Sandra Finley

2011-01-24 Coming to a highway near you (high-level radioactive waste)

 Radioactive waste  No Responses »
Jan 242011
 

People from Ontario through Manitoba to Saskatchewan are uniting to stop the cross-country trucking of high-level radioactive waste.  It places unnecessary risks on everyone who is travelling on our major highways. 

It is impossible to move the amount of accumulated radioactive waste with no accidents.  And the trucking HAS TO go on the main highways:

–        The law requires that dangerous goods have to be transported along routes that have immediate access to emergency services.  The Trans Canada and Yellowhead Highways fit that bill; other roadways do not.

–        Main highways are the ones built to accommodate the heavy loads. 

Progress!: 

In the early 1980’s Saskatchewan fought down a uranium processing plant.  But then it got built in Ontario. 

TODAY, citizens in Ontario are connected with people in Saskatchewan.   Our fight is their fight.  The transportation of high-level radioactive waste is a bad idea.   The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) estimates that it will take 30 years of trucking just to move the existing radioactive waste from Ontario to Saskatchewan for “deep geological” dumping. 

People along the route that would transport the high-level radioactive waste are uniting in force to say:

–        It might be good for the industry.  It’s not good for us.

–        The responsible action is to continue to store the waste in the locations where it has been created.  Each jurisdiction must deal with its own radioactive waste. 

One of the reasons for transporting (removal) of the waste is to “out of sight, out of mind” it.  

The actions of Manitoba and Quebec in establishing laws to prohibit the importation of radioactive waste into their jurisdictions for disposal helps to ensure that other people won’t be placed in danger by the transportation and dumping of that waste.  

Please spread the word to people in Saskatchewan, it is now our turn:  a ban on the importation of nuke waste into this Province will be an act of solidarity with people in all provinces.  Indeed, there is now a world-wide movement to stop the transportation of radioactive waste anywhere. 

Information meetings in Saskatoon, LaRonge and Prince Albert, Feb 1-2-3.  These communities would be on the transportation route. 

NORTHERN SPEAKING TOUR – Dr. Jim Harding:  Why Saskatchewan Needs a Nuclear Waste Ban 

Dr. Jim Harding, author of Canada’s Deadly Secret will speak on the issue of nuclear waste why we say NO! 

PLEASE mark your calendars and plan to attend: 

All events begin at 7:00 PM
�
February 1 – Saskatoon

Frances Morrison Public Library Auditorium,

311 23rd Street East

�
February 2 – La Ronge

Kikinahk Friendship Centre

320 Boardman Street (corner of Boardman and Bedford)

Contact:  (306) 425-2051
�
February 3 – Prince Albert

JM Cuelenaere Public Library

125 – 12th Street East 

Videos & more info:  Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan:

http://www.cleangreensask.ca/

2011-01-22 Vermont politicians are moving to deny corporations the rights that humans enjoy. . . .

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Jan 222011
 

Resolution Calling to Amend the Constitution Banning Corporate Personhood Introduced in Vermont 

http://www.alternet.org/story/149620/resolution_calling_to_amend_the_constitution_banning_corporate_personhood_introduced_in_vermont?page=entire )

Resolution Calling to Amend the Constitution Banning Corporate Personhood Introduced in Vermont

On the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, Vermont politicians are moving to deny corporations the rights that humans enjoy.

January 22, 2011   
 
A year ago today, the Supreme Court issued its bizarre Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections as a form of “free speech” for the corporate “person.” Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the dissent, had the task of recalling the majority to planet earth and basic common sense.

“Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires,” wrote Stevens. “Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

Fortunately, movements are afoot to reverse a century of accumulated powers and protections granted to corporations by wacky judicial decisions.

In Vermont, state senator Virginia Lyons on Friday  presented an anti-corporate personhood resolution for passage in the Vermont legislature. The resolution, the first of its kind, proposes “an amendment to the United States Constitution … which provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States.”  Sources in the state house say it has a good chance of passing. This same body of lawmakers, after all, once voted to impeach George W. Bush, and is known for its anti-corporate legislation. Last year the Vermont senate became the first state legislature to weigh in on the future of a nuclear power plant, voting to shut down a poison-leeching plant run by Entergy Inc. Lyons’ Senate voted 26-4 to do it, demonstrating the level of political will of the state’s politicians to stand up to corporate power.

The language in the Lyons resolution is unabashed. “The profits and institutional survival of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings,” it states, noting that corporations “have used their so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws.”

Thus the unfolding of the obvious: “democratically elected governments” are rendered “ineffective in protecting their citizens against corporate harm to the environment, health, workers, independent business, and local and regional economies.” The resolution goes on to note that “large corporations own most of America’s mass media and employ those media to loudly express the corporate political agenda and to convince Americans that the primary role of human beings is that of consumer rather than sovereign citizens with democratic rights and responsibilities.”

Denouncing this situation as an “intolerable societal reality,” the document concludes that the “only way” toward a solution is the amendment of the Constitution “to define persons as human beings.”

Constitutional lawyer David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, recently traveled to Vermont to help draft the resolution. Cobb says it is an historic document. “This is the first state to introduce at the legislative level a statement of principles that corporations are not persons and do not have constitutional rights,” he told AlterNet. “This is how a movement gets started. It’s the beginning of a revolutionary action completely and totally within the legal framework.”

Such an amendment would be the 28th time we have corrected our founding document to reflect political reality and social change. In other words, we’ve done it 27 times before in answer to the call of history, and we can do it again. There is a groundswell of support: 76 percent of Americans, according to a recent ABC News poll, said they opposed the Citizens United decision.

The Total Weirdness of Corporate Personhood

The corporate person is the product of some plainly weird metaphysics. This astonishing fictional “person,” accorded all the rights of a human, can split off pieces of itself to form new fictional persons, can marry many other similar persons in a process called a merger, is immortal, can change its name and identity overnight, and can aggregate gigantic streams of capital with which it somehow has the right to speak. Strangely enough, the corporate person, who has neither soul nor body, is at the same time owned by many other persons called shareholders who buy and sell its parts every day — it is owned, in fact, much the way a slave is owned.

Additionally, the many-limbed, mercurial, shape-changing god-person-as-chattel can connive to murder wretched fleshy mortal persons and not be hanged by the neck or electrocuted in a chair or go to jail for life as punishment. Instead the corporate person pays out a paltry sum and goes about his or her blithe business as if no murder was committed, no crime accomplished. The corporate person can shut down whole communities by driving out business, can spread cancers in the air and water, can destroy fisheries or lay waste to forests, and do all of this with a degree of impunity provided under the vaunted protections of the Bill of Rights. The best-known and most insidious of these rights is that which allows the corporation under the First Amendment to speak freely using money — yet another twist of metaphysics masquerading as law, and one that has not gone unnoticed by the highest jurists in the land.

