complex is being duplicated in Canada:

Related posting:  2008-09-17 Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“

 

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

8.  I forgot (from Lockheed Martin’s text book)  the distortions of the truth (use of propaganda):

He said eight countries have signed contracts for F-35s, and if more sign up, prices will go down.   

“The cost of the F-35 is rapidly decreasing,” said O’Bryan.

 The truth?    2013-02-22 Flawed F-35 Fighter Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States, Bloomberg News :

Allies have agreed to purchase 721 fighters, yet the soaring price is painful for nations with shrinking defense budgets. The estimated cost of each plane has about doubled to $137 million since 2001, according to a GAO report last year.  .… 

Canada Reconsiders 

Canada had dropped to 65 planes from 80. In December, it said it was reconsidering its commitment to purchase any of the jets after a consultant said the price to buy and maintain them might reach about $45 billion.  

(Most of the countries that were sucked into the NATO / American / Lockheed Martin boondoggle have significantly cut back their commitment, except Japan.)

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though. A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business — and jobs — if it didn’t buy planes.  . . .  

 

     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

9.   Love this!  an  online Comment 

What does Canada have left to protect? Harper Canada has sold, given away, and outsourced it all. We don’t need these war machines. 

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

 

Another person pointed out that military technology is moving to drones (which we’ve covered in this blog).  

Hmm,  the F-35s were conceived in the pre-drone era.   Need to dump these manned stealth bombers before they become REALLY obsolete.   How about those guillible Canadians?!

 

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

10.  I wonder in what Lockheed Martin is coaching the students at “Canadian military service academies” . . .  “Cyber Security is at the core of all we do”  … The irony:  2011-05-27  Hackers broke into Lockheed Martin networks !   

 

FIRST:   Would Canadian military service academies include Royal Military College (RMC) in Kingston?  with former Chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada participating at RMC ?      

From Item #8 in the posting 2008-07-23   Letter to Dalhousie University re 2 million dollars from Lockheed Martin  

The “Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute” (CDFAI) is at RMC.

Retired General PAUL MANSON sits on the Advisory Council for CDFAI. At one time he was Chief of Defence for Canada, had involvements with NATO, etc.:

“Following military service, he entered business as the president of a large aerospace company, ultimately retiring in 1997 as Chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada.”  You can read his biography at  (Link no longer valid)  http://www.cdfai.org/advisorycouncil.htm   

 

In what is Lockheed Martin training the students?

(Link no longer valid)  http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2013/04/15/lockheed-martin-hosts-cyber-defense-exercise-supporting-nsa-for-11th-year/

EXCERPT:

April 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/ – Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) will host emerging cyber leaders from U.S. and Canadian military service academies to test their capabilities this week against experts from the National Security Agency in the annual Cyber Defense Exercise (CDX).

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110419/PH85737LOGO-b)

“Cyber Security is at the core of all we do, so each year we are inspired by these innovative students as they face challenges from veteran NSA experts,” said Darrell Durst, vice president of cyber solutions for Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Solutions. “The students tackle the same types of threats our nation faces daily in cyber security. Whether detecting intruders, or adapting to sophisticated threats, NSA leverages this opportunity to educate the next generation of cyber professionals.”

Lockheed Martin coordinated with NSA to establish a private network for the exercise, which links all the academies with CDX headquarters at the Lockheed Martin facility in Hanover. The company is also providing technical support for CDX preparation and execution. Lockheed Martin is a leading provider of cyber security technology and services to the NSA and a number of defense and intelligence agencies.

 

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

 

11.   How much are Canadians currently paying for the military? 

At $18.7 billion, Canada is the 6th highest military spender with NATO (and three of the five higher than Canada have nuclear arsenals). Harper’s annual defence budget has climbed so high, it is now 20 per cent above the average amount spent during the entire four decades of the Cold War.  . . . 

(Globally, governments squandered $1.73 trillion on militaries in 2011, and still the weapons corporations want more.) 

