Sandra Finley

2012-02-21 Stop on-line spying. Gary Schoenfeldt to Minister Vic Toews. Privacy Commissioners referenced.

 Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Feb 212012
 

Mr. Toews,

 

Thank you for your email and the additional information. If however, what you say is true, I wonder why the privacy commissioners and ombudsmans’ offices of every Canadian province and territory as well as the Federal Privacy Commissioner would be so concerned about this Bill? For your information, I have reproduced below the March 9, 2011 letter to your Deputy Minister, William V. Baker from the 13 Privacy Commissioners.

 

Today it was reported in the Toronto Star through its web site “thestar.com” that an Ontario man discovered a Global Positioning System tracking device attached to the underside of his vehicle. When he reported it to the Ontario Provincial Police, it was found that an Ontario company, Kore Wireless, had provided the device and supporting technology on contract to a US Company, US Fleet Tracking of Oklahoma, who as a matter of policy refused to tell the name of its end-user client. The police apparently could do nothing. Some might argue that spying on Canadian citizens by foreign companies is in fact a form of international terrorism that your department ought to be taking steps to eliminate.

 

Aside from the massive public objection to internet evesedropping in all its forms, when the Canadian government argues for “modern tools” such as covert internet surveillance and the use of cellular phones as tracking devices, what sort of message are you, as a member of the government, sending to private investigators? It seems that the attitude is developing amongst these professional snoops that it is “open season” on any Canadian citizen who “needs” to be spied upon. Public Safety Canada, I would argue should be about increasing the security and personal privacy of law abiding Canadians’ rather than lessening it. Public Safety Canada should be telling everyone that surveillance of law abiding citizens is totally unacceptable and that nobody, be they the government or a private company or individual may violate such an essential right without some mighty serious arguing before a judge.

 

Telling the public to simply trust in their government, coming from a political reform movement that, while in opposition, took every opportunity to admonish Canadians to in fact NOT trust the government, seems to ring quite hollow now that it is you who are in power. Even if Canadians did trust the government, which I do not think is automatically the case regardless of what party holds the most seats, what should we do if someone else forms government in a few years and inherits the enormous power that you will have have granted to whomsoever may be in charge?

 

No, with all due respect, Mr. Toews, I do not trust anyone to protect my privacy through legislation such as Bill C-30 (formerly Bill C-52) and other similar bills especially when the experts, the “watchdogs,” those who have been specifically hired to examine such things on the public’s behalf federally and in every province and territory, are telling the public to beware.

 

Sincerely,

Gary Schoenfeldt

Letter to Public Safety Canada from Canada’s Privacy Commissioners and Ombudspersons on the current ‘Lawful Access’ proposals

Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, along with all provincial and territorial privacy guardians, have sent a letter to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada regarding the privacy risks stemming from the government’s current initiative to amend the legal regime governing the use of electronic search, seizure and surveillance.  Copies of the letter, dated March 9, 2011, were also provided to members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, as well as the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

March 9, 2011

Mr. William V. Baker
Deputy Minister
Public Safety Canada
269 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8

Dear Mr. Baker:

As a group, Canada’s Privacy Commissioners remain concerned about the government’s current lawful access initiative, in particular Bill C-52, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act. We held a teleconference on January 18, 2011 to discuss the issue and would like to relay the substance of that dialogue. While we understand the legitimate needs of law enforcement and national security agencies, as well as their challenges in the context of new information technologies, we would like to bring to your attention the following concerns about the absence of limits on the access powers, the wide scope of information required to be collected and provided by telecommunications companies without a warrant and the inadequacy of internal controls and the legislative gaps in the oversight model.

The overall lawful access initiative

Read together, the provisions of Bills C-50, C-51, and C-52 (augmented by changes in Bills C-22 and C-29) would substantially diminish the privacy rights of Canadians. They do so by enhancing the capacity of the state to conduct surveillance and access private information while reducing the frequency and vigour of judicial scrutiny. In essence, they make it easier for the state to subject more individuals to surveillance and scrutiny.

While we understand the need for law enforcement and national security agencies to function effectively in the context of new information technologies, in our view, it would be misleading to suggest that these bills will simply maintain capacity. Taken together, the proposed changes and new powers add significant new capabilities for investigators to track and search and seize digital information about individuals.

It is also noteworthy that at no time have Canadian authorities provided the public with any evidence or reasoning to suggest that CSIS or any other Canadian law enforcement agencies have been frustrated in the performance of their duties as a result of shortcomings attributable to current law, TSPs or the manner in which they operate. New powers should be demonstrably necessary as well as proportionate. Ultimately, even if Canadian authorities can show investigations are being frustrated in a digital environment, all the various powers that would be granted to address these issues must be subject to rigorous, independent oversight.

The Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act (Bill C-52)

Clause 16 gives unrestricted access to subscriber data records held by telecommunications firms. We are concerned that the proposed powers are not limited in any fashion. The privacy oversight community in Canada has expressed reservations, in a joint resolution by all of Canada’s privacy commissioners signed after the original tabling of similar bills in 2009. A copy of this resolution is attached.

We are concerned that clause 16 of Bill C-52 would give authorities access to a wide scope of personal information without a warrant; for example, unlisted numbers, email account data and IP addresses. The Government itself took the view that this information was sensitive enough to make trafficking in such ‘identity information’ a Criminal Code offence. Many Canadians consider this information sensitive and worthy of protection, which does not fit with the proposed self-authorized access model.

Currently, under section 487.013 of the Criminal Code, investigators require judicial authorization to seek client information like name, address or account numbers from a financial institution or commercial entity. As you are aware, clauses 16 and 17 of C-52 provide law enforcement, CSIS, and Competition officials with warrantless access to “subscriber information” held by telecommunications companies. In our view, law enforcement and security agency access to information linking subscribers to devices and devices to subscribers should generally be subject to prior judicial scrutiny accompanied by the appropriate checks and balances.

Lack of appropriate oversight

We are also concerned by the oversight model. Clause 20(4) sets out audit powers for the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) which already exists in section 18 of the Privacy Act. Without additional resources to the OPC, however, this additional statutory provision does not augment existing oversight.

In addition, we believe the auditing and reporting safeguards should be strengthened. In relation to internal audits required under clause 20 (2), the requirement that law enforcement and security agencies report to “the responsible minister of anything arising out of the audit that in their opinion should be brought to the attention of the minister” should be subject to an objective standard. Agencies should be expressly required to report any collection, use or retention practices that do not appear to be necessary to the duty or function for which they were originally obtained.

Respective roles of the federal, provincial and territorial privacy offices

From our perspective, in relation to oversight, perhaps even more problematic is clause 20(6) which creates an obligation for the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner to “report on the powers that they [public officers] have to conduct audits similar to those referred to in subject clause 20(4) with respect to police services constituted under the laws of their province.” While the OPC has jurisdiction over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, this provision does not adequately address the issue of those municipal or provincial police services that are not subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial or territorial privacy office or the OPC.

Nor does the Bill resolve the legislative gap in jurisdictions where privacy officers do not have the powers necessary to audit compliance by provincial and municipal police forces. These gaps are evident in many jurisdictions. While recognizing that the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner could exercise its audit provisions over the RCMP, this issue still strikes the provincial and territorial commissioners as a significant concern at the local level. Certainly it raises risks for privacy and diminishes the value of meaningful, timely review.

We are also concerned that very few of our organizations have been consulted in this process, particularly given the review role we are being asked to perform, flowing from clause 20 (3)(c). To this end, we would insist that the relevant federal officials reengage with provincial Offices of the Attorney-General or territorial equivalents. This should lead to a more open dialogue with the provincial commissioners on these issues.

Conclusion

We have collectively made a number of recommendations in our 2009 resolution for legislators to consider as they approach the individual pieces of legislation involved in the initiative. We believe that there is insufficient justification for the new powers, that other, less intrusive alternatives can be explored and that a focussed, tailored approach is vital. In our view, this balance has not been achieved.

To remedy these shortcomings, we suggest certain gaps need to be addressed. Provincial and territorial privacy officers would ask that the federal Privacy Commissioner, in reporting to Parliament on the adequacy of audit and investigation powers, should also be expressly authorized to report on whether privacy officers consider themselves to have adequate resources to conduct the necessary audits and reviews. As above, the federal government must commit to working with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that all of the relevant privacy officers have sufficient powers and resources.

It is our intention to provide Parliament and the public with further analysis and assistance with respect to the global privacy effect of proposed lawful access legislation. We also believe that the regulatory and reporting aspects of the initiative need to be as open and transparent as possible.

We appreciate your consideration of these concerns.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Jennifer Stoddart,
Privacy Commissioner of Canada

signed by M. Munn (for F. Work)

Frank Work, Q.C.,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta

signed by E. Denham

Elizabeth Denham,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

signed by I. Hamilton

Irene Hamilton,
Ombudsman for Manitoba

signed by A. Bertrand

Anne E. Bertrand, Q.C.,
Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner of New Brunswick

signed by E. Ring

Ed Ring,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for Newfoundland and Labrador

signed by E. Keenan Bengts

Elaine Keenan Bengts,
Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Northwest Territories and
Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nunavut

signed by D. McCallum

Dulcie McCallum,
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Officer for the Province of
Nova Scotia

signed by A. Cavoukian

Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

signed by M. MacDonald

Maria C. MacDonald,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Prince Edward Island

signed by J. Chartier

Me Jean Chartier,
Président de la Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec

signed by R.G. Dickson

R. Gary Dickson, Q.C.,
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan

signed by T.A. McPhee

Tracy-Anne McPhee,
Ombudsman and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Yukon

c.c.: Chair, House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
Chair, House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU)

__________________________________________________________

 

 

—– Original Message —–

From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca

To: ges2@accesscomm.ca

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:41 PM

Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

 

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

 

Canada’s laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

 

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

 

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

 

What’s needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

 

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

 

 

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.

 

Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

 

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.

 

Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing.  Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

 

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.

 

Fact:  As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.

 

Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.

 

Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

 

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.

 

Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

 

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

 

Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Dynamic systems, how they work. Our body.

 Health  No Responses »
Feb 202012
 

Instead of repeating the information on dynamic systems in different contexts,  I will place it in one place – here.  For now, all I have time to do is copy and paste, as I come across the info.

1.   Immune system as a dynamic system, from   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=1118 2011-01-28 Rebuttal: Slow poisoning by mercury (dental amalgams & vaccinations). Immune system. Corrupt Big Pharma.

I am like a fish; I store mercury in my body.

They say that the mercury that has been in my mouth for 50 years  (in my dental amalgams)  is fine.  It “off-gases” into my body.   But don’t eat those fish.  They have mercrury in them! There is  mercury in a tetanus or a flu shot.   But don’t eat those fish.  They have mercury in them!

Like the fish, I die if I do not have water.  Like the fish, I die if my immune system is overwhelmed.  There is no “me” without my immune system.

A discussion on a causal relationship between mercury poisoning and health is without value if it doesn’t incorporate knowledge of how the immune system works.  The immune system is a “dynamic system”.  The rules of dynamic systems apply.

(INSERT:  Dynamic systems briefly:  feedback loops, appropriate corrective action has to be taken in time, appropriate action is directed at removal of cause of the problem, otherwise the system will continue to decline, once you are past the tipping point decay gathers momentum,  and past the tipping point it is not possible to reverse the downward spiral.  Damage is permanent and irreversible.  The system does not have sufficient resources to repair itself and return to healthy equilibrium.)

2012-02-19 Tuberculosis. Request for info. Input for people in Guatemala.

 Tuberculosis  No Responses »
Feb 192012
 

(NOTE:  “Tuberculosis” is now a heading under “Categories” (Health) in the right-hand sidebar of this blog.  Click on it to generate a list of the postings on TB.)