The “useful legal fictions,” launched into society as creatures of commerce and ostensibly at the beck and call of their creators, have freed themselves to wreak havoc on the people they were designed to help. Mere humans are arrayed against a dangerous automaton army, the army of the fictional corporate super-persons that deploy power with real-world consequences. If corporate hegemony is rightly understood as the overarching threat to world democracy today — the threat from which all other threats derive when governments stand captured by corporatocracies — then it is the absurdist legality of corporate personhood that serves as the functional lever of that hegemony. In this epochal battle for the future of planet earth, the humans against the corporations, the survival of the humans will depend on a dramatic legal assault, with nothing less than the murder of corporate personhood as the goal.

Christopher Ketcham has written for Vanity Fair, Harper’s, the Nation, Mother Jones, and many other publications. He can be contacted at cketcham99  AT   mindspring.com.

 

2011-01-21 Are StatsCan surveys mandatory? Interpretation of the Law.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  14 Responses »
Jan 212011
 

NOTE:  in the time since the following was written,  Parliament did pass an amendment to the Statistics Act.  ONE PERSON, the Chief Statistician,  can decide what personal data can be collected from citizens.

HOWEVER,  the Statistics Act will ALWAYS be subservient to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  Charter Rights are not Statutory Law.  They are part of the higher level Constitutional Law.

This posting is the early (2011) exploration of the Law on Surveys.

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

 

UPDATE:     2016-07-01 StatsCan Website: Surveys are Mandatory,  then Voluntary,  then Mandatory.         The Law still says that Surveys are voluntary.   This Update,  with the Timeline also contains the full  argument – – what does the law say?   A couple of points have been added to the main arguments presented earlier (below).   Hopefully it is water-tight.

The effect of the StatsCan letter (reported on Reddit), accompanied by a change to their website to say “all surveys are voluntary”, meant that the legal action being brought against StatsCan by a citizen was stopped.

But maybe as late as June 2nd, 2016 (a couple months later)  the website was changed back to say that some surveys are mandatory.   See the above URL (StatsCan Website: Surveys are . . . )     Scroll down to the consolidated information about what the Law says.

 

 

ORIGIN – WHAT LED TO THESE POSTINGS ABOUT THE LAW ON CENSUSES AND SURVEYS?:   the objections to the extensive data collection on Canadian citizens by Statistics Canada (comparable to the “Census Bureau” in the U.S.)  BEGAN with the out-sourcing of StatsCan work to Lockheed Martin Corporation,  with sub-contractor IBM.

The resistance started in 2003.  Lockheed Martin is an integral part of the American war machine.  Its practices (land mines, cluster munitions) are illegal and immoral.  That was the genesis of the resistance against what StatsCan is doing.   (Lockheed’s role of “contract interrogators” (torture) at off-shore American prisons is equally illegal and immoral but was largely unknown until 2015.)

The leaks by Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald have confirmed what Canadian protestors understood:  through “back door” entry, data bases are illegally accessed by the American “security” forces.   Lockheed Martin works with the NSA.   You have to be gullible to believe that the ever-more detailed information on individual Canadians  in the StatsCan data base, after years of Lockheed Martin participation, is NOT accessible to the American surveillance machinery.   To the original objections (illegal, immoral, expensive) is added “unconstitutional”.   We have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  (Except in the Province of Saskatchewan – – the Sask Court of Appeal did not uphold the Charter Right.)

. . .  but, back to the question of the Law on participation in StatsCan “Surveys” which, day-after-day, weekends included, add to the compilation of files on individual citizens:

 

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

In addition to this posting,  please  see  Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?  which takes you to people’s experiences with StatsCan operating outside the law, using coercion, intimidation and harassment to force people to fill in “surveys”, providing personal information that is protected from “dissemination to the state” under the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

UPDATE:  there are also stories in the “Comments” at the bottom of this posting.

 

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

ARE STATSCAN SURVEYS MANDATORY?  INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

In order to understand the law, it is necessary to understand the difference between a “census” and a “survey”.

Related:  2010-03-31    Edmontonian Susan Crowther threatened by StatsCan.   Statistics Act,  what is a census and what is a survey?  What is the law?  StatsCan is operating way outside the law.  

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

 

The law is that surveys are voluntary.

  • The Statistics Act specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions that apply to censuses.   (Censuses happen once every 5 years  (2006, 2011, 2016 …).   “Surveys” are on-going all the time, day-after-day data collection on citizens.  The StatsCan data files contain the names of individuals, contrary to widespread belief.)
  • The following thread provides the explanation for the voluntary nature of “surveys”, under the Law.

 

Keep in mind that, in the past, the majority of the data collection on citizens was done through censuses (the “long form” census), once every five years.    Objections to the involvement of Lockheed Martin (American surveillance) in the data base at Statistics Canada led to protests and non-compliance – – at that time with the census.    Things changed,  the Government (Prime Minister Harper) went to a single “short form” census.    The data formerly demanded through the long form census became the “National Household Survey”.    There is also the Labour Force Survey, the Household Spending Survey, an Agricultural Survey – –  I don’t know what other data collection.   Surveys are on-going, not restricted to once every 5 years.

Now to the Law.

First, it is helpful to know what the Act of Parliament says about

THE SANCTIONS  FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CENSUS  (does not apply to “surveys”)

Section 31 of the Statistics Act, about censuses, reads:

False or unlawful information

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,   (INSERT:  I also argue that the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information provides “lawful excuse” and lawyer Steve presented that argument to the Court.)

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

= = = = = = = = =  = = = = = =

THE EMAIL THREAD

From: Sandra Finley    Sent: January 20, 2011 5:09 PM

To: Lawyer  Steve

Subject: Your reading on “surveys” – is different from mine ?

Hi Steve,

When I read Section 8 of Stats Act, I get a different outcome than you.  Are we reading the same text?  My interpretation goes thus:

1.        Section 8  (appended) says that Statistics Canada can collect data in between censuses.

2.        When that happens, it is not called a “Census”.  It is called a “survey”   and

3.         where such information is requested,  section 31 (jail time and a fine) “does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

Have I misinterpreted?

/Sandra

(APPENDED, from my blog):

DO YOU HAVE TO SUPPLY INFORMATION TO STATSCAN IN BETWEEN CENSUSES?     NO

Section 8 of the Statistics Act:

” Voluntary surveys     (Note that the TITLE of Section 8 is “Voluntary surveys”)

8.   The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

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

 

Reply From:  Lawyer Steve   (refuted by the next input)

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:33 PM

To: ‘Sandra Finley’

Subject: RE: Your reading on “surveys” – is different from mine ?