 

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

12.  So what are we doing about Lockheed Martin and the F-35s? 

  • Make sure your neighbours know.  Spread the word about Lockheed Martin.  Awareness is the best medicine.  Don’t walk into the grave with your eyes shut!
  • Phone your Member-of-Parliament.
  • Have some fun!   Ceasefire.ca   $45 billion on F-35’s.  How would YOU spend the money?!   http://www.ceasefire.ca/   (Global day of action on military spending, April, 2013)
  • Conscience Canada, withhold an amount from your tax payment that represents the portion that will go to Lockheed Martin.   Conscience Canada provides the tools to make it easy:  http://www.consciencecanada.ca/
  • Add to the on-line Comments on news articles

 

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

MISCELLANEOUS

2012-12-12   Have a laugh. Wall Street Journal article.  Canadian government scrapped its plans to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. 

 

= = = = = = =  THE  END!  = = = = = = = =

Apr 152013
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html

(Note:  I captured the text below because links sometimes become invalid.)

By Kathleen Miller, Tony Capaccio & Danielle Ivory

 

The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and U.S. allies.

Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it’s the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.

It is also the defense project too big to kill. The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs — and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. The F-35 is an example of how large weapons programs can plow ahead amid questions about their strategic necessity and their failure to arrive on time and on budget.

“It’s got a lot of political protection,” said Winslow Wheeler, a director at the Project on Government Oversight’s Center for Defense Information in Washington. “In that environment, very, very few members of Congress are willing to say this is an unaffordable dog and we need to get rid of it.”

The Pentagon said today it suspended all F-35 flights after a routine engine inspection of a test aircraft revealed a crack on a turbine blade. The jet is also facing scrutiny as the March 1 deadline to avert automatic U.S. budget cuts approaches. The across-the-board reductions would take as much as $45 billion this year from defense programs, including the F-35.

 

Greatest Exposure

 

Among the contractors, Lockheed has the greatest exposure to the F-35, said Richard Aboulafia, a military analyst with Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal Group. The program made up 13 percent of the company’s $46.5 billion in revenue in 2011, according to a regulatory filing.

“Unlike much of their subcontractor base, they have no commercial market” to protect against hits to the F-35, Aboulafia said in a phone interview.

United Technologies Corp. (UTX), which supplies the engine, has more diversity than Lockheed, he said. Northrop, another key F-35 contractor, has a hedge because it builds 40 percent of Boeing Co. (BA)’s F/A-18E/F jet, which benefits if the F-35 gets cut, Aboulafia said.

About 5 percent of Northrop’s $26.5 billion in new contract awards in 2012 were tied to the F-35, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

 

Supersonic Jet

 

The supersonic F-35 was intended to transform military aviation. Three versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps would be built off a common assembly line, permitting faster production, reduced costs and compatibility among allied air forces.

About a quarter of the aircraft would be purchased by other countries. Norway, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S. agreed in 2006 to cooperatively produce and sustain the F-35 jet. Israel and Japan later signed on to purchase jets and take part in their development.

 

Export Fighter

 

The F-35 will probably become the dominant export fighter for the U.S. aerospace industry, Gordon Adams, who served as the senior White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets under President Bill Clinton, said in a phone interview.

“This is the last U.S. export fighter standing, and that has saved this program,” said Adams, now a foreign-policy professor at American University in Washington. “There is a huge economic element to the F-35.”

Members of Congress are hesitant to make deep cuts to the project in part because it generates work in their states, Wheeler said. The F-35 supports 41,000 jobs in Texas alone, the most of any state, according to Lockheed’s website. The company assembles the fighter in Fort Worth.

Even Senator John McCain, who has been a critic of the fighter, toned down his rhetoric to welcome a squadron of the Marine Corps’ F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing jets to his home state of Arizona in November.

 

‘Right Direction’

 

McCain said he was encouraged the program was “moving in the right direction” after years of setbacks. The jet “may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world,” he said at a ceremony at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma.

The Republican senator had described the F-35’s ballooning costs and delays as “disgraceful,” “outrageous” and a “tragedy.”