Hi Sandra;   . . .   A friend of mine is working with people in Guatemala and they are experiencing possibly an outbreak of Tuberculosis. I thought that you told me that you had TB once in your lungs and had treated it herbally? If so, can you tell me what you used? My friend would be very interested in this, as sometimes the people don’t use the medication properly and then the disease is drug resistant.

Thanks for your help!

= = =  = = = = = = = = = = == =

Hi Pam,

IMPORTANT:  I am not a medical doctor.  Most allopathic doctors will disagree with me.  I am providing to you my own personal experience.  No doctor can argue with that.

ALSO IMPORTANT:  my case was diagnosed early in its development, before it became contagious.

There wasn’t a single herbal remedy that brought my TB under control.    “The cure” was:

  1. Dealing with things that, unbeknownst to me, were weakening my immune system.
  2. Taking/doing things to boost my immune system.

I’ll get that written down and send it to you separately.
Below you will find links to information I have already documented about TB.

A quick message on “the cure”

–         The community should not let itself get afraid and panicked.    Fear is a great stressor that will weaken their ability to regain health.  Everyone in their community will be healthier if they deal with this together.

FROM MY POINT-OF-VIEW, your friend is on the right path (resistant organisms).   But the non-drug approach is not straight-forward and not without pitfalls.

The community has alternatives:

  1. Use the drug protocols
  2. Be mindful of resistant organisms which means trying some non-drug approaches with some people
  3. Other ideas they may figure out themselves

In order for a non-drug approach to work – if it can work – –  there has to be a buy-in from the community – – for example, people need to agree to be quarantined if their case is contagious.

If the community chooses a non-drug approach,  they should know why they are NOT choosing the drug approach.

I would recommend that, as a first step, the community discuss the drug approach in detail – what they know.   Add to it the following which is what I know.

The second step would be to consider the non-drug approach – – what they already know, coupled with what worked for me, which I will  write-up and send to you as soon as I can.

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

I had an active case of TB, diagnosed before it became contagious.  I overcame it without using the drugs.  The old doctor who was head of TB Control in Saskatchewan at the time was agreeable (gave his encouragement) to trying a non-drug approach because the TB wasn’t yet contagious.  He understands the issue of resistant organisms and the need for experimentation.   We had time.  If it didn’t work, I could still go on the drugs.

I worked with both him (regular check-ups) and a Naturopathic doctor.

(Note:  The woman who is head of TB Control here now would not have let me do this.    I had to report to her for follow-up after the old doctor retired.    I was in full and vigorous health, and had been for a year, maybe two.  She read in my chart that I hadn’t taken the drugs;  she is absolute black-and-white,  if you have TB you take the drugs.  She is power-and-control and was about to force me to take them (in spite of my obvious healthfulness) –  it could have come to fisticuffs.   Fortunately I have learned a bit about assertiveness.)

For the reason you cite (development of resistant organisms) the drug approach to TB is not the best approach, the way I see things.  It assumes that we are incapable of developing some other way to combat the organism.  I also believe it does not serve the patient because the drugs do not address what is at the root of the health problem.  The drugs might provide a fix.  But in time, whatever is underlying (causing weakened immunity) is likely to manifest in some other form of ill health.  There is a good chance that the TB patient will have continuing health problems.  Keep in mind that a significant percentage (30% is the number I’ve seen) of people walk around with the TB organism;  it is not a problem for them because their  immune system keeps it in check.  Our insides are full of little creatures, some good, some not-so-good.

My case of TB demonstrates:  if we neglect poverty (where TB resides) we do it at our own peril.  TB is on the rise, it will spread to the not-poor.

Also, the drug-company efforts to find the “next cure” are immoral.  They use people in 3rd world countries to test their new concoctions.  The Government of Nigeria brought criminal charges against Pfizer for killing Nigerians who were used for drug testing.  The case was settled out of court.

Here is the information I have circulated regarding tuberculosis.

2005-06-02 Health,  Follow-up on:  I have tuberculosis.  Includes incidence and history.

2005-06-23 Tuberculosis  –  TB patient jailed (Toronto) and other articles

2005-10-28 Related: pharmaceuticals in h2o supply, resistant organisms, myco toxins, Tuberculosis

2007-06-01 Tuberculosis story improbable ??  Same day, Nigerian Government brings criminal charges against Pfizer.

2009-04-06 $75 million.  Pfizer settles Nigerian drug case out of court  (criminal charges for death of children)

(The next 3 postings from the Winnipeg Free Press, by journalist Jen Skerritt, are excellent.)

2009-10-31 Tuberculosis explodes on northern reserves

2009-11-03 ‘Things are falling apart’, number of TB cases in Manitoba is on the rise, . . .

2009-11-07 Tuberculosis The Forgotten Disease – Part 6 – Winnipeg Free Press

2009-11-19 H1N1  (or nukes or gmo’s or energy) in the context of “Selling Out”: the larger issue. Immune systems. TB. Constant Gardener.

(For the last posting, see item #5.   Also  #6, the Nigerian case.   It includes reference to the book/movie “The Constant Gardener” which is all about Big Pharma’s interest in tuberculosis.)

 

WHAT TREATMENT DID I USE?

The approach used was:  why didn’t my immune system deal with the TB organism?   (many healthy people carry the organism, it doesn’t become active)

Details in another email (posting)

Cheers!

2012-02-24 Tuberculosis. What treatment did I use?

 Tuberculosis  No Responses »
Feb 182012
 

Maria seeks information;  people are worried there might be tuberculosis in the community.   See  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401 2012-02-19  Tuberculosis. Request for info. Input for people in Guatemala.

TUBERCULOSIS,  WHAT TREATMENT DID I USE?

I had an active, but not-yet-contagious case of TB, six years ago (2005).  I did not use the drugs used to treat TB.  The following discussion of my “treatment” should be used IN CONJUNCTION WITH the information in http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401.  PLEASE, do not take it in isolation.  Tuberculosis can kill people.

I can only tell you my story.

I’ll weave in some of the experience of Lac Brochet, MB, as recorded in the Winnipeg Free Press  (see http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401)

MY STORY IS INSENSITIVE TO TUBERCULOSIS IN POOR COMMUNITIES.  “REMOVE THE CAUSE” IS AN EASY-ENOUGH MANTRA FOR ME.  I HOPE THE DOCUMENTATION MAKES CLEAR:  IT IS AT OUR OWN PERIL THAT WE DO NOT HELP, HOWEVER WE CAN, TO ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TUBERCULOSIS FLOURISHES.  THROWING DRUGS AT DISEASE ORGANISMS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.  WE WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST NATURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESISTANT AND MORE DEADLY ORGANISMS.  ANY EDUCATED PERSON WHO THINKS WE CAN, HAS DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR.

(1)    First, excerpts from http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401 :

IMPORTANT:  my case was diagnosed early in its development, before it became contagious.
IMPORTANT:  I am not a medical doctor.  Most allopathic doctors will disagree with what I did.

The approach used:  why didn’t my immune system deal with the TB organism?   Many healthy people carry the organism, in whom it never becomes active.

There wasn’t a single herbal remedy that brought my TB under control.    “The cure” was:

  • Dealing with things that, unbeknownst to me, were weakening my immune system.
  • Taking/doing things to boost my immune system.

A quick message on “the cure”:

The community should not let itself get afraid and panicked.    Fear is a great stressor that will weaken their ability to regain health.  Everyone in their community will be healthier if they deal with this together.

FROM MY POINT-OF-VIEW, Maria is raising the right issue:  the development of drug-resistant organisms  ( http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401).   But the non-drug approach is not straight-forward and not without its own pitfalls.

– – – – – – — – – – – – – – –

(2)   MY APPROACH TO “CURE” IS BASED ON PREMISES.  IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PREMISES, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.

PREMISE:  OUR BODIES ARE A DYNAMIC SYSTEM AND FOLLOW THE RULES OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS.

The system, our body, provides feedback to the conscious part of our being.  Our body tells our self when something is wrong so we can fix it.  If we take the appropriate steps, in a timely fashion, we can bring the self back into health (equilibrium).

More information, dynamic systems:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4457.

PREMISE (DYNAMIC SYSTEM):   WITH DISEASE (feedback in a dynamic system), IF YOU ADDRESS AN “EFFECT” AND NOT THE “CAUSE”,  RECOVERED HEALTH WILL NOT LIKELY LAST.    THE PATIENT OR COMMUNITY WILL EVENTUALLY SUCCUMB TO OTHER FORMS OF ILLNESS OR DIE, UNLESS THE CAUSE IS ADDRESSED.

The cause of tuberculosis is not the TB organism; many people carry the organism and never develop the disease.  Tuberculosis is the consequence of an overloaded or a weak  immune system under attack.  Things come together at the wrong time;  the immune system has inadequate resources;   the TB organism is opportunistic;  it multiplies and overcomes.   Then you have TB as a disease.

3. FIND “THE ROOT” CAUSE. DON’T MISTAKE EFFECT FOR CAUSE.  EASIER SAID THAN DONE!  WE DO IT ALL THE TIME.

THE DISEASE SEQUENCE, as it happened to me:  (more elaboration on treatment later)

NOTE:  this addresses the most startling and recent disease outcomes.  It does not record other and earlier conditions that were, most likely, part of the sequence.

  • April 1, 2005:  diagnosed with active but not-yet-contagious case of TB.

* Treated for internal fungal overload (fungi produce myco-toxins that are poisonous to the body in too great a dose).  I also worked to strengthen my immune system (more later).

(Note in retrospect, a problem not addressed:  why wasn’t my immune system handling the overgrowth of fungus?  More on that later)

I got the fungus under control and

  • September 2005:  returned to health.
  • Fall 2009:  pins and needles in upper right arm, chronic pain in back of neck.  Think I have a pinched nerve?
  • Massage, application of heat so I could sleep, and chiropracty but no relief.
  • Fall 2010:  I heard a radio interview regarding MS.  Further research, MS symptoms match mine. That lit a fire under my butt.
  • Treated for mercury poisoning, dental amalgams removed (“silver” fillings are half mercury).
  • Immediate cessation of the pins and needles.  Immediate reduction in the neck pain, but it took several months and a heavy-metal de-tox programme before the neck pain was fully relieved.

*A review of the literature around slow, low-level mercury poisoning from dental amalgams (“silver fillings”), over decades in most cases,  shows a definite relationship between mercury poisoning and yeast (candida / fungal) infections:

A few excerpts just from my blog:

  • “There are many thousands of clinical cases of cure or significant improvement in these conditions after proper amalgam replacement and treatment, as followed and documented by doctors. Some of the conditions that mercury has been documented to cause and which people have been documented to recover from after proper amalgam replacement or treatment include: . . .  candida “
  • Mercury causes a change in the normal bacterial inhabitants in the gut which explains why . . .
  • http://www.yeastinfectionadvisor.com/mercurypoisoning.html Mercury Poisoning, Candida Yeast, Or Is It Both?

IN SUMMARY OF MY CASE:

The disease sequence shows EFFECTS:

  • Tuberculosis (2005)
  • Symptoms of MS  (2009)

TREATMENT of the effects:

  • 2005 Treated for fungal overgrowth (myco-toxins)
  • restores health temporarily

REMOVAL OF CAUSE:

  • 2010  removal of the source of mercury poisoning (mercury in dental amalgam) and de-tox.

RESTORATION OF HEALTH:

  • Health recovered.
  • No magic pills;  it takes time.
  • With CAUSE addressed, I expect health to be stable.