You are correct, but there is an additional factor – taking out some of the language, the Minister has discretion to “authorize the obtaining of information…on a voluntary basis”. My reading is that the Minister has to authorize the “survey” to be voluntary.

Steve

________________________________

 

From: Sandra Finley

To: Doug

Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:38 PM

Subject: RE: Census Lockheed Martin Trial: R. v. Finley, verdict is “guilty”

Thanks very much Doug.  I appreciate your input.

It is interesting to me that you and I seem to have taken the same meaning, but Steve interprets differently:

You stated thus:  there may be no conflict between the Charter and the Stats Act because they’ve given everyone an out with respect to the penalties in Sec 31 (fine and/or jail)  by stating in Sec 8 that s. 31 penalties don’t apply for anything but # of people and # of cows.

If there is an error in interpretation, where is it?

/Sandra

INPUT FROM DOUG:

RE: Your reading on the mandatory nature of “surveys” – is different from mine ?

Hi Sandra,

sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I lost this email… anyways, I think your lawyer is trying to say that the Minister may authorize the survey to be voluntary, and I believe Parliament’s intent was to state the Minister may authorize the survey itself, not that it be voluntary.

I believe the Minister is authorizing the OBTAINING OF INFORMATION, not the VOLUNTARINESS of it.

And I believe the reason is because the Minister doesn’t have the legislative authority to force someone to breach their own privacy rights… Parliament’s intent in drafting this was to say that… OKAY MR. MINISTER, WE’LL LET YOU AUTHORIZE A SURVEY FOR Statistics Canada to collect ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BUT IT HAS TO BE INHERENTLY VOLUNTARY BECAUSE YOU CAN’T FORCE SOMEONE TO PROVIDE THEIR PRIVATE INFORMATION OTHER THAN NUMBERS.

In other words, the MINISTER doesn’t have the legislative authority to choose whether to make a survey voluntary or mandatory… he just has the ability to authorize a survey.  If he had the choice to make it mandatory, it would definitely be a charter breach, IMHO (in my humble opinion).  And I’m sure that’s why they took the penalties out for extra information collected in surveys.

From the legislation:

” Voluntary surveys

8.  The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 (the Sanctions) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

– – – – — – – – –

THE DISCUSSION RESUMED IN SEPTEMBER 2011,  STATSCAN IS DOING THE “LABOUR SURVEY”, USING COERCION:

EXCERPTS FROM “COMMENTS” POSTED ON    Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?

From Angela:   Stats Can’s website describes the Labour Force Survey as “mandatory”, which does seem to be a contravention of the Act — unless they have the power to re-define “voluntary” surveys as mandatory, at their leisure. . .

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Patti:  I understand it as the labour survey is not a mandatory thing, even though they want to treat citizens as if it is.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Re your question: did I ever receive an answer to question regarding interpretation of Section 8 of the Statistics Act?

My Response is “No AND yes”. I look at it this way:

If I, the citizen, working with other reasonable and intelligent citizens, cannot read and interpret the law, especially one as simple as the Statistics Act, then the law is not serving us.

WHO is the law for? It is a vehicle for defining the relationships among ourselves and the government, so that we can live harmoniously. It is a dispute resolution mechanism (even if it is poorly designed, is being used by the Government and by Corporations as a tool for intimidation and coercion. It is in obvious need of overhaul. The Chief Justice of Canada has been imploring the legal profession for years to address the problems. They seem unable to deliver the goods to her (for the public).)

Did I receive an answer to my question on Section 8 of the Stats Act? .. . Yes. We figured it out ourselves. Doug’s input was elucidating. And now you capture the essence way better than I have: “unless they have the power to re-define “voluntary” surveys as mandatory, at their leisure”.

– – – – –  – – – –

I tried high-lighting the differences in interpretation (appended). Then I stripped away all the other words. Leaving only this high-lighted text:

(The Minister may, by order:)

Steve: authorize the obtaining of information on a voluntary basis (It helps – – you can see how Steve might have arrived at his conclusion.  He is saying that this paragraph of the Act says that in order for a survey to be voluntary, the Minister has to authorize it to be voluntary.)

Doug: authorize the obtaining of information other than information for a census of population or agriculture,

I still arrive at the conclusion that Steve was in a hurry and made a mistake.
Doug’s interpretation and elaboration makes sense.

The argument is reinforced by the TITLE of the paragraph: VOLUNTARY Surveys.

I did not understand why legislation would need the clause “on a voluntary basis” when it is specified “section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

WHICHEVER WAY YOU COME AT IT, I think it comes down to the one thing:
“where such information is requested section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

IF ANYTHING, “on a voluntary basis” serves to reinforce the message that section 31, the sanctions, do not apply in the case of surveys.

Which means that Statistics Canada is acting outside the law, telling people that they have to supply the information and if they don’t they can be fined and/or go to jail.

I am in complete agreement with your statement: “I understand it as the labour survey is not a mandatory thing, even though they want to treat citizens as if it is.”

Sandra

P.S. I think it is all irrelevant anyway because of the Charter Right to privacy of personal information  in all provinces except Saskatchewan – the outcome of the appeal process in my trial.

Statistics Canada needs to be taken to Court for intimidation, coercion and harassment.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

UPDATE: 

Recommend: The most recent posting re Are Surveys Mandatory? 2014-05-26 More concise argument? (conversation with JoAnne)

2011-01-21 Census Lockheed Martin: sentence is absolute discharge! Re appeal of Guilty verdict. Donations for continuing legal expense.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jan 212011
 

Re appeal of Guilty VERDICT (more information below)  

Donations for continuing legal expense (appeal of verdict) will be gratefully received and can be mailed to:

Sandra Finley

656 Saskatchewan Cres East

Saskatoon,  SK  Canada   S7N 0L1 

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

I cannot thank you enough for all your generous support!  Nor can I put into words what it means to me. 

The Judge found me guilty last week.   Yesterday she delivered the sentence:  an absolute discharge, which means the Court is not punishing me with a fine or jail and I will not have a criminal record. 

There is cause for celebration!    ..   but it’s not over until it’s over, I am sorry to say! 

I do not think I have a choice but to appeal the guilty verdict.   I may be the only one who has the “can” and “will” to appeal the verdict, if it should be done.  In consultation with lawyer Steve Seiferling – who has specialized in privacy law – – there are legal grounds for appeal.   

Are there grounds, from my perspective? 

THOUGHT #1  REGARDING APPEAL of THE GUILTY VERDICT: 

If the guilty decision goes unchallenged, it seems to me I will only have made it WORSE for people in the future. I don’t think we have a Charter Right to Privacy of personal information if the guilty verdict stands. 