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain, said the senator didn’t request that the planes be located at the base and “continues to be seriously concerned about potential cost- growth and schedule-slips in the program.” Still, Rogers said in an e-mail that McCain “is a staunch advocate of the unmatched training resources and decades-long community support that Arizona provides this vital mission.”

The co-chairmen of President Barack Obama’s deficit- reduction panel, former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, recommended in 2010 that Air Force and Navy purchases be reduced. They also suggested the Pentagon cancel the Marines’ F-35, the most complex of the three models.

 

‘Acquisition Malpractice’

 

That aircraft is “worth killing, particularly given its technical problems,” said Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Stimson Center, a nonprofit public-policy institute in Washington. The Marines’ AV-8B Harrier is “quite capable for now,” he said.

Blechman questioned the need for all F-35 models, saying they provide marginal improvement over existing F-16 jets “but nothing compared with the amount the Pentagon is planning to invest.” The Air Force is buying its version to replace F-16s. The F-35 will also replace the Air Force A-10 ground attack aircraft and older Navy F-18s.

The program’s woes have been blamed partly on how it was conceived — with the notion that small numbers of aircraft could be produced during development and testing.

“Putting the F-35 into production years before the first flight test was acquisition malpractice,” Frank Kendall, then acting acquisition undersecretary, said in February 2012. He is now undersecretary for acquisition.

 

‘Exceeding Expectations’

 

Thomas Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the F-35, said the program has made “very significant strides over the last three years.” Structural and flight tests have improved, and the Bethesda, Maryland-based company delivered 30 aircraft last year compared with 13 in 2011, he said.

Lockheed intends to deliver 36 to the Defense Department this year, said Laura Siebert, a spokeswoman.

“The jet has flown to every corner of the envelope and it’s meeting or exceeding expectations in performance,” Siebert said in an e-mail. “With any test program of this size and complexity, normal discoveries will be made.”

Even so, the F-35 remains in development, and tests that would allow the plane to go into full production aren’t scheduled to be completed until 2019, seven years later than planned, Pentagon data shows.

 

On Probation

 

The total cost of the U.S. military’s 2,443 aircraft is now estimated at $395.7 billion, up from $233 billion in 2001 in current dollars, according to a Pentagon report.

“In between those two numbers is, of course, 12 years and an awful lot of learning,” said Michael Sullivan of the Government Accountability Office.

“They began the program before they understood the requirements,” Sullivan, director of acquisition management, said in a phone interview. “They failed to do a lot of systems engineering early. They didn’t understand their technologies.”

The program’s life-cycle cost, which includes development and 55 years of support, is projected to top $1.5 trillion, according to the latest Pentagon estimates.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates instilled some discipline in 2010 when he fired the Pentagon’s F-35 program manager and withheld from Lockheed $614 million in fees. Gates put the Marines’ version on “probation” in 2011 because of glitches in the jet’s propulsion system. His successor, Leon Panetta, released it from probation a year later. Both secretaries postponed jet orders in their budgets, citing the need for more testing.

 

Sticker Shock

 

Overseas, the Pentagon’s partners are balancing concerns about the F-35’s cost with the amount of work sent to their companies.

Allies have agreed to purchase 721 fighters, yet the soaring price is painful for nations with shrinking defense budgets. The estimated cost of each plane has about doubled to $137 million since 2001, according to a GAO report last year.

All the original nations “remain important partners on the program, and five of the eight have placed initial orders,” Lockheed’s Burbage said. Italy, Canada and Denmark, however, have scaled back their planned purchases.

Italy announced last year it would reduce its initial goal of buying 131 jets to 90.

The F-35 has emerged as a campaign issue in the race to replace Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti after a center-left candidate, whose coalition leads in all opinion polls, said the next administration should continue to cut planned F-35 orders.

 

Canada Reconsiders

 

Canada had dropped to 65 planes from 80. In December, it said it was reconsidering its commitment to purchase any of the jets after a consultant said the price to buy and maintain them might reach about $45 billion.

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though. A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business — and jobs — if it didn’t buy planes.