IF THE CAUSE IS NOT REMOVED:

  • I would be a chronically ill person, on drugs, for the rest of my life.
  • Nothing new (truly “innovative”) will have happened.

4. WHAT ABOUT THE TUBERCULOSIS IN FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES?  CAN THEIR EXPERIENCE HELP THE  COMMUNITY IN GUATEMALA?

My experience says:
look for low-level sources of slow poisoning.  And look for combinations of assaults on the immune system. (High-level sources of fast poisoning are usually apparent and therefore removed.)

Many First Nations communities may have:

  • mercury in their mouths, but also
  • in their water supply, as is the case in Grassy Narrows, Ontario from upstream industrial effluent (pulp and paper in their example).
  • some vaccinations that contain mercury

Rest assured that with this combo, there will be serious mercury poisoning that contributes to the development of diseases like TB.

(The way in which mercury poisoning manifests itself is different in different people.  Our immune systems are not all the same.)

What about the moulds (fungus), as mentioned in the excellent articles by Jen Skerritt about TB in Lac Brochet?  ( http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4401).
In my own experience, a heavy load of myco-toxins from too much internal fungal growth contributes to a stressed immune system sending feedback in the form of disease symptoms.

Myco-toxins can be deadly.   But there will always be fungal spores (the source) in the air we breathe.  In moderation, our immune systems routinely handle them.  Get rid of the moulds – – always and absolutely.  But be aware, the moulds may or may not be the only contributor to immune system overload.  Look for combinations.  Also, internal fungal overgrowth can be a direct consequence of mercury in the body.

I’d love to do some sleuthing with people from Lac Brochet.  Perhaps their experience can help the people in Guatemala.  The ROOT cause of the TB is perhaps poverty.  Not to downplay the seriousness, but I don’t think that being poor NECESSARILY means TB.  Poisons mean disease, definitely.  Disempowerment, the inability to stop other people from poisoning your environment means disease, definitely.  Poverty creates large stresses on the immune system.  Foods that are not health-giving undermine the immune system.  Jen (the journalist writing about TB)  identified the problem with mould (the creator of myco-toxins)  in the housing in Lac Brochet.  An update on the situation with TB in Lac Brochet is desirable.   I’ll see what I can find out.

5.  I  STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED THE QUESTION:  WHAT TREATMENT DID I USE?!

Stay tuned,   I’ll get it written!

2012-02-15 Canada complicit in Afghan detainee torture, ICC told

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Feb 152012
 

International Criminal court told Canada complicit in torture of afghan detainees

A Canadian human rights activist has filed more than 120 documents with the International Criminal Court (ICC­) demonstrating reasons for concern about the legality of Canada’s handling of the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan and calling for an investigation.

John McNamer, of Kamloops, B.C., said the information was sent to the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC and that he has informed Canada’s governor general and attorney general, inviting both to have a look at the evidence.  He says there is substantial reason to believe international laws have been violated during much of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan through the transfer of detainees into conditions of torture at the hands of U.S. and Afghan authorities.

McNamer, a decorated Vietnam veteran, said it is a matter of conscience for him and that he has been shocked over past years by “the lack of legal and moral integrity” from Canada on the handling of people detained in Afghanistan.

“Complicity in torture is a war crime, and Canada is up to its neck in complicity in torture,” he said in a press release Wednesday. “It’s truly a horror story when you stop and look at everything that has come down on this, and anyone who wants to look at this information had better have a strong stomach.”

He said he sent evidence to the ICC because he believes top Canadian authorities have used their power to cover up wrongdoing and that the truth about detainee torture will come out only with intervention by a higher authority such as the International Criminal Court.

###

PASTED BELOW is an overview of evidence as sent to ICC and Canadian officials:

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: John McNamer <jhnmcnamer  AT  yahoo.ca>

To: Governor General/Commander-in-Chief David Johnston <info  AT  gg.ca>; Attorney General/Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson webadmin  AT  justice.gc.ca>

Cc: InternationalCourt <otp.informationdesk@ AT  cc-cpi.int>

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:36:32 AM

Subject: CANADA’S DETAINEE TORTURE SCANDAL: An Overview

Honourable Governor General Johnston and Attorney General Nicholson,

Please find pasted below an article sent February 12 to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court providing an overview of evidence that I have submitted to the ICC documenting Canada’s failure to abide by international law through complicity in torture of Afghan detainees and by failing to properly investigate and prosecute any related crimes.

In my e-mail to both of you Feb. 1, 2012, I informed you that such evidence had earlier been sent to the ICC and offered to provide you with copies of that evidence. As in earlier correspondence with you, I again asked that you exercise your responsibilities as the Commander-in-Chief and as the top law enforcement officer in Canada to investigate these very serious allegations.  This overview of that evidence is being presented to you because I have received no response from either of you to my February 1 communication.

Respectfully,
John McNamer

CANADA’S DETAINEE TORTURE SCANDAL: An Overview February 12, 2012

Just about everyone has heard of “the fog of war,” but what many don’t realize is that much – or most – of this fog is sometimes purposely generated to cover dark atrocities and illegal actions on the part of misguided and unprincipled participants in illegal activities, or war crimes. Unfortunately, Canada clearly now falls into this dark and gloomy realm of illicit behavior through its longstanding brazen illegal transfers of Afghan detainees to known torturers in complete contempt of international law – and through its failure to bring about proper investigation and necessary legal action when such activities have come to light.

This unfortunate characterization can be clearly demonstrated to be valid to anyone who cares to take a clear, unflinching look at the history of Canadian detainee transfer in Afghanistan. And that is just what this article will demonstrate . This has already been demonstrated in a fairly significant way through complaints from more than one source (ICC#84& 1-119) to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. And Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has publicly indicated at least three times in the recent past that NATO and Canadian handling of detainees might be formally investigated by the ICC. In April 2011 Moreno-Ocampo was quoted in the Toronto Star specifically stating that if the federal government won’t look into how Canadian soldiers handled detainees in Afghanistan for possible war crimes violations, his office will.

“We’ll check if there are crimes and also we’ll check if a Canadian judge is doing a case or not . . . if they don’t, the court has to intervene,” Moreno-Ocampo said. (ICC April 30, 2011.)

So, perhaps sadly for some Canadians, it appears that the Canadian fog of war may soon be dissipated by a strong wind necessarily emanating from a distant shore.

The ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems; rather, it complements them. It can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals only if the state concerned does not, cannot, or is unwilling genuinely to do so.   Oh, Canada.

The Canadian government and military establishment have for much of the past decade put on a dazzling display of fog-making ability that has effectively – and quite cynically –managed to keep an official lid on their abysmal failure to act in Afghanistan in accordance with clear legal obligations under international law, and related domestic law. Unlike coalition partner the United States, Canada is a full signatory to all aspects of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which specifically consider acts of torture and complicity in torture to be war crimes.

The transfer of detainees to another authority known to torture is a violation. Canada has long transferred detainees to U.S. authorities and Afghan authorities, both known to torture detainees. A transferring authority is legally obligated to know whether there even a threat of torture before handing detainees over, and also to follow the welfare of detainees to insure they are being properly treated. Ignorance of the fate of detainees is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Top Canadian government and military officials responsible for ensuring such laws are obeyed have used, and continue to use, ‘national security’ and ‘The National Secrets Act’ along with slick political maneuvering to skillfully obstruct any and all efforts over the past several years to bring forward legitimate and credible inquiry of any sort into troubling allegations and questions about war crimes on the part of Canadian Forces and other Canadian officials in relation to the Afghanistan mission.

Former Minister of Defence Thomas O’Connor actually misled the House repeatedly when detainee transfer questions started to come up, saying: “The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action.”

In a very unusual move for them, the International Committee of the Red Cross eventually publicly contradicted O’Connor. The ICRC stated that it was “informed of the agreement, but … not a party to it and … not monitoring the implementation of it.” The ICRC also advised that, in accordance with its normal operating procedure, it would not notify any foreign government (Canada included) of abuse found in Afghan prisons. O’Connor subsequently acknowledged in an official release that his statement in Parliament was not true, and that the ICRC was not monitoring detainees and not informing Canada as he had claimed. This misinformation from the minister brought forth his forced resignation – but not the truth about transfers into possible torture. (ICC#120)

Threats of prosecution (ICC#24) have effectively prevented lesser government agents from coming forward with evidence about detainee torture for half-hearted bureaucratic investigations such as the Military Police Complaints Commission. When Richard Colvin, a top Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, in 2009 courageously defied government attempts to gag him and testified that all detainees who had been transferred to Afghan authorities had likely been tortured (ICC#53), he was vilified and discredited by top officials and the allegations were never seriously probed by anyone.

A parliamentary committee inquiry – driven by opposition members – that had sprung up after Colvin’s testimony and was threatening to get to the bottom of detainee transfers was first boycotted (ICC#65) by Tory members of the governing party, then unceremoniously killed when Prime Minister Stephen Harper persuaded Governor General Michaelle Jean (coincidentally also the“Commander-in-Chief” of Canadian Forces) to prorogue, or suspend the workings of the House of Commons, literally locking the doors to parliament and killing ongoing committee work (ICC#36, 117).

Subsequently the government created a controversial parliamentary inquiry which was boycotted by the opposition NDP for being a “sham.” A special committee sworn to secrecy was to be allowed to see only classified information that had first been approved by several retired judges handpicked by the attorney general (ICC#80). That special committee refused to acknowledge evidence submitted by concerned Canadian human rights activists knowledgeable about the issues (ICC#15, 107). But even this so-called “inquiry” was killed when the government called an election. With the governing party’s move from minority to majority status, there was a quick announcement that the mandate for the inquiry had died with the election of a new House and no further inquiry was deemed to be necessary by the government. (ICC#40,82)

The parliamentary inquiries have stopped, but the basic question remains: Has Canada transferred detainees into possible torture? Despite endless assertions to the contrary by responsible officials, the unequivocal answer is:   YES, Canada has done nothing but transfer detainees into conditions of torture at the hands of U.S. and Afghan authorities during virtually its entire mission in Afghanistan.

As early as 2002, University of Ottawa Law Professor Nicole Laviolette said in an interview that Canadian Forces in Afghanistan have an obligation to refuse to turn over prisoners to the U.S. until they “are sure that the conventions are being complied with.”  In 2006, Dr. Michael Byers, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia stated for the record that “for four years, Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have violated international law by transferring suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters into the custody of the United States.”(ICC#3)

For very early on in the mission, Canada began what seems to have been an unquestioning handover of detainees to U.S. authorities, known to include covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents operating at illegal “dark sites” – now infamous across the world for unbelievably inhumane torture and in some cases, torture leading to death. These torture techniques, called “enhanced interrogation” by President George W. Bush and his administration, were actually taken word for word from Chinese Communist torture manuals captured in the Korean War, and they had previously long been described by the Americans as “torture” on the part of the Communists when used against U.S. personnel (e.g., “waterboarding”).

The “enhanced interrogation” was pioneered at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan under the explicit approval of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and used by both CIA and U.S. military interrogators. It later migrated to Iraq to be used in such places as the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. This was established in a 2009 report by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. (ICC #94, 99, 118)

The above information detailing torture techniques utilized by U.S. authorities was sent to Gov. General/Commander-in-Chief Michaelle Jean Dec. 5, 2009, with a request that she exercise her duty to act on it. She did not respond. The information was then provided May 5, 2010, to all members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan and copied to the prime minister; the attorney general; again to the governor general; the Military Police Complaints Commission , and all opposition leaders in House of Commons. (ICC#15) No one responded.

In November 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions. (ICC#102) “There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.