As explained in earlier emails, my interpretation of the email from Tony Clement’s office and positions put forth by other elected officials:  they are proposing that the long form or the “new” National Household Survey is voluntary because there won’t be the threat of jail and a fine  ..  BUT it will be promoted as “mandatory”.   The word “mandatory” in the English language means “you have to do it”.  There is a higher authority that demands you do it.

If the Government proceeds with a long form or a survey that is “voluntary” because there are no sanctions for not filling it in,  AND simultaneously promotes it to the public as “mandatory” then it is more of the “Innocent Fraud” described by John Kenneth Galbraith (2004).   

The Canadian public should not tolerate such ..  ummm, it’s not “innocent”  . . .   but rather “Orwellian” fraud. 

It seems to me that a higher Court ruling is needed.  

Lawyer Steve Seiferling’s experience and knowledge in the area of Privacy Law leads him to the conclusion that we do have a Charter Right to Privacy of personal information and that the Government cannot meet the test to override in this census/survey StatsCan situation.   In his reading of the Judge’s decision he believes he sees the error in logic that led to the guilty verdict.   

I do not claim to be any kind of an expert.  As you will know from correspondence that goes back to 2003, I started from a place of knowing that allowing the enrichment of Lockheed Martin Corporation, through my tax dollars, makes me complicit with their many crimes against humanity.  Not only alleged crimes, but crimes for which they have been convicted.  

I won’t repeat the evolution in understanding that came about through the information found, submitted to and circulated in our network.   Much of that is posted to the blog www.sandrafinley.ca  (see “Lockheed”  on the drop-down list under “PAGES”). 

In today’s world Lockheed Martin is inextricably intertwined in the questions of:

–        privacy of personal information; one of their specialties is “surveillance”

–        whether we want the American military-industrial complex duplicated in Canada,  through the offset agreements in the Government contracts with Lockheed Martin

–        whether we want the de-stabilizing influence of the massive public debt that goes along with Lockheed Martin  (we currently have the highest-ever deficit of any Canadian Government; we are simultaneously about to sign up for $16 billion more debt for Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.  The people of Norway refused to go there.  We can, too.   It’s a hard battle – Lockheed Martin now has more lobbyists in Ottawa than the oil and gas industry.   We already have corporatocracy, not democracy.  But there are tens of thousands of us.  WE will be the ones paying the debt and the interest on it.  

The Americans let the Lockheed Martin military-industrial complex take over.  They are hated because of their illegal wars and indiscriminate killing ways.   They have a mountain of debt;  their economy cannot generate the income necessary to ever get themselves out of debt.  Tax-payer money through interest payments on debt is funneled to the wealthy investors in Lockheed Martin and their ilk.  The rot in the system almost brought the world economy to its knees;  it still is a huge de-stabilizing influence in the world. 

–        whether we want an economy that becomes dependent upon the waging of war, as the American economy has become 

–        Do we want to get sucked into the vortex?   Make a conscious decision, folks.   If you decide “no” then fight with every opportunity that comes our way.  

–        As the people of Iraq know, the American military-industrial machine is dangerous especially if you, as a nation, have resources that transnational corporations covet.   

–        All in all, it is an environment in which we need the protection of the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.    Please refer to 2008-12-06  if you have any doubts about the value of the Charter Right, the use of census data bases (detailed files on citizens) in police states.  

–        I believe there is no choice but to appeal the guilty verdict. 

(Geez!  I wish I made concise, succinct arguments.  Sorry – my brain is of a different kind.  One that always goes to the “Connections”, the context.  I guess we need many different kinds of brains to get the best outcome!)  

THOUGHT #2 REGARDING APPEAL of THE GUILTY VERDICT: 

In the corporatocracy, the legal system along with other institutions (assets that belong to the public),  eventually become tools in service of the corporate interest.  It is VERY obvious in Monsanto v. Schmeiser (biotech industry).  It is less clear in the census Lockheed Martin trial, but traces are visible.  Let me explain: 

–        I talked with my City Councillor about my concerns:  the City Manager twice in six months has publicly promoted the idea that “public-private-partnerships” are the way forward for the City of Saskatoon. 

–        Charlie’s response:  it gets more and more difficult because the Federal Government has established criteria that Government funding is dependent upon “partnering” with corporations.  . . .    Jumping from there: 

–        Experience with the justice system leads you to see in a clearer way how public-private-partnerships bring about a situation where the full force of the Federal Government lines up against the citizen COUPLED WITH the power (money buys influence) of the corporation.    

It was obvious when Monsanto took Percy Schmeiser to court. The Federal and Provincial Governments took intervenor positions in the Supreme Court on the side of Monsanto (through Agwest Biotech and Biotec Canada that are Government-funded entities).   The Governments and universities have “public-private-partnerships” with Monsanto whereby Monsanto’s interest becomes the Government’s and the University’s interest.

In the situation of the census and Lockheed Martin, a “guilty” verdict that helps to shut down dissent over Lockheed Martin’s role in the census is a benefit to Lockheed Martin  – –    unless, as in this case, it can be used to draw attention, to create awareness of who Lockheed Martin is, etc.  (when the public is otherwise being kept in the dark).    

But the system is strongly against citizen efforts to challenge the role of Lockheed Martin in the census, and to defend the Charter Right to Privacy.  The system uses little more than threats, intimidation and coercion.   Most people cannot effectively go up against the system.  The financial costs and the risks associated with the threat of jail are too much.  (More movement toward “community-based” justice in the First Nations tradition, in marriage with some ideas from the existing system is required.)   Note that a citizen used to be able to obtain financial assistance for legal costs to defend themselves against the Government in Charter Challenges, in recognition of the imbalance in power.  Harper got rid of that funding. 

–        In the corporatocracy it becomes more and more difficult to inform citizens about what is happening.  We saw Lockheed Martin’s name disappear in the NY Times coverage of the census debacle, to be replaced by the phrase “technology contractor”.   Huh?  ..  don’t want the American public to know the truth?  

The Globe and Mail had enough courage to say the Lockheed Martin name once  (2011-01-13),  but then it became the “technology giant”.   Running scared of an accurate and honest description of Lockheed Martin?   The corporatocracy rules.

–        HOWEVER, I am extremely thankful for the Canadian journalists who, in the past week, have aired the important information on Lockheed Martin in the census story.  Bless them!    

We lend support to them by making the information widely available in the alternate media so that the “editors” run the risk of losing the credibility of their publication if they edit it out.   People in our network actively challenge the media when they don’t present the whole picture.   It truly makes a difference.  Every small act counts – it is never small. 