“If Canada did pull out of the program, all remaining aspects, including industrial participation, connected to the program would most likely be reviewed,” Michael Rein wrote in a Dec. 17 e-mail to Bloomberg Government.

Japan, which will increase its defense budget for the first time in 11 years, isn’t likely to change its plan to buy 42 planes, said Chiaki Akimoto, a military expert with the Royal United Services Institute in Japan. It may even order hundreds more F-35 jets when it starts retiring its fleets of F-2 and F-15 planes, he said.

 

‘Backbone’ Aircraft

 

The partners’ commitments should make the U.S. wary of making deep cuts to the F-35 program, said Dov Zakheim, a former defense comptroller who served under President George W. Bush.

“This program was advertised as a major collaborative program with a lot of allies,” Zakheim said in a phone interview. “It was sold to our allies as such. What do we do now — pull the rug out from under them at the same time we’re complaining they aren’t spending enough on defense?”

The new fighter is the “backbone of our tactical aircraft plans,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in an interview. “The issue with F-35 is not whether it will work. The real question that we have been wrestling with now as we pass through the development phase is how to reduce costs.”

The Pentagon may have provided some protection to the F-35 by awarding Lockheed $4.87 billion in contracts related to the program on Dec. 28, just days before the first deadline to avert automatic cuts. The reductions were delayed for two months in a last-minute deal. If they kick in, defense officials have warned that as many as four of the requested 29 aircraft wouldn’t get funded this year.

Eliminating the entire program is unlikely, said Adams, the professor.

“It is always hardest to kill a program when it is already in production and the services have decided it is truly important to finish it,” he said. “Crib death is easier, when it’s in R&D.”

 

(This is the last of a four-part Bloomberg series examining Pentagon weapons spending. Part One reported on the mismatch between anticipated wars and the hardware bought to fight them. Part Two showed how members of Congress, regardless of party, protect even unwanted programs to save hometown jobs. Part Three reported on a troubled Navy ship.)

 

To contact the reporters on this story: Kathleen Miller in Washington at kmiller01@bloomberg.net; Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net; Danielle Ivory in Washington at divory@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Stephanie Stoughton at sstoughton@bloomberg.net; John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

Apr 152013
 

Dear Sandra,

Military spending is out of control. Globally, governments squandered $1.73 trillion on militaries in 2011, and still the weapons corporations want more.

 


How would you better spend the money wasted on weapons and war? Share your ideas and let’s build a “word cloud” on Ceasefire.ca.


How many lives could be saved if even a small portion of the dollars spent on weapons and war preparations were instead spent on food for refugees fleeing war and drought, on public health care delivered to the HIV/AIDS-afflicted and their children, or on education for women and girls?
The weapons industry will not rest until they have every last public dollar for themselves. This week U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, the world’s wealthiest weapons corporation, launched a Canada-wide tour to promote its scandalous F-35 stealth fighter, according to the CBC.

Lockheed Martin’s sales force, including a former Canadian pilot, will take an F-35 simulator to Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa in the weeks ahead. They will never give up until Stephen Harper signs the contract for their planes.

The Harper government misled and withheld information from Canadians for years about the true cost of the F-35 stealth fighter, but through the efforts of thousands of Ceasefire.ca supporters like you, we forced him to seriously rethink his strategy to buy these war machines.

Our military spending has skyrocketed in the last decade. At $18.7 billion, Canada is the 6th highest military spender with NATO (and three of the five higher than Canada have nuclear arsenals!). Harper’s annual defence budget has climbed so high, it is now 20 per cent above the average amount spent during the entire four decades of the Cold War.

Join with other Canadians, and contribute your ideas on how these dollars could be better spent. Together, on Ceasefire.ca, we will build a fantastic “word cloud” of ideas to share with everyone.

After you’ve left your comment about how you would spend the money, be sure to share this image on Facebook and invite your friends to do the same.

Let’s stop Stephen Harper’s pro-war plans with his friends at Lockheed Martin. Let’s work for a world of peace and social justice, not war and militarism.

 

Thanks for doing what you can for peace,
Kathleen Walsh, Ceasefire.ca