The documents released by the ACLU include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA”(Other Governmental Agency) — a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and military intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation”and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” listed were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”

Also in 2005, when such reports of torture and illegal abuse by U.S. forces were beginning to seep out, Canada had to deal with potential fallout from the Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, M. Cherif Bassiouni, to the UN Commission on Human Rights (ICC#1). The devastatingly honest report documented previously secret U.S. coalition war crimes for all the world to see:

“Arbitrary arrests and detentions above and beyond the reach of law under conditions commonly described as constituting gross violations of human rights law and grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Documented reports of serious violations by Coalition forces from victims, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, NGOs and others include: Forced entry into homes; arrest and detention of nationals and foreigners without legal authority or judicial review — sometimes for extended periods of time; forced nudity; hooding and sensory deprivation; sleep and food deprivation; forced squatting and standing for long periods of time in stress conditions; sexual abuse; beatings; torture, and use of force resulting in death. There are at least 8 cases of prisoners who have died while in United States custody in Afghanistan.” (ICC#3)

Within a matter of a few months Canada had scrambled to put into place, under the guise of “Afghan nation building,” an agreement to begin transferring detainees to Afghan authorities. The agreement, however, included no assurances that detainees would not be transferred to other authorities, such as the U.S. (ICC#85) And there were many questions yet to come about the efficacy and legitimacy of the agreement.

Canada was faulted in 2006 by its own NATO allies for secrecy in the handling of detainees in a story first revealed by the Globe and Mail newspaper. The story also said the Red Cross and others felt Canada was handing prisoners in the field directly to the Afghan National Security Directorate (NDS), thereby circumventing requirements to notify the ICRC of detainee transfers. The Globe also forced Canada’s military to reluctantly admit the truth of a story revealing that in 2006 Canadian troops were forced to intervene and rescue one detainee they had just handed over who was immediately being beaten by detaining Afghan authorities (ICC#30). An inquiry into the case was promised by the military.

The validity of procedures under the 2005 agreement was first seriously tested in 2007, when two Canadian lawyers brought forth concrete evidence of torture of a detainee who had been transferred by Canadians (ICC#116). Canada claimed to have no knowledge whatsoever of detainee torture, but had secretly stopped transferring detainees to the Afghans before the news actually surfaced. The transfers were eventually resumed with fresh assurances there would be no torture. Details of the transfer policies continued to remain secret and there was no public accountability for flawed and apparently illegal transfers that had taken place up to that point.

And, in a real setback for the government’s ongoing efforts to seamlessly glaze over problems with transfers, Globe and Mail reporter Paul Koring revealed Dec. 14, 2009, that “an unknown number of Taliban insurgents captured by Canadians and turned over to Afghanistan’s secret police are unaccounted for – a serious violation of the Harper government’s ‘improved’ detainee-transfer agreement. The story said “The latest detainee-transfer problem to emerge also threatens to undermine Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s assertion that ‘two, three, four years ago’ his government fixed the problems that put Canada at risk of violating the Geneva Conventions by transferring detainees into torture. “This issue has long since been dealt with,” Mr. Harper said.

But a few days earlier, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon had quietly acknowledged that an unspecified number of transferred detainees can’t be accounted for because Afghan security forces have failed to keep Canada informed of their fates. (ICC#63)

To further Illustrate the government’s intransigence on being up front about transfer policies, here are some specific questions – left mostly unanswered –which were directed personally to Minister of Defence Peter MacKay in an e-mail exchange with a human rights activist in 2009:

Are Canadian Forces turning detainees or any people in Afghanistan over to United States’ control in the current situation and what records are being kept of this? b.) How many detainees or others have Canadian Forces turned over to the U.S. since October 2001? c.) What records are kept of people who have been turned over to the U.S. by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan since October 2001 and what tracking has been done of these people after they have been turned over to the U.S.? d.) I request that you provide me with Canadian Forces policy about fulfilling their obligation to continue to be responsible for detainees who have been turned over to other authorities since 2001. Can you also please provide me with details of visits to and reports about such detainees who have been turned over to another authority since 2001, and the current policy for this under the arrangement signed Dec. 18, 2005? e.) Is there a specific agreement that the ICRC will receive notification of the identity and arrest and detention particulars of each and every detainee within 24 hours of the detention and that the ICRC will be thereafter allowed free and unrestricted access to detainees?

MacKay’s response was eerily similar to the patronizing and questionable platitudes that led to his predecessor Gordon O’Connor’s rather abrupt departure:

“As I mentioned to you in previous correspondence, as a matter of policy the Canadian Forces treats all detainees humanely and in accordance with the standards of protection afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Canadian Forces members involved in the handling and transfer of detainees receive thorough training on appropriate procedures. Prior to the development of the December 2005 arrangement with the Government of Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces transferred detainees to United States authorities. These transfers were conducted in accordance with Canada’s international legal obligations and with the knowledge of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has a mandate to verify the treatment of detainees and was notified of these transfers.” (ICC#14)

The veracity of MacKay’s statement is severally challenged when held to the light of a November 2011 UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) report ascertaining widespread systematic detainee torture by Afghan officials. This report has once again forced Canada to stop transferring to the Afghans, but this time Canada announced it would once again begin detainee transfers to U.S. authorities. (ICC# Feb.1,2012)

Ironically, shortly after this announcement, an Afghan investigative commission accused the American military of abuse at its main prison in the country, repeating President Hamid Karzai’s earlier demand that the U.S. turn over all detainees to Afghan custody and saying anyone held without evidence should be freed. Detainees interviewed during two visits to the U.S.-run portion of the prison outside Bagram Air Base north of Kabul complained of freezing cold, humiliating strip searches and being deprived of light, according to Gul Rahman Qazi, who led the investigation ordered by Karzai. (ICC#114)

The UNAMA report in November said it found “compelling evidence that NDS officials at five facilities systematically tortured detainees for the purpose of obtaining confessions and information. These are the provincial NDS facilities in Herat, Kandahar, Khost and Laghman, and the national facility of the NDS Counter-Terrorism Department 124 … in Kabul. UNAMA received multiple, credible allegations of torture at two other provincial NDS facilities in Kapisa and Takhar.” The report went on to specify some of the very ugly and inhumane forms of torture used.

Particular troubling in light of this information is an earlier report of NDS torture of children in the April 2010 UN document titled Children and armed conflict Report of the Secretary General, which says “Approximately 110 children have been detained by the Afghan National Directorate of Security and international military forces on charges related to national security, including their alleged involvement or association with the Taliban or other armed groups. Access to detention facilities continues to be difficult and information on children detained by pro-Government forces remains limited…The use of harsh interrogation techniques and forced confession of guilt by the Afghan Police and NDS was documented, including the use of electric shocks and beating . . . . Available information points to sexual violence as a widespread phenomenon.” (ICC#109) (Emphasis added)

Perhaps even more alarming in light of this clearly documented abuse of children by the NDS is another document obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) investigative unit in November 2010 which indicates children were captured by Canada and that many were transferred to the NDS. Actual numbers are redacted — bureaucratese for blacked out – and Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon would not disclose in the House of Commons whether Canadian soldiers had transferred children associated with the Taliban to the NDS following reports about the document. (ICC#108)

The seemingly difficult Canadian task of choosing between transferring detainees to U.S. authorities who have been known to torture or transferring to Afghan authorities who have been known to torture was probably not as complex as surface appearances might indicate. In reality, it was no choice at all. Toronto Star national affairs columnist Thomas Walkom broke the news in Canada in July, 2010, that the NDS had for years been completely financed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency:

“For Canadians trying to puzzle out the so-called Afghan detainees scandal, one item stands out from the mass of raw intelligence leaked this week. It’s the second-last line in a report of a March 8, 2008, meeting with Amrullah Saleh, at the time head of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security. And it casually notes that until 2009, the entire budget of this secret police force was provided by America’s Central Intelligence Agency. As the New York Times, one of the handful of newspapers first given the documents by the non-profit group WikiLeaks put it: ‘For years, the CIA had essentially run the NDS as a subsidiary.’” (ICC#41)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a television interview reported by Canadian Press in December 2009 that allegations of detainee torture are a problem in Afghanistan that is beyond Ottawa’s control. Harper insisted in an interview with Quebec’s TVA television network that it is an issue for the Afghans to settle and that Canadian diplomats “reformed the transfer system” in 2007. “We are speaking here of a problem among Afghans,” the prime minister said. “It’s not a problem between Canadians and Afghans. We’re speaking of problems between the government of Afghanistan and the situation in Afghanistan. We are trying to do what’s possible to improve that situation, but it’s not in our control.” Harper called changes to the prisoner transfer agreement made in 2007 a success. “The system works very well,” he said. “It’s not perfect. There are problems from time to time.” (ICC#66)

However, federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials actually intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert quoted in a March, 2010, CBC news story. If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released in 2009.

“If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees,” he said. “There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That’s what’s in these documents, and that’s why the government is covering up as hard as it can.”

Detainee abuse became the subject of national debate in 2009 after heavily redacted versions of these documents were made public after Attaran filed an access to information request. They revealed the Canadian military was not monitoring detainees who had been transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody. It was later alleged that some of those detainees were being mistreated. Until then, the controversy was centred on whether the government turned a blind eye to abuse of Afghan detainees.

However, Attaran said the full versions of the documents show that Canada went even further in intentionally handing over prisoners to torturers. “And it wasn’t accidental; it was done for a reason,” he said. “It was done so that they could be interrogated using harsher methods.” (ICC#69)

The government maintains that nothing improper happened, said CBC. “The Canadian Forces have conducted themselves with the highest performance of all countries,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons.

But, said the CBC, many facets of the issue remain top secret, such as the role of Canada’s elite Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2. There have been hints that JTF2 might be handling so-called high-value prisoners. “High-value targets would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involved special forces and targeted, intelligence-driven operations,” Richard Colvin, the former senior diplomat with Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, told a parliamentary committee in November, 2009. (ICC#69)

A recent story in The Guardian newspaper revealing new information about the nature of covert special forces operations by the U.S. and its coalition partners in Iraq is useful in illustrating how such highly secretive operations actually work in the field. (ICC#Feb.7,2012)

The report came from information surfacing at an inquiry into the troubling death of a detainee being transported in an RAF helicopter, possibly kicked to death while being transported secretly for interrogation at a “black site” camp code-named H1, not known to or inspected by the Red Cross or any legal authorities. A British special forces unit, Task Force 14, and an Australian unit known as Task Force 64 were an integral part of operations at H1, with both units being under U.S. tactical control.  A U.S. special forces unit, Task Force 20, was also part of H1 operations.

Persistent investigative efforts and leaked information finally revealed that 64 detainees, all in civilian clothes and unarmed, had been detained at a roadside checkpoint by 20 Australian troops who were accompanied by one member of the U.S. Air Force. The captured men were never recorded as prisoners of the 20 Australians, and the lone American was recorded as having captured them. This meant that the Australian government could consider itself not to be bound by Geneva Conventions that obliged it to demand the return of any prisoner it transferred to the U.S. if it became apparent that U.S. forces were not treating them in accordance with Geneva Conventions.

One former RAF trooper who was based at H1 for several months described to The Guardian having been involved in a number of similar missions in which prisoners were collected from coalition special forces. This always happened “under total darkness,” he said. On arrival at H1, the prisoners were handed on to people whom he described as “other authorities,” thought to be CIA and British MI6 intelligence operatives. This will not be confirmed or denied by British military officials.