The fact that together we have been successful in getting Lockheed Martin’s name into the debate is a sign that we are willing to engage in the battle to take back what is ours.  To me we are teetering on the brink.  This success tells me that the corporatocracy hasn’t taken over completely.   Yeeeeaay! 

–        We are powerful!  If you haven’t read Marianne Williamson’s “Our Greatest Fear”, you really must!  It is a short signature piece for our network that I haven’t circulated for a long time now.  (It’s in the category “Empowerment” – but just click on “Our Greatest Fear”.) 

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

Progress!  

Thanks to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix who ( 2011-01-20 ) put Lockheed Martin FIRST and then the Charter Right to Privacy second, as the defence argument (that failed).

The Globe and Mail moved from “technology giant” to “defence giant” in one week. 

2011-01-20   G&M    Census refusenik avoids fine and prison 

“  For eight years, Ms. Finley has repeatedly criticized the form as unnecessarily intrusive, and objects to Canada’s past decisions to contract out census work to defence giant Lockheed Martin. 

“ . . .    Ms. Finley acknowledged she didn’t fill out the form. Rather, she argued that the required long-form document violated her right under Section Eight of the Charter, which restricts “unreasonable search or seizure” of information. Judge Whelan dismissed the notion, saying Ms. Finley and her attorney “did not meet the burden of establishing a breach” of the section.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE DECISION 

Steve (the lawyer) and I will still sit down and review the situation.   Unless you or someone else points out a flaw in my thinking from the lay person’s view, it is most likely that we will proceed to file notice of appeal next week.   In the absence of unforeseen circumstances!  

– – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – — 

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE APPEAL 

MANY thanks to Janette Doering and others who have contacted me with offers of financial assistance.  They are needed, especially now going into appeal.  The bill for legal services so far (2.75 years) is around $10,000.00  in spite of representing myself in the early goings.   My family, bless them! made a large donation to the cause. 

I specifically mention Janette;  I just posted her 2010-08-03  letter to the Calgary Herald about the 2006 census (“Politely declined”).   Hers is another important voice in the chorus.   Margaret Fehr,  Susan Crowther, Barney’s “Comment” on the home page at www.sandrafinley.ca   And of course those who ended up in court Todd Stelmach, Darek Czernewcan, Brian Stewart (on a topic unrelated to Lockheed Martin but still important – and in whose case the Prosecutor decided not to proceed with the charges).  Dave Rutherford, the conservative radio talk-show host from Alberta who has openly repeated that he did not fill in the 2006 census.  … the list is long.   And they all help make the point that the StatsCan witness at my trial, Anil Arora, lied under oath.  

I can only understand it this way:  Government officials are trained in “communications”.  The training is to repeat a mantra, no matter what the question asked.  I asked from every possible angle (words to effect) “How many Canadians did not fill in their 2006 census form?”.  Anil Arora’s response was “64 were referred for prosecution”.  I responded “I did not ask how many were referred for prosecution.  I asked how many did not fill in their census form, or in other ways not comply?  (It is equally an offence to provide false information or to deface the form.)”    

Anil Arora would not budge from the mantra “64 people” did not comply with the 2006 census.  Even when I introduced for the court record the newspaper article 2008-01-15 ,  “No charges sought for 35,000 natives who ignore census”  in which Anil Arora was quoted, Anil Arora stuck to the lie.   The truth does not matter, even under oath.  (The line of questioning was in relation to selective application of the law.  The laws are to be applied equally.  Why didn’t Dave Rutherford, for example, get prosecuted?) 

INSERT:  INPUT FROM LAWYER:  Sun 1/23/2011  

“Sandra, 

I took a look at the transcript, and he said that 64 people were charged. He refused to provide an answer on compliance, claiming that compliance was a moving target (he claimed they were still trying to get answers at the time of the hearing). We never did get compliance numbers from him, and he was really evasive, but he never actually said that only 64 people failed to comply – he said that 64 were charged.

Steven Seiferling 

McKercher LLP“

– — — – – – –  –

Janette’s letter-to-the-Calgary Herald is at (2010-08-03 ).  She writes: 

Ok, so where do I send a donation to help pay your legal fees? The way I see it, I could be you. 

Congratulations on the sentence. Doesn’t clear you, but feel you’re speaking for all of us contentious dissenters. 

Janette Doering 

Thank-you Janette!  My address is:

Sandra Finley

656 Saskatchewan Cres East

Saskatoon,  SK  Canada   S7N 0L1 

– – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – 

COPY OF THE COURT RULING

I just checked.  It still is not posted.  It should appear any time now at:

http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/WhatsNew/NewJudgmentsPC.htm  

– – – – –  – – — – – – – – – – —  –

OVER AND OUT FOR NOW!

2011-01-20 After guilty verdict for not filling in long-form census, Finley handed absolute discharge (Star Phoenix)

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jan 212011
 

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/After+guilty+verdict+filling+long+form+census+Finley+handed+absolute/4138384/story.html

Sandra Finley has been given an absolute discharge, one week after she was found guilty of refusing to fill in the long-form census in 2006.

Judge Sheila Whelan announced the sentence Thursday morning in Saskatoon provincial court.

Finley had argued during her trial that she objected to the government’s hiring of Lockheed Martin Canada Ltd. to provide computer hardware and software and printing of forms for the census.

She also invoked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, saying it protects citizens from being forced to turn over “a biographical core of personal information” to the state.

In a written ruling, Whelan said Finley “did not meet the burden” of showing her charter rights had been violated.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

2011-01-20 G&M Census refusenik avoids fine and prison

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  1 Response »
Jan 212011
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/census-refusenik-spared-fine-and-prison/article1877288/  

Sandra Finley, who was fund guilty of not filling out the 2006 census, is shown at her Saskatoon home on Jan. 14, 2010. - Sandra Finley, who was fund guilty of not filling out the 2006 census, is shown at her Saskatoon home on Jan. 14, 2010. | David Stobbe for The Globe and Mail

Census refusenik avoids
fine and prison

Steven Chase

Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:51PM EST
The Saskatchewan woman and former provincial Green Party leader who was convicted for refusing to fill out the long-form census has been spared a fine or jail time.

Sandra Finley was found guilty in a Saskatoon court last week for refusing in 2006 to complete a census form the Harper government has since made voluntary.

She faced the prospect of a maximum fine of $500 and potentially incarceration until Thursday when Madam Justice Sheila Whelan granted her an absolute discharge.

Ms. Finley said the judge in rendering her decision recognized the Conservative government’s decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census. The Tories said the questionairre was intrusive and it was unfairly coercive to threaten people with punishment in order to extract answers.

“I need to celebrate,” Ms. Finley said of the ruling. She is still considering an appeal of the verdict.