However, the involvement of the CIA in Task Force 20 is no secret in the US where it has been disclosed in Pentagon statements and congressional testimony. According to Human Rights Watch, the inter-agency unit was responsible for “some of the most serious allegations of detainee abuse” following the invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps relevant to concerns about Canada’s covert operations in Afghanistan, The Guardian story noted that before the end of that year the unit merged with a similar unit previously based in Afghanistan and changed its name to Task Force 121. By then, however, some at the Pentagon were sufficiently concerned about its methods to send a special investigator to Iraq, who discovered that the unitwas holding undeclared “ghost” detainees and operating a secret interrogation centre to conceal its activities. Some of its prisoners showed signs of having been beaten.

In 2006, an investigation by the New York Times found that some task force prisoners had been waterboarded, and others were beaten or shot with paintball guns. While a number of interrogators had been prosecuted in the course of the war, posters around one of their bases proclaimed “no blood, no foul”: they would be safe as long as none of their subjects bled.

Over the years that followed, the unit changed its name again, to Task Force 6-26, and later to Task Force 145, possibly in an attempt to confuse adversaries. Its precise size and the names of its commanders have never been disclosed. But its methods appear to have remained the same. The American Civil Liberties Union obtained a series of U.S. defense documents that showed that the unit’s personnel had been investigated repeatedly over their alleged involvement in a catalogue of abuses.

“In one case, task force interrogators were said to have forced a 73-year-old woman to crawl around a room while a man sat on her back, before forcing a broom handle into her anus. Two of her fingers were broken. The woman, a retired teacher, said her interrogators demanded to know the whereabouts of her son and husband, both of whom she said were dead.”

In Canada, a January 2002 news photograph from Afghanistan exposed the super-elite JTF2 unit transferring prisoners to U.S. troops, provoking a Parliament firestorm and damaging the career of then-Liberal defence minister Art Eggleton. And Jack Hooper, then Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) deputy director of operations, testified to a 2006 Senate committee that the spy agency had been actively supporting the troops since their Afghanistan deployment and claimed success in disrupting attacks, uncovering weapons and saving lives. (ICC#68)

Investigative reporters have been mostly kept in the dark about anything to do with JTF2 but in December 2010 the CBC did reveal several secretive probes into JTF2 activities. The report said Ottawa has been carrying out a closed-door investigation, called Sand Trap 2, to probe allegations that members of Joint Task Force 2 saw an American soldier killing an unarmed man during a joint mission.

That probe followed an earlier investigation into allegations that a member of JTF2 shot and killed an Afghan who was surrendering in 2006. The probe, called Sand Trap, ended without any charges being laid. CBC reported the Canadian military is also reviewing how the chain of command reacted to the allegations and what actions were taken to respond. (ICC#119) No details of these investigations have since been revealed publicly.

Accounts from detainees at Guantanamo Bay reveal that the United States operated secret prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were subjected to torture and other mistreatment. The largest CIA prison in Afghanistan was code-named the “Salt Pit.” In November, 2002, a CIA case officer reportedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials.

One of the chief U.S. Army interrogators of Canadian teen Omar Khadr after his capture in Afghanistan was accidentally revealed in court proceedings to have been involved in the horrific case of an Afghan taxi driver known as Dilwar who was literally tortured to death at Bagram detention center while hanging for four days from shackles suspended from the ceiling. Dilwar, thought by most Americans involved to be innocent of terrorism, was beaten so severely he couldn’t bend his legs any more before he died. Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, an Air Force medical examiner who performed an autopsy on Dilwar, said Dilwar’s leg was pummeled so badly that the” tissue was falling apart and had basically been pulpified.” (ICC#91).

Interrogator Sgt. Joshua Claus was instrumental in the interrogations of both Dilwar and Khadr, which raises troubling questions about the initial treatment of the 15-year-old Khadr, who was charged and convicted of the murder of a U.S. Special Forces soldier after being present and wounded at a firefight in a compound in Afghanistan.

Claus’s involvement with Khadr is doubly troubling, said defence lawyer Lt.-Cmdr. William Kuebler at the time, because the Canadian was just 15 years old and severely wounded from the firefight. Khadr was interrogated at Bagram numerous times over a three-month period before he was sent to Guantanamo Bay, and his lawyer said he believed Klaus was present at most interrogations.

Khadr’s three months in Bagram before he was sent to the U.S. prison camp in Cuba is the “critical period,” said Kuebler. “His principal interrogator was somebody we know was involved in detainee abuse.” (ICC#97)

Extraordinary Renditions

The Canadian government is also in a position of legal liability from actively participating in or facilitating by default the illegal CIA “extraordinary rendition” process by allowing private CIA aircraft used for this purpose to utilize Canadian airspace and to land for maintenance and refueling at Canadian airports.

A St. John’s, Newfoundland, airport has been publicly identified as having been a “hub” for covert American air operations and a DeHavilland DHC-6-300 aircraft owned by a reported CIA front in the U.S. landed at Bar River airport near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, in early October, 2005, after taking off from Michigan. The Bar River airport is home to a company that specializes in work on DeHavilland aircraft. An airport official who asked not to be named said “I have no knowledge of any CIA aircraft,” and told an inquiring reporter “I suggest you don’t pursue this any further.”

Montreal’s La Presse newspaper reported in 2005 at least 55 flights operated by the CIA had passed through Canada. Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan acknowledged in an article December 7, 2005, that she had ordered officials to track down details of the 55 flights. However, a spokesman for the Canadian government said in a story published the very next day that the government had no intention of questioning the U.S. about the flights, saying a preliminary review had turned up no evidence of illegal U.S. activity. There has since been no public discussion or disclosure about the issue by responsible Canadian officials.

Other declassified memos obtained under the Access to Information Act in the past have revealed government knowledge of at least 20 planes with alleged CIA ties having made 74 flights to Canada. Considerable portions of the memos obtained were blacked out for secrecy reasons.

Human Rights Watch says Syrian-born Canadian Maher Arar was transported on an extraordinary rendition flight out of the U.S. Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held without charges in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him – not to his home in Canada, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture. He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of a commission of inquiry later ordered by the Canadian government, until his release to Canada. The Syrian government later said Arar was “completely innocent.” The Canadian commission publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and the government of Canada settled out of court with Arar for $10.5 million.

A leaked note in 2006 from the British Foreign Secretary’s office to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office shows UK officials privately admitting knowledge of CIA “torture flights” and that people captured by British forces in Afghanistan or Iraq could have been illegally sent by the U.S. to CIA interrogation centres. “We have no mechanism for establishing this…” the document notes. This contradicts repeated statements of UK ministers that they were unaware of CIA rendition flights passing through Britain or of secret interrogation centres – and calls into question similar assertions by Canadian officials.

A European Union (EU) investigator said in an official report in 2005 that CIA prisoners were apparently abducted and moved between countries illegally, possibly with the aid of national secret services who did not tell their governments. Jack Straw, then British Foreign Minister, wrote U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a letter on behalf of the EU asking for information about rendition reports. If true, the activities could be “violations of international law…and the EU would therefore be grateful for clarification,” Straw said in the letter. (ICC#3)

A UK newspaper reported that previously concealed minutes of an EU/U.S. meeting from 2003 show that the EU secretly agreed to allow the U.S. to use transit facilities on European soil to transport “criminals”, which contradicts repeated EU denials that it knew of rendition flights by the CIA. The original minutes show the EU agreed to give America access to facilities –presumably airports – in the confidential talks in Athens, during which the war on terror was discussed. But all references to the agreement were deleted from the record before it was published. The section including the agreement for “increased use of European transit facilities to support the return of criminal/inadmissible aliens“, and others referring to U.S. policy, were deleted – as a “courtesy” to Washington.

Does the EU situation have relevance for Canada in terms of international law? The UK All Party Group on Extraordinary Rendition in a December 2005 briefing paper said in the forward: “This paper shows that there is a real and clear legal imperative to find out what is going on, and to ensure that no state engages in Extraordinary Rendition. This applies to the UK as much as it does to the U.S. and ‘seemingly innocuous acts (e.g. allowing refueling at airports of aircraft of another State) can become wrongful under international law if those acts facilitate Extraordinary Rendition.’” (ICC#3)

Afghans make up the largest group by nationality held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center following extraordinary rendition, an estimated 220 men and boys in all. Yet they were frequently found to have had nothing to do with international terrorism, according to more than 750 secret intelligence assessments that were written at Guantanamo between 2002 and 2009. The assessments were obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to McClatchy Newspapers in April 2011.

In at least 44 cases, U.S. military intelligence officials concluded that detainees had no connection to militant activity at all, a McClatchy Newspapers examination of the assessments, which covered both former and current detainees, found. (ICC#105)

###

Editor’s Note: Written by Canadian citizen John McNamer, an independent journalist and human rights activist in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada

2009-08-31 3. GM Wheat Critique of Penner’s “Synchronized introduction of GM Wheat”

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  2 Responses »
Feb 142012
 

2009-08-31   1.   GM Wheat is back.   Email to Carole Swan, head of the CFIA

2009-08-31   2.  Letter to the anti-terrorist squad, RCMP.  Government and University are creating the “home-grown” terrorists.  Am I one of them?

2009-08-31   3.  GM Wheat   Critique of Penner’s “Synchronized introduction of GM Wheat”     see BELOW

We helped stop Monsanto’s GM Wheat, but then the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), through the Prairie Recommending Committee for Grains (the channel through which registration occurs) registered BASF’s “mutagenesis” wheat, designed by the same criterion, engineered so that it can be sprayed by chemicals and survive.  We are talking about a pillar of our food supply.

Now we have this article by Rolf Penner, “calling for the synchronized introduction of GM wheat”.

 

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

CRITIQUE OF ROLF PENNER’S ARTICLE, “THE SYNCHRONIZED INTRODUCTION OF GM WHEAT”

1.  A few years ago in the GM Wheat battle we circulated the handbook published by the chemical industry out of California. It spelt out that farmers should be used in the promotion of its arguments because people will believe good, down-to-earth farmers before they will believe the industry.

2.  Rolf Penner, Manitoba vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, farmer, says (see his article below from the Financial Post):   Biotech crops significantly … “reduce the need for pesticide spraying”.

Look at the recently-registered “SmartStax” corn.  It is engineered to withstand the application of 8 pesticides (some of the “pesticides” kill weeds and others kill insects).  Reduction in the need for spraying?  These companies engineer the crops to be resistant to pesticide applications SO THAT the crops can be sprayed with the related pesticides (more and more as the “SmartStax corn exemplifies) and survive.

If this doesn’t lay waste to the argument that pesticide use is reduced by GM crops, talk to farmers.  Use the canola experience.  They planted “roundup resistant” canola.  Three years later they spray their “chemfallow” with roundup to control the weeds. Surprise! the “roundup resistant” canola doesn’t die.  So what must the farmer do then?  …  get out the 2,4-D and follow up with a second application of chemicals.  (INSERT update:  And now – smart people – they are engineering the seeds to also be resistant to 2,4-D.)

If experience is not enough to convince you, look at the research.  Independent and peer-reviewed.  Not the stuff financed by the industry.  Chemical applications decrease in the first 3 years after the herbicide-tolerant crops are planted.  After that, chemical applications rise to more than offset the benefits of the first 3 years.

There’s Dr. Charles Benbrook 2009 study:  http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159

. . .  A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds.  This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace.  In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties.  The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.  . . . (Go to the link for access to the full report.)

3.  Rolf Penner states:  “One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins.”

Let me explain:

GM wheat is engineered to withstand applications of,  e.g. glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup” and accompanying “Round-up Resistant” GMO wheat).  Different chemical companies have their equivalent to Round-up and their own brand of GM seeds,  different names from different chemical/biotech companies, but the process is the same:  develop a GM crop that is resistant to your particular chemical, and patent the seed.

Response to Penner’s statement about fusarium:  The research on the connection between glyphosate (roundup) and fusarium is conflicting. The industry is known for deliberately creating the “conflicting science”.

 

4.  Rolf Penner states:  “the canola example shows us that GM wheat would open up great opportunities for Canada if we were to go first. Let’s get on with it.”

The canola example caused Canadian farmers to lose international markets.  There were moratoriums against genetically modified food crops in the European Community, for example.  Canadian Triffid GM flax, engineered at the University of Saskatchewan, killed Canadian flax markets in Europe.

5.  There are many more thousands of acres planted to wheat than canola in Canada.  The industry, working with the Government and people like Rolf Penner (Western Cdn Wheat Growers), is trying to get the GM wheat onto the market.  Once it’s there you can’t get rid of it.  As I recall, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) independently pegged the losses from GM wheat in the hundreds-of-millions per year.  Those costs include the potential end of organic agriculture (as GM wheat and the other GM crops that could/would follow make organic too risky); export market loss (many of our best wheat customers have stated a zero tolerance); lower net income to farmers (higher costs and loss of markets); a higher incidence of fusarium – mycotoxins in the food supply are a very serious threat to human health – who would bear the cost of the required increase in inspection for fusarium in food grains for people AND for animals?; agronomic costs (more expensive chemicals to try to kill GM RR wheat in GM RR canola, etc.); segregation systems will not work; there is no labeling in place; and, perhaps most important, the wheat seeds will be subject to strict, punative, and costly patenting or other controls.  And might I add that the court system used by the corporations to suppress criticism, is paid for by the citizens of Canada.

As for claims for GM wheat—drought tolerant, fertilizer efficient, fusarium resistant – these are spin-doctor advertising campaigns.

As agricultural economists would know, a business strategy for a “market oriented” response might be (ethics aside) to let the US or Australia go ahead with GM wheat and then Canada could move in and snap up all the foreign customers that don’t want GM crops.  (Except that, hopefully, citizens in those countries will remain engaged in the fight to stop that which is bad for everyone.)

The reason that groups want “synchronized introduction” is to cut off the possibility that there could be sufficient quantities of non-GM wheat to serve customers;  they want us all jumping off the cliff together.

Also note that Rolf Penner’s “if we were to go first” statement contradicts his “synchronized introduction”.

Penner says: “In every country where biotech crops are grown, farmers have seen noticeable improvements in their bottom lines.”  That is pure, easily-debunked bull.  If you add up all of Canadian farmers net income from the markets for the past 24 years, you get approximately zero.  Farmers produced 8/10 of a trillion dollars in food, but they were left with essentially zero, in terms of net incomes from the market.  Such was not the case pre-1985.   100% of that 8/10 of a trillion was captured by powerful chemical, fertilizer, and seed companies.  Penner has to demonstrate economic benefits to farmers from GM seeds.  His statement is not supported.

Rolf Penner must produce at least one peer-reviewed, independent science journal study on the human health safety of any GM wheat.

Unfortunately for Rolf, the industry makes it next-to-impossible for him to do this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research Feb 2009.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. …”

… “the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.”

I recall that scientists like Rene Van Acker from the University of Manitoba have debunked the idea that GM technology gives significant yield advantage—most of the increase comes from agronomics, conventional breeding, etc.  Graphs of corn yield show that yields have been increasing for 100 years, and the slope of that yield increase trendline did not get steeper after the introduction of GM varieties.

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

ROLF PENNER’S ARTICLE, “THE SYNCHRONIZED INTRODUCTION OF GM WHEAT”, August 19, 2009, FINANCIAL POST

PUBLICATION:  National Post     DATE:   2009.08.19    EDITION:   National    SECTION:  FP Comment   PAGE: FP13

_______________________________________

The future of wheat; Genetically modified wheat would increase yields, cut pesticide use and give Canadian farmers a global edge

Nine wheat organizations in Australia, Canada and the United States, among them the North American Millers’ Association, recently released a joint statement that called for a synchronized introduction of genetically modified (GM) wheat into the marketplace.

The trend toward major biotech crops in soybeans, corn and canola is already well established over the past dozen years. It is high time that wheat joins their ranks.

The potential benefits of extending this technology to wheat are quite real, for both producers and consumers, as a recently updated study by British economists Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot demonstrates. The authors note that GM varieties help generate higher yields for many farmers and therefore increase overall crop production.

Biotech crops also significantly increase farmers’ incomes, reduce the need for pesticide spraying and cut greenhouse-gas emissions from  agriculture.

First, the economic benefits: In every country where biotech crops are grown, farmers have seen noticeable improvements in their bottom lines. In estimated dollar terms, GM use worldwide created $10-billion in benefits in 2007 alone and $44-billion from 1996-2007.  That calculation includes both cost reductions and increased yields. In 2007, biotech crops yielded 32 million tonnes more in production than conventional crops would have delivered. If these biotech crops had not been planted, another 29 million acres of land — the equivalent of 17% of the total farmland in Canada
— would have been required to make up the difference.

One of the best economic comparisons looks at the difference between Canadian and Australian canola growers. We embraced GM canola early on, while the Aussies decided to stick with conventional breeding. The result, according to Dr. Christopher Preston from the University of Adelaide, is stark. While the Australians were not able to generate any kind of price premium for their GM-free canola, Canadian growers enjoyed a 20%-25% gain in crop yields. The economic advantage went to Canada.

With about 20% of the world’s food calories coming from wheat, and wheat acres steadily declining over the past 30 years because it is more economical for farmers to grow other things, the obvious benefit to consumers comes from higher yielding crops. They will ensure a steady supply of affordable wheat for future consumption.

When it comes to the environment, Brookes and Barfoot report that, since 1996, GM crops have reduced the global use of pesticides by 792 million pounds (360 million kilograms), a significant reduction of almost 9%. Equally important, they claim that the global environmental impact from pesticide use — a slightly different calculation — fell by more than 17% due to the use of GM varieties, again a significant reduction.

Further, for those who, despite evidence to the contrary, are still convinced that mankind causes global warming, GM crops can play an important role in the reduction of CO2 dumping.  The study shows that the use of diesel fuel falls because GM use means less need to spray pesticides and a dramatic reduction in the amount of tillage required. A reduced tillage also increases the amount of carbon stored in the soil. In 2006, these two factors combined enabled an estimated reduction of almost 15 billion kilograms of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the use of GM
crops — the equivalent of removing more than six million cars from the road for one year.

The potential benefits go beyond these. One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins. A new experimental wheat variety from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation alters the grain’s starch composition, an improvement that shows great promise in reducing the incidence of bowel disease, diabetes and obesity. Others are looking into the addition of a small molecule called resveratrol, commonly found in red wine that may help prevent age-related disorders like neurodegenerative diseases and cardiovascular disease. Contrary to what some anti-GM activists claim, wheat allergies could actually be reduced by specially breeding wheat with proteins, starches and glutens that no longer trigger the same allergic reactionsthat conventional
wheat varieties do.

Those who oppose GM wheat also frequently claim that GM foods have not been properly tested, or they assert that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety.  Another claim is that regulatory agencies rely exclusively on corporate information to decide whether GM foods are safe. They are wrong on all three counts. Currently more than 270 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods.

If we gave GM wheat the green light today, it would be six to 10 years before we’d see a commercialized product. That’s all the more reason to move forward with it now. The benefits for consumers and farmers are obvious and the safety record is excellent, with the rewards far outweighing any possible risks the naysayers might imagine.

Even if other countries are reluctant to move ahead, the canola example shows us that GM wheat would open up great opportunities for Canada if we were to go first. Let’s get on with it.

– Rolf Penner is a Manitoba farmer and the Manitoba vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, one of the organizations calling for the synchronized introduction of GM wheat.

2009-08-31 1. GM Wheat is back. Email to Carole Swan, head of the CFIA

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Empowerment, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 

2009-08-31   1.   GM Wheat is back.   Email to Carole Swan, head of the CFIA      see  BELOW

2009-08-31   2.  Letter to the anti-terrorist squad, RCMP.  Government and University are creating the “home-grown” terrorists.  Am I one of them? 

2009-08-31   3.  GM Wheat   Critique of Penner’s “Synchronized introduction of GM Wheat”

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

 

TO:  Carole Swan

Agriculture Canada

Head of the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

carole.swan  __AT __inspection.gc.ca

 

Dear Carole,

I am sending recent developments in the battle over GM wheat to an anti-terrorist squad in the RCMP so they might better understand how so-called “terrorists” are the consequence of Government that serves corporate interests.

We let the CFIA (you) know that:

  1. GM wheat serves the interests of transnational corporations.
  2. There is solid evidence to show that GM wheat does not serve the common good of Canadians or Americans or of people in other countries, especially developing ones.
  3. We do not want Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant (GM) wheat.  There was so much resistance you didn’t proceed with registration when the Liberals were in power.   That was back when Francois Guimont was president of the CFIA – I believe you will be familiar with the history.
  4. But then the CFIA quietly registered BASF’s “mutagenesis” herbicide-tolerant wheat.
  5. We told you in very large numbers that we do not want “harmonization” of Canadian regulations with American because the licensing bodies in the U.S. are run by the likes of Monsanto, Dow, BASF and other of the chemical/biotech/pharmaceutical corporations.  They buy their way. As you and we well know.
  6. We fought down the introduction of GM alfalfa, working with people in the U.S.  (UPDATE: no, they got around that one, too.)
  7. But then you, apparently in “harmonization” with the U.S. FDA, on the same day in summer, registered GM SmartStax corn.  Genetically engineered for resistance to no fewer than 8 chemical applications for weeds and insects.  It is OUR FOOD we are talking about here.
  8. Now we have a renewed effort in relation to GM wheat, this time for the “synchronized introduction of GM wheat” (all the chem/biotech corporations working together with the Governments of Canada, Australia and the U.S.).  See the article published in the Financial Post, August 18th    (Link no longer valid…/2009/08/18/the-future-of-wheat.aspx.)   It’s written by Rolf Penner on behalf of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.  It’s a thinly-disguised piece for the industry.

The CFIA has a history of working for the benefit of the industry; I view this article as nothing more than the blueprint that will be followed by
you.

On August 26 I emailed ‘rpenner AT wheatgrowers.ca’ requesting a copy of the “joint statement” regarding the  “synchronized introduction of genetically modified (GM) wheat” to which he refers in his article in the Financial Post (I was unable to find it by googling).   Rolf has not replied.

The transgressions against the common good have very serious consequences for our food supply and for the environment.

Myself and others have been banging our heads against the wall dealing with the CFIA.

The story sent to the RCMP uses the example of GM wheat to illustrate how so-called “home-grown terrorists” become these so-called “terrorists”.  I will cc you.

Citizens do have power when pushed to the point of using it.

 

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(Contact info)

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

THOUGHTS AND PHONE CALLS, ACTION

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?”  (Thomas Jefferson)

I think we can de-rail GM wheat AGAIN, before it gets out of the starting gates AGAIN.

It can be done quickly, it won’t be an intensive, year-long battle with participants from around the world, as it was before – – IF we can hit it hard, in volumes, right now.

I am so sick of having to fight these corporations and their government collaborators that I have sent an email to the RCMP – to the “anti-terrorist” squad so that from yet another real-life example they understand how it is that so-called terrorists become so-called “terrorists”.

Really we are only people fighting for what is right FOR EVERYONE.  You don’t have to be too smart to figure the GM wheat one out.

EMAIL ADDRESSES

(1)  Carole Swan  carole.swan@inspection.gc.ca

She’s in Agriculture Canada, Head of the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).  Responsible for registering GM wheat

(613) 773-6000

Or Sherry at (613) 773-5762 if you wish to phone.