For eight years, Ms. Finley has repeatedly criticized the form as unnecessarily intrusive, and objects to Canada’s past decisions to contract out census work to defence giant Lockheed Martin. When her census arrived in 2006, she refused to fill it out. After repeated warnings, she was charged under the Statistics Canada Act in March, 2008.

The principled stand, with its legal fallout, is precisely the type of case invoked by Industry Minister Tony Clement in justifying his move to make the long-form document optional.

Many within Statistics Canada, which reports to Mr. Clement, fear the move will skew the census, and the agency’s chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, resigned amid the uproar over last summer’s decision to make it optional. Ms. Finley supports the change, even though it will do her no good.

“It’s not any use, because that charging section still applies based on 2006,” said Steven Seiferling, Ms. Finley’s attorney.

Ms. Finley acknowledged she didn’t fill out the form. Rather, she argued that the required long-form document violated her right under Section Eight of the Charter, which restricts “unreasonable search or seizure” of information. Judge Whelan dismissed the notion, saying Ms. Finley and her attorney “did not meet the burden of establishing a breach” of the section.

She’s not the first to be convicted – among a handful of previous cases, Todd Stelmach of Kingston was convicted in 2009 of the same offence, and was fined $300.

With a report from Josh Wingrove

2011-01-21 Top U of S officials face criticism over law dean selection

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University  No Responses »
Jan 212011
 

Four different reports:  The President and Provost (Peter MacKinnon and Brett Fairbairn) overrode the Search Committee’s recommendation for Dean of the Law School.

As reported by the Star Phoenix and  by Global News, Jan 21, 2011

 

Top U of S officials face criticism over law dean selection

Search committee’s choice was ignored by university’s board

Jason Warick, The StarPhoenix: Friday, January 21, 2011

 

Some members of the search committee to pick a new dean for the University of Saskatchewan’s college of law are furious after top administrators ignored the committee’s choice and pitched their own candidate to the university’s board of governors in a private meeting.

Some members of the search committee to pick a new dean for the University of Saskatchewan’s college of law are furious after top administrators took the rare step of ignoring the committee’s choice and pitching their own candidate to the university’s board of governors in a private meeting.

Critics worry about the centralization of power in the hands of the university’s top administrators and the board of governors, which continues to ban the public from its meetings. They say this incident, which violates long-standing conventions, will make it more difficult to recruit talented people to sit on time-consuming, volunteer search committees.

“I think all those principles . . . I think it damages all those things,” said a committee member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The board of governors unanimously approved U of S president Peter MacKinnon’s pitch for candidate Sanjeev Anand.

“It was a pretty straightforward matter. The board dealt with that in that manner,” said board of governors member Garry Standing.

“The board of governors obviously supported the decision that was made (by MacKinnon) and voted on it and voted to proceed,” said fellow board member David Sutherland.

No one interviewed criticized Anand, a high-profile, widely published University of Alberta criminal law professor who has worked at the U of S. The point, critics say, is the search committee’s top choice was dismissed from a field of finalists that also included two respected University of Saskatchewan professors and a senior official in the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice.

The search committee member representing the Law Society of Saskatchewan wrote a highly critical letter about the incident to the board of governors, but the university declined to provide a copy. The university says it is a personnel matter and as such is confidential.

Officially, committee members have been ordered not to discuss the issue and directed interview requests to the office of U of S academic vice-president and provost Brett Fairbairn, who spoke on behalf of the university administration.

“We can’t talk about anything that happened,” said the committee member.

Privately, however, many of the 10 committee members — students, professors, lawyers, deans and others who volunteered dozens of hours to conduct the search — are fuming, the committee member said.

“It’s a very time-consuming process,” said the member.

“This is not just about a few people feeling hard done by.”

In an interview this week, Fairbairn said personnel matters are private and declined to discuss the situation.

In general terms, however, he said the university values the hard work of the search committees and it’s rare for the search committee’s choice to be overruled.

“In most cases — it seems to me like it’s nine out of 10 or even more — it’s a very straighforward process,” he said.

When asked how he or MacKinnon could overrule the search committee, when Fairbairn admitted the research done by the search committee is important, he said there may be a difference of interpretations.

He said the board of governors is always made aware of the views of the search committee, but is not bound by its choice.

“Really, it’s about using the committee as the vehicle to collect and assess information,” Fairbairn said.

Fairbairn lauded the accomplishments and leadership ability of Anand, who takes over as dean on July 1.

“We’re terrifically impressed by his record as both a scholar and a leader,” Fairbairn said.

Board of governors member Linda Ferguson said board members “certainly” had all of the information at their disposal.

“We don’t usually discuss how decisions are made,” she said before referring further questions to Fairbairn.

Board of governors vice-chair Susan Milburn said there was more discussion on this appointment than others. She also noted the search committee is “advisory” and the board is free to make the final decision.

Asked if board of governors meetings should remain closed to the public given that other publicly funded bodies — school boards, health boards, governments — make most of their decisions in the open, Milburn compared the U of S to a “high-performing corporation” where certain information requires protection.

She said the board strives to inform the public of its decisions after they are made.

“We try to be as transparent as we can,” she said.

If administrators aren’t happy with the search committee’s choice, they should not overrule it, said U of S faculty association vice-chair and psychology Prof. Jim Cheeseman. Instead, the search should be declared “failed” and begin again.

Cheeseman, who is part of a group rewriting the rules for dean searches, said he hopes this will help avoid similar incidents in the future.

“One wants to be very careful about these sorts of things,” he said.

 

© Copyright (c) Shaw Media Inc.

PrintEmailShareFacebookTwitter
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?SectionID=1306&SectionName=News&VolID=316&VolumeName=No%202&VolumeStartDate=2/8/2011&EditionID=34&EditionName=Vol%2058&EditionStartDate=1/13/2011&ArticleID=3200

CANADA’S VOICE FOR ACADEMICS
Vol 58 | No 2 | February 2011

 

Controversy Mars USask Law Dean Hire

 

University of Saskatchewan college of law building [Photo: University of Saskatchewan]

The choice of a new law dean by top administrators at the University of Saskatchewan has come as a surprise to members of a search committee whose recommendations were overruled in the hiring process.

The university’s board of governors voted Nov. 18 to hire University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand, the short-list candidate reportedly favoured by U of S president Peter MacKinnon.

Although the university is not bound by the committee’s hiring recommendations, ignoring its choice violates long-standing convention, and has reportedly dismayed many committee members who put in dozens of volunteer hours researching and interviewing candidates. Those members cannot publicly discuss their recommendations because of privacy concerns.

“I don’t know of this ever happening before at the university,” said U of S faculty association vice-chair Jim Cheesman, who is part of a joint university council/board committee currently refining search and review procedures for senior administrators.