 

(2)  Gerry Ritz, Federal Minister of Agriculture (from Saskatchewan)

Constituency Office North Battleford

Tel: 306-445-2004.

I phoned and spoke with “Dan”, Ritz’s assistant.

I could not keep the edge out of my voice.

GM wheat serves no one’s interests except the corporations’ like Monsanto, Dow, BASF.

I noted that we fought down GM wheat while the Liberals were in power.

Now it is the Conservatives.

And it is no different.

Ritz.G@parl.gc.ca

Ritz’s federal office:

EMAIL:  correspondencem@agr.gc.ca

(613) 759-1059

Todd McKay  Director of Communications

I was also referred to the Policy advisor for the Western Board

Jim Scott

jim.scott@agr.gc.ca

But I told them that GM wheat is not a matter for people from the West.

It is a matter for ALL CANADIANS because it is about our food supply.

Which is when they advised to use the email correspondencem@agr.gc.ca

Use all the email addresses.

 

(3)  LIBERAL CRITIC FOR AGRICULTURE, Wayne Easter

Phone: 613-992-2406

E-mail: eastew@parl.gc.ca

 

(4)  NDP CRITIC FOR AGRICULTURE, Atamanenko

Telephone: 613-996-8036

Email: Atamanenko.A@parl.gc.ca

Email: AtamaA@parl.gc.ca

Constituency office Castlegar, British Columbia

Telephone: (250) 365-2792

Email: atamaa1@parl.gc.ca

 

(5)  BLOC QUEBECOIS CRITIC FOR AGRICULTURE

Mr. André Bellavance

Email: BellaA@parl.gc.ca  (French preferred)

 

(6)  the PRAIRIE RECOMMENDING COMMITTEE FOR GRAINS

HAH!  They changed their name.  They are now the Prairie Grain Development Committee (PGDC).

http://www.pgdc.ca/  Sorry I don’t have time to explain to newcomers.  I see where the CFIA (Cdn Food Inspection Agency) has been able to finally remove a significant block to the biotech corporations taking control of the registration of GM wheat.  The recommending committee for WHEAT (for all 4 grain sectors) is now INDEPENDENT of the plenary session.

ALL the grain sectors used to have to get the approval of the plenary session in order to proceed to the CFIA for registration.

(Corporate grain interests have now replaced the public interest players in the PRCG.)

The last we looked at it, the CFIA had been trying for 3 consecutive years to break down the structure that required plenary session approval.  They’ve succeeded.  Now the industry only has to buy off the people in this one (wheat) sector.  The way is eased or prepared for getting GM wheat approved.

I don’t know the current arrangement.  In the past Agriculture Canada was in partnership 50/50 with Monsanto in the development of GM crops.  You and I were footing half of Monsanto’s research bill!  And then guess who was responsible for registering the seeds:  Agriculture Canada.  Nice, eh?

The Executive Committee for the PGDC is listed at
http://www.pgdc.ca/contact.html

I’m going to email them, too.

The BIG problem is that wheat is a pillar of our food supply.  You would not believe the number of food products of which it is an ingredient. The NUTRITIONAL value of wheat has serious consequences for the health-giving-ness of the food we eat.

If it is engineered by the criterion of whether it can withstand chemical applications (EIGHT applications in the case of the recently-licensed SmartStax corn) with no reference to its contribution to the IMPROVEMENT of its contribution to the healthfulness of the population, then once again the Government is serving corporate interests, not ours.

As I understand the Executive Committee of the PGDC, the ONLY interests represented on the Recommending Committee for registration of grains are those of industry.

There are NO nutritionists.  NO allergists.  NO people with backgrounds in the consequences for the environment of introducing MORE crops that require heavier chemical loads, etc.

The introduction of GM wheat will have very bad consequences for human and environmental health and for the health of democracy.  I will summarize some of the detail below, in refutation of the article written by Rolf Penner, Manitoba vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, for the Financial Post, to promote “the synchronized introduction of GM wheat”.

There’s one huge pile of lies and propaganda. Fortunately a good number of us have been through them all before.

With regard to the RCMP:

Will I become a terrorist? … if we can work together .. maybe it won’t be necessary.

Acts of non-violent resistance are increasingly characterized as acts of terrorism, as though they are a threat to our peace and freedom.

 

Thomas Jefferson:

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?”

2009-08-31 Junk Science, recognize the propaganda, know the propagandist, Gwyn Morgan. GMO’s and oil and gas.

 Energy, Genetically Modified, Health, Propaganda  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 

Warning Industry Propaganda Below

NOTE:  the article on GMO’s is followed by additional profiles of Gwyn Morgan.

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/beware-the-harmful-consequences-of-following-junk-science/article1270356/

The Globe and Mail

Agriculture

Beware the harmful consequences of following junk science

‘My global “junk science” award goes to the myriad environmental groups and associated acolytes united in opposition to genetically modified foods’

by  Gwyn Morgan

The man who removes the moss from our lawn after the West Coast’s winter rainy season was depressed and bewildered.  After spending decades building his clientele and practising his trade in the most careful and responsible manner, he is being legislated out of business.  The Canadian Cancer Society is calling for a B.C.-wide ban on the sale of weed killers and insecticides for “non-agricultural” use.  Several B.C. municipalities already prohibit the use of such products, even to the point where the bits of vinegar our lawn guy puts on our patches of paving-stone moss are considered a public danger.

Here in Victoria, many of the city’s signature cherry trees will go through a slow and ugly death from blight because of the banning of a product that could safely protect them.  It also means ferns, dogwood and other native species will be defenceless as they are overrun by introduced foreign invaders. The cancer society bases its campaign on the claim that weed killers such as Roundup and insecticides such as Raid may be linked to certain types of cancer. Yet the medical evidence is scant.  One study found that men working in pesticide manufacturing plants had a slightly elevated frequency of prostate cancer, but several other studies found no relationship between pesticides and cancer.  Some studies have suggested that farmers who use large amounts of weed killer may have an increased risk of lymphoma, but a large U.S. study found the difference to be a statistically insignificant.

Those who defend such knee-jerk public policy actions often cite the “precautionary principle.” But if believing in junk science means people are to be driven out of business and public landscapes are to be left unprotected from blights and invasive species, and if home gardeners are forbidden from using the latest and best products, what is “precautionary” about that?

Unfortunately, junk science is a widespread disease. Environmental activists are generally against so-called chemical fertilizers. But what makes manure and compost more virtuous than nitrogen and potassium fertilizers?

Let’s start with nitrogen. The scientific fact is that the soil doesn’t know the difference between nitrogen sources, as long as it gets enough.  Potassium fertilizers are made from a naturally occurring mineral called potash and, here again, the soil doesn’t care where it comes from. While organic products are generally very safe, there is no doubt that the raw animal waste sometimes used as fertilizer carries a higher consumer and groundwater pathogen risk. On the other hand, the composting often used in organic gardening has a positive impact on soil stability and water retention.

If soil science doesn’t make organic food a superior choice, what about the claims of nutritional superiority? A recent large-scale U.S. study found no
discernible difference. Organic foods cost more because they are more labour-intensive, and yields per arable hectare are lower than conventional
farming.

The plain fact is that organic food consumption is a feel-good indulgence for those willing and able to pay a premium, but organic farming methods could never begin to feed every Canadian, let alone the world’s population.

My global “junk science” award goes to the myriad environmental groups and associated acolytes united in opposition to genetically modified
foods (GM foods), or as they have labelled them, “frankenfoods.”  Policy makers in Europe have reacted by banning domestic production or
importation of GM foods. This despite the fact that there are no credible studies showing negative impacts from consuming GM foods, and there isn’t even a plausible scientific theory as to why there would be.

Most of the grains, fruits and vegetables that make up modern diets are vastly different than their ancient ancestors. Humans have continuously cross-bred food plants in search of higher yields, improved taste, better nutrition and disease resistance. An important Canadian example is canola; traditional “genetic modification” methods transformed the bitter rapeseed into a healthy and tasty oilseed.

Astounding progress in identifying the genetic building blocks of organisms has accelerated the long and arduous genetic modification process, offering huge potential leaps forward in the increasingly urgent search for higher yielding and more nutritious crops to feed a hungry world. Erosion caused by denuding natural vegetation, groundwater depletion and biological runoff make agricultural production the most damaging human endeavour to our planet’s soil, water and aquatic life. GM foods research shows promise of making a big difference.

Seed crops that lower fertilizer requirements and need less water are already a reality.  Agra-giant Monsanto has developed an herbicide-resistant seed grain that eliminates the need for fallow tillage to control weeds, thereby reducing water needs, air emissions and soil erosion. This is only one of the GM foods advances made by this innovative and research-intensive company, yet the frankenfood crowd’s propaganda has portrayed Monsanto as an environment-destroying corporate pariah.

And so we come full circle in the great farm and garden junk science game, from British Columbia’s well-meaning but scientifically illiterate municipal councillors, to the Canadian Cancer Society’s campaign against weed and bug killers, to the organic industry’s self-serving claim of environmental and nutritional superiority, to the GM foods-opposing frankenfood crowd. It’s hard to find evidence that supports any of these claims, but it isn’t hard to see the harmful consequences these misguided policies can, and do, have.

Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp.

=============================
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 152

CONTENTS

Friday, May 11, 2007

In April 2006, the Prime Minister tried to appoint Gwyn Morgan, a Conservative Party fundraiser, to the position of chairman of the new public appointments commission. This appointment was blocked by a parliamentary committee dominated by opposition members.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2936138&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1

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

The Fraser Institute

Who We Are

Board of Directors

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whoweare/boardofdirectors.htm

Chairman   Hassan Khosrowshahi

Vice Chairmen  Edward S. Belzberg

Mark W. Mitchell,  Gwyn Morgan,

Board Members

Salem Ben Nasser Al Ismaily,  Louis-Philippe Amiot,  Gordon E. Arnell,  Charles B. Barlow,  Everett E. Berg,  T. Patrick Boyle,  Peter Brown,
Joseph C. Canavan,  Alex A. Chafuen,  Elizabeth Chaplin,  Derwood S. Chase, Jr.,  James W. Davidson,  John Dielwart,  Stuart M. Elman,
Greg C. Fleck,  Shaun Francis,  Ned Goodman,  Arthur N. Grunder,  John A. Hagg,  Paul Hill,  Stephen A. Hynes,  David H. Laidley,  Robert H. Lee,
Brandt Louie,  David R. Mackenzie,  Hubert R. Marleau,  James L. McGovern,  Mark R. Mullins,  Eleanor Nicholls,  Roger Phillips,  Herbert C. Pinder, Jr.,  R. Jack Pirie,  Conrad S. Riley,  Gavin Semple,  Rod Senft,  Anthony W. Sessions,  William W. Siebens,  Anna Stylianides,  Arni C. Thorsteinson,  Michael A. Walker,  Catherine Windels,

Fraser Forum –  April 2005 – Critical Thinking on Risk and the Environment

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

Maclean’s January 13, 2003

Author BRIAN BERGMAN

Morgan, Gwyn (Profile)

BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, the most powerful man in Canada’s OIL patch is, at heart, a simple country boy. Gwyn Morgan, president and chief
executive officer of EnCana Corp., the world’s largest independent oil and gas producer, traces his core values and philosophy of life and business to his modest upbringing on a hardscrabble grain and livestock farm near Carstairs, Alta. The youngest of four children, Morgan, now 57, remembers, at age 13, helping his Welsh-born father dig a ditch from the well to the house that finally brought the family indoor plumbing. Like most farm kids, his day began with two hours of chores – milking the cows, feeding the pigs, collecting eggs – and ended much the same way. “Around our house, there wasn’t any cajoling,” he says. “It was simply expected that you do your part – and do it well.” Besides instilling a strong work ethic, Morgan says, his parents passed on lessons that have guided him ever since. Among them:  “Keep your word. Stay honest. Do your best. If the world deals you a tough blow, buck up and move on.”