Those refinements are still under consideration by council, and were not used in Anand’s selection. Cheesman anticipates the new guidelines will ultimately be adopted by the board of governors for application in future hiring situations.

He characterizes the existing process as murky and says the joint committee’s recommendations will clarify employment criteria, define the makeup of selection committees, and attempt to promote transparency and accountability without compromising applicants’ rights to privacy.

Hiring recommendations made by search committees are non-binding as mandated by The University of Saskatchewan Act, and will stay that way, Cheesman adds.

However, Cheesman believes that where administrators “can’t live” with a committee’s choice, the search should be declared “failed,” and feedback passed along to the committee before another search begins.

“If you continue to ignore the recommendations of search committees, you’ll create a chilly environment. People will get very cynical about the process,” he warned.

U of S vice-president and provost Brett Fairbairn declined to speak about the details of the search for the new dean of law, but acknowledged that the current review of the hiring process amounts to a “codification of overarching principals,” and as part of a regular updating will provide a “better articulation of appropriate considerations.

“We involve a lot of people in search processes. It’s unique and reflects the academic culture. This results in diverse opinions,” Fairbairn said of the incident.

 

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

As reported by Academic Group, January 24, 2011

http://www.academicagroup.ca/top10/stories/11995

Top uSask administrators criticized over law dean selection

News Date:

Jan 24, 2011

Some members of a search committee for a new law dean for the University of Saskatchewan are angry after senior officials apparently overruled the committee’s choice and pitched another shortlisted candidate to the institution’s board of governors in a private meeting. Critics worry about the centralization of power in the hands of uSask’s top administrators and the board of governors, whose meetings are closed to the public. They say this incident will make it more difficult to recruit talented people to sit on time-consuming, volunteer search committees. The board’s vice-chair says the committee is “advisory” and the board is free to make the final decision. The faculty association’s vice-chair says if administrators are not happy with the search committee’s choice, they should not overrule it. Instead, the search should be declared “failed” and start again.  Saskatoon Star-Phoenix

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

As reported in the student newspaper, The Sheaf

http://thesheaf.com/news/2011/02/02/committee-silent-over-law-dean-controversy/

Committee silent over law dean controversy

Feb 02, 2011

KEVIN MENZ
Associate News Editor

The once vocal search committee for a new dean of law is now silent over accusations that University of Saskatchewan president Peter MacKinnon overlooked their recommendation for the new dean.

Accusations published in the StarPhoenix in recent weeks indicate that the search committee — which is made up of volunteers from the university and community — suggested appropriate candidates for the job, but MacKinnon’s choice, University of Alberta law professor Dr. Sanjeev Anand, was vetted.

Anand previously worked at the U of S, according to the StarPhoenix.

Jim Germida, the chair of the search committee, was unwilling to comment to media on the specific accusations, stating that whatever the university president and his vice-president Brett Fairbarn have said must be taken as correct.

At university council Jan. 27, MacKinnon acknowledged the accusations but mostly highlighted the demolished relationship between faculty and administration.

He said that the first time he was informed of the accusation that he had ignored the search committee’s suggestions was in the StarPhoenix.

“I was under the mistaken belief that if members of the faculty association executive felt [negative towards our hiring practices], they would have communicated such to me before such a, quote, ‘scathing public message,’ ” said MacKinnon.

“The charge that elite university administrators are making all the decisions is utterly without substance,” he added, pointing to “Section 49 of the University of Saskatchewan Act [which] makes it clear that deans are appointed by the Board of Governors.”

Brett Fairbarn, university provost and vice-president academic, stated to council that “we really should not be relying on the StarPhoenix as a source.”

He accused the newspaper of misquoting but would not clarify the inaccuracies to StarPhoenix reporter Jeremy Warren because, he said, he could not comment on this specific case.

MacKinnon said that of the 15 appointments in the last five years he is familiar with, 14 saw an offer made to the candidate the search committee preferred. It is only when the search committee cannot come to consensus over candidates that the Board of Governors makes a decision on its own.

“This was a case where there was not a consensus,” said Fairbarn after the meeting.

Germida would not confirm whether or not the committee had come to a consensus.

– –   image: Pete Yee

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

2011-01-20 Amy Goodman (“Democracy Now”), Footage of President Dwight Eisenhower on the dangers of the military-industrial complex, followed by an interview with William Hartung.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jan 202011
 

FROM ELLEN: 

Discussion of Lockheed Martin on the Jan 20 Democracy Now.    Footage of President Dwight Eisenhower on the dangers of the military-industrial complex, followed by an interview with William Hartung.

Click on:  Fifty Years After Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, A Look at “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex”

(From:   http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2011/1/20.)

AMY GOODMAN: Our next guest traces the rise of the military-industrial complex through the story of the nation’s largest weapons contractor, Lockheed Martin. As a full-service weapons contractor, Lockheed Martin receives over $29 billion per year in Pentagon contracts, or roughly one out of every 10 dollars the Defense Department doles out to private contractors.

William Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation—his book is called Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex—joining us here in our studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: The significance of this massive weapons manufacturer in the United States and why you chose to write a book on it?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think they’re the largest, they’re the most corrupt, and they have the most political influence. So, for example, they make cluster bombs, which are used in the Middle East. They design nuclear weapons. They make fighter planes. They make combat ships. So they have the full gamut of weapons. But they also have branched out. They work for the CIA, the FBI. They work for the IRS, the Census Bureau. So they’ve become this full-service government contractor, which really is involved in every aspect of our lives. Every time we interact with the government, Lockheed Martin is likely to be there.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I was struck, some of the ones you talked about. The Census Bureau—what does Lockheed Martin do for the Census Bureau?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they help count the census. They have these people in little Lockheed Martin, you know, polo shirts who are—they have truckloads of data that they’re processing. They also helped design it. So they’re really in the middle of it. They’re running it, in some sense.

AMY GOODMAN: How did Lockheed get so big?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the mergers of the ’90s were one of the big things. I mean, World War II was the first. Then, when Norm Augustine engineered the Lockheed-Martin Marietta merger, that’s when they really became by far the biggest company, and they didn’t have a real competitor at that point.