Morgan has certainly moved on. As recently as 1998, Peter C. Newman’s Titans, a 650-page tome on “the new Canadian establishment,” made only passing mention of him as a “promising comer to watch.” Well, the promise has been fulfilled, the “comer” has arrived. By engineering the April 2002 merger of two oil and gas behemoths, Alberta Energy Co. Ltd. (which Morgan helped establish in the 1970s and had headed since 1994) and PanCanadian Energy Corp., the farmer’s son vaulted from a position of relative obscurity to someone who readily commands attention on the national stage. Morgan shows every sign of making the most of it. In a recent flurry of high-profile speeches, newspaper op-ed pieces and letters to the Prime Minister, Morgan has sounded off on everything from political and corporate corruption to what he describes as the “fatally flawed” Kyoto Protocol. And he has done it his way, with a high moral tone more often heard in chapel than in the corridors of commerce.

Take his performance at a black-tie dinner in Toronto in November, where Morgan received the 2002 Ivey Business Leader Award, an honour bestowed annually by alumni of the University of Western Ontario’s Richard Ivey School of Business.  In his acceptance speech, Morgan lamented that some no longer draw a link between a leader’s personal and public conduct. “For example,” he said, “I recently had an animated dinner argument with a New York Times columnist who argued that Bill Clinton’s personal ethical transgressions, which include adultery and lying, were of lesser importance compared with his accomplishments as president. Needless to say, we agreed to disagree, profoundly.”

Morgan went on to criticize both business and political leaders for basing too many of their decisions on shortsighted yardsticks – for the former, overnight stock quotes; for the latter, public opinion polls. “The Old Testament,” he intoned, “gave the world a universal truth: ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.’ I believe it is time for Canada’s corporate and political leadership to go back to the Bible, figuratively at least, until they get this message straight.”

The impression left is of a holy roller out to smite the unrighteous. But, as is often the case with Morgan, the stereotype doesn’t quite fit. During a
wide-ranging interview at his executive offices in downtown Calgary, Morgan is asked about his religious views. “I live with the idea there is a greater force at work in the universe, and celebrate that,” he says. “But I haven’t found in any of the conventional religions a fully satisfactory
explanation. I’m kind of like a pre-Muslim, pre-Christian, pre-Jewish person.  Remember when they all said there was a God and all worshipped the same one?”

AS MANY have remarked, Gwyn Morgan doesn’t remotely resemble Central Casting’s image of an oil baron. Slim and bespectacled, he speaks so softly that a listener sometimes has to lean in to pick up what he’s saying. The ardent free-enterpriser could easily be mistaken for a government bureaucrat – perish the thought.

Morgan surprises in other ways. He is an advocate of holistic medicine, not a common oil-patch preoccupation. EnCana is the primary corporate sponsor of the Integrative Health Institute, a Calgary-based non-profit organization that provides resource information and counselling on blending modern medicine with such traditional practices as acupuncture, meditation and herbal remedies. But this is no granola-and-incense exercise. Morgan is out to create a model for how people can take more responsibility for their own well-being and help contain spiralling health-care costs. “What we have in this country is an illness treatment system, not a health-care system,” he says. “We need a more preventative approach and there’s a lot of knowledge accumulated over thousands of years that can help in this regard.”

Morgan’s holistic bent is tied to another private passion. He is, as friends and associates freely assert, a “fitness freak.” Morgan walks (or, more accurately, strides) to work from the downtown luxury condo he shares with wife Pat Trottier, a fellow Carstairs native and long-time oil and gas
consultant (the couple have one daughter, Jennifer, 24, from Trottier’s first marriage). He dedicates a minimum of one hour a day to a vigorous
cross-training regime which includes running, skipping rope and an upper-body workout. He also estimates that he’s hiked, cycled, canoed and skied literally thousands of kilometres through remote stretches of British Columbia, Alberta and the Far North.

Morgan is often described as “intense” and “driven.” He begs to differ. “Given my lifestyle, I think I’m one of the more balanced people in the business,” he says with just the hint of a smile. “What I would say is that I’m focused. Whatever the task is at hand, I zero in on it and give it my undivided attention.”

No argument there from those who know him. Dick Haskayne, chairman of both TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. and Fording Inc., first met Morgan in the 1970s. A longtime board member with Alberta Energy Co., Haskayne was instrumental in the appointment of Morgan as CEO in 1994. “He’s a very intelligent and impressive fellow,” says Haskayne. “He can cut through the issues to get to the end point quicker than most people.” Martin Molyneaux, managing director of institutional research for the Calgary-based investment dealer FirstEnergy Capital Corp., puts it more bluntly. “Gwyn has a very low tolerance for bullshitting,” he says. “He doesn’t do it to others and he doesn’t expect people to do it to him.”

Under Morgan’s leadership, AEC, which started out in 1973 as a provincially owned Crown corporation, transformed into what Molyneaux describes as “a lean, mean, corporate machine.” Morgan shed many of the company’s assets – including interests in timber and mining – to concentrate on the oil and gas sector. He engineered a series of hostile takeovers (Morgan prefers the term “unsolicited friendly offers”) and built AEC into Canada’s
second-largest petroleum producer behind Talisman Energy Inc.

Morgan’s nose for the main chance surfaced again in October 2001 when he heard about the abrupt departure of David Tuer as chief executive of PanCanadian, the recently spun-off energy unit of Canadian Pacific Ltd. Morgan initiated backroom negotiations with David O’Brien, the former chairman, president and CEO of Canadian Pacific who had replaced Tuer on an interim basis at PanCanadian. The result was a $21-billion friendly merger that created EnCana, an energy powerhouse with massive holdings both in Canada and around the world, including the American Rocky Mountain states, Ecuador and the North Sea.

While the deal was technically a takeover of AEC by PanCanadian, it was clear from the outset that EnCana would be very much Morgan’s baby. Molyneaux notes EnCana has almost entirely absorbed the aggressive, decentralized corporate structure championed by Morgan at AEC. “Gwyn gives his people a lot of latitude to execute a business plan,” says Molyneaux. “But if you say you are going to do something, you better do it. He’s a stickler for making people keep their promises.”

MORGAN doesn’t court controversy, but the mixture of his outspoken convictions and the scope of his business empire ensures he attracts more than his share.  In 1998, AEC became one of the targets in a spate of bombings and vandalism at oil-field sites in northwestern Alberta. Wiebo Ludwig, a farmer and ex-preacher, claimed sour gas wells, some of them owned by AEC, were poisoning his land and his family. Ludwig, who was later sentenced to 28 months in jail for five offences, including bombing one gas well and vandalizing another, once exclaimed of Morgan: “Sometimes I think we should take [him] hostage, tie him up…and then slit his throat.”

At Ludwig’s trial, it was revealed that, in building their case against Ludwig, the RCMP had staged a phony bombing of an abandoned gas-well shack owned by AEC, a tactic reminiscent of the force’s dirty tricks campaign against Quebec separatists in the 1970s. Morgan insisted then, as he does now, that he acted properly in co-operating with the police. He also laments that, in some quarters, Ludwig continues to be regarded as a folk hero. “What sort of principles do people have,” he asks, “to idealize someone who resorts to a form of terrorism?”

Morgan became immersed in a different kind of dispute in 1999 when he resigned as chairman of the Alberta chapter of the Canadian Olympic Foundation, where he’d helped raise $300,000 over the previous four years. He did so to protest corruption within the International Olympic Committee. Morgan then shifted AEC’s support to an athletes’ organization co-founded by Olympic gold-medallist swimmer and Calgary native Mark Tewksbury. “We approached everyone we could think of to help us push the reform process,” says Tewksbury, who now lives in Montreal where he is helping to organize the 2006 Gay Games. “Gwyn was the only one who stepped up and really took a personal stand.”

More recently, EnCana has come under fire from several lobby groups, including Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation, because of a $1.7-billion pipeline EnCana and its partners are building through an ecologically sensitive slice of the rain forest in Ecuador. Morgan maintains the criticisms are unfair and unwarranted and says the company is determined to “leave the environment in Ecuador in better shape than we found it.” He blames the controversy, in part, on radical activists who oppose all oil and gas development. “There are environmental groups we can work with,” he says, “and those we can’t.”

Morgan’s pitched battle, along with other industry executives, against the Kyoto accord has also put him at odds with many environmentalists. He has argued that Ottawa’s rush to ratify the international accord, which sets strict targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, is regionally divisive, potentially devastating to the Canadian economy – and will do nothing to improve the environment. Like many others, including Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, Morgan advocates a “made-in-Canada” approach to reducing emissions in a manner that won’t destabilize the  economy. Morgan also believes there needs to be much more debate about whether greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, or if it is part of a natural cycle of the earth’s warming and cooling. “I’ve listened to scientists on both sides of the issue,” he says, “and both make terribly convincing cases.”

Such views are a red flag to people like Robert Hornung, policy director of the widely respected, Alberta-based Pembina Institute. “Morgan  downplays the consensus of scientific opinion on this issue,” says Hornung, “and significantly overstates the economic doom and gloom.” All the same, Hornung credits what he calls “the big propaganda campaign” by the Alberta government and corporate leaders like Morgan for Ottawa’s announcement last month that it will cap the amount industry must pay to meet the Kyoto targets. “They’ve succeeded in having a lot of the burden shifted off their shoulders,” says Hornung. “It will be individual Canadians who pay the price.”

Morgan does, in fact, sound much more sanguine about the accord these days. “Now that it’s been ratified, maybe we can be less political and more
rational about this thing,” he says. “Canadians want us all to work together.” On this, and many other fronts, the former farm boy promises to
be a player – a man who speaks softly while wielding a very big stick.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012432

Our love affair with Illusion Einstein – Theory of Religion

 Culture and Ethics, Perception, fallibility, Linguistics  No Responses »
Feb 142012
 

I believe this is the growing consciousness.   Many more people are “getting it” – that we are all part and parcel of the same thing, the one, along with the rest of creation.  It’s hard getting past the idea that we are separate.

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/einsteins-theory-of-religion/

“Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain.”
-Einstein

A great mind is not constrained by specialization. Albert Einstein’s genius illuminated religion, politics, and education as well as science. When I came across Einstein’s theory of religion several months ago it immediately changed the way I think. Einstein begins with a discussion of the nature and origin of religion.

With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions- fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend.

Einstein also explains why early fear based religions evolved into the moral religions of modern times.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, rewards, disposes, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer’s outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing. He who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

Einstein goes on to explain how the development from the religion of fear to the moral religion begins in the Old Testament and continues in the New Testament. To this day, religion is a mix of fear and morality, with the moral religion predominating in civilized societies.

The crux of Einstein’s theory is the next idea. When I read it I realized that it put into words a feeling I had never been able to express.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity of marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world on thought. Individual existence impress him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and  no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church.

It is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest reason for scientific research.

Einstein’s theory confirmed what I have always believed: that there is a form of religion independent from any church or belief system. We don’t have to choose between believing that God is a white-haired man in the sky and not believing in God at all. The cosmic religious feeling is the highest level of human perception. It moves beyond the purely human constructs of fear and morality and attempts to conceive the universe as a perfectly unified whole. The cosmic religious feeling is rare and mysterious, but it is real. It is important that all who are receptive to it develop the feeling in themselves and share the idea with others.

Einstein’s Ideas and Opinions

 Older Entries  Newer Entries