AMY GOODMAN: Lockheed and Martin Marietta.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Became one company, yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: They also branched out, as you note, into services to local governments. For instance, here in New York City, Lockheed Martin had the contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to basically develop a surveillance system in the subways.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And so, they increasingly got into this intelligence gathering or in information systems for local governments. Could you talk about how that developed?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they bought a company that had been involved in a New York City parking violations scandal. And then they branched out into social services in Florida. They tried to get the welfare contract in Texas. As you said, they worked on the New York City subway surveillance system, which was a disaster. They were fired after a $212 million contract. So they went into that for about five years, and they had contracts in 44 states. But they just couldn’t get the job done. Finally, they were fired from so many places, they decided to get out of the business.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance of President Eisenhower’s speech, what he meant by the “military-industrial complex” 50 years ago.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, he was concerned not just about the size, not just about the budget, but that it was going to undermine our democracy. And I think that’s what Lockheed Martin is about in many ways. I mean, they were involved with the Pentagon in doing surveillance on antiwar protesters. They build biometric identification systems for the FBI. The fact that they’re in the IRS makes me kind of nervous. It’s sort of creepy in a way. They’ve got so many kinds of data about us. I’m not sure, you know, a military contractor should really be in that position.

JUAN GONZALEZ: They were the firm that was involved in Total Information Awareness?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: The Counterintelligence Field Activity, which was closely related to that.

AMY GOODMAN: You say that Lockheed Martin makes foreign policy, has its own foreign policy.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: In many ways. I mean, not only were they involved in lobbying for the war in Iraq, but they have people in Liberia helping rebuild the justice system. They’re building refugee camps. They helped run elections in the Ukraine. They helped write the Afghan constitution. So, all kinds of things that you would think of as sort of the soft side of foreign policy, they’re making money from.

AMY GOODMAN: And its role in elections?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they recruit the monitors who monitor the elections in places like Bosnia.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean here.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Oh.

AMY GOODMAN: The money that they pour into elections at home.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Oh, they spend about $12 million per election cycle, either on lobbying or on candidates. And they have people like Buck McKeon, who runs the Armed Services Committee now. They’re the biggest donor to him. They’re the biggest donor to Daniel Inouye, who runs the Appropriations Committee in the Senate.

AMY GOODMAN: So, they get money from the Pentagon, from the U.S. taxpayer, and then decide who they want to elect.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Essentially, they recycle our money into the political system, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there. It’s a remarkable book. Bill Hartung, director of Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. His latest book is Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. We will link to an exclusive continued interview with him after on our website at democracynow.org.

Statistics Act: 2011-01-19 “Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information”

 Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Jan 192011
 

The Government did not pass legislation to make the “Census Long Form” mandatory.  Instead, the name was changed to “National Household Survey” which enables data collection on individuals to proceed day in and day out, every year.  (Censuses are limitied to once every 5 years, surveys are not.)

(item #1 below)   I just stumbled across the StatsCan webpage  “Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information”.   “Date Modified: 2010-06-28”,  the day before the announcement that the census long form would no longer be mandatory.

(item #2 ).   The webpage says “Section 3”  – –   BUT Section 3 of the actual Statistics Act is a definition of what the “Statistics bureau” is.  So I think THIS “Section 3” must be from a procedures manual or something?

(Item #3 below)   The rules regarding “disclosure” are in Section 17 of the Statistics Act called “Secrecy”.   It is referred to in (Section 3 – of whatever):   Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information.

I haven’t had time to look at what “Section 3:  Authorized Disclosures” entails.  Does anyone have time?

Thanks,

/Sandra

(1)               Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/pia-efrvp/section-partie3-eng.htm

Statistics Canada

www.statcan.gc.ca

Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information

3.1 Data-sharing agreements
3.2 Discretionary Disclosure Authorized by Subsection 17(2) Statistics Act

3.1 Data-sharing agreements

The Statistics Act permits the agency to enter into two types of data-sharing agreements whereby confidential Statistics Act information may be disclosed under specific conditions.

Section 11 data-sharing agreement

Section 11 of the Statistics Act recognizes the special status of provincial/territorial statistical offices that administer their own statistical legislation. It provides the authority for the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into agreements to share data collected jointly with the statistical agencies of provinces and territories for statistical purposes.  Thus, information can be shared with provincial and territorial statistical agencies if (i) respondents were notified at the time of collection, (ii) the agency has the statutory authority to collect the information on its own, and (iii) the agency’s confidentiality protection requirements are substantially the same as those of Statistics Canada.  Agreements must be in place at the time the information is being collected. In other words, information cannot be shared retroactively.

Section 12 data-sharing agreement

Section 12 of the Statistics Act provides for the sharing of information collected jointly by Statistics Canada and with any federal and provincial government department, municipal government or other incorporated body such as an association or university.  Sharing of data is conditional on giving respondents prior notification of the proposed sharing, and giving them the right to refuse to allow their information to be shared.  A respondent’s right of refusal to the sharing of information does not apply if the department is authorized by law to require the respondent to provide that information.  As is the case for agreements with provincial and territorial statistical agencies, agreements must be in place at the time of the data collection.  Respondents are informed of data sharing and of their right of objection at the time of collection.  This is generally done at the end of the survey allowing respondents to make an informed decision based on the information they have provided. For mail surveys, provision for objection to sharing the information must be made on the form; for telephone and face-to-face interviews, objections are accepted verbally from respondents.  For ongoing surveys with the same respondents, annual reminders are made.

In many cases, such an agreement means that the other agency will not have to collect similar information through its own survey.  The shared information is used for statistical purposes, except where the other party is authorized by law to require the respondent to provide this information.  In such cases, the data are normally used for administrative or regulatory purposes by the other party.

Example of a typical section 12 data sharing question

The following question used for the Canadian Community Health Survey is provided as an example of a data-sharing consent question for which a section 12 data-sharing agreement exists.  As noted above, the data sharing agreement must be in place prior to the commencement of the data collection.

Statistics Canada would like your permission to share the information collected in this survey with provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Provincial ministries of health may make this information available to local health authorities, but names, addresses, telephone numbers and health numbers will not be provided.

Do you agree to share the information you provide”
Yes
No

Non response (A non-response to the question is treated as a “no”.)

Transmission of the share file

The share file is transmitted to the data-sharing partner(s) in an approved manner such as using an encrypted CD-ROM or using the secure e-File Transfer Service.  The transmission of encrypted removable media has been used for a number of years with no instances of a breach of data confidentiality.

Summary

The privacy impact assessment indicates that appropriate safeguards are in place.

Diagram of the Data Flows: Section 12 Data Sharing

The following is a diagram of the data flows regarding the disclosure of information to a data sharing partner.

Diagram of the Data Flows: Section 12 Data Sharing

3.2 Discretionary Disclosure Authorized by Subsection 17(2) Statistics Act

Confidential information can be disclosed pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Statistics Act which gives discretion to the Chief Statistician to release certain types of identifiable information.  This discretion is limited and specific and includes the following types of information:

  • information collected by persons, organizations or government departments for their own purposes and communicated to Statistics Canada as long as the secrecy requirements to which this information was subjected when first collected are adhered to, and an agreement for disclosure is made between the Chief Statistician and the collector;
  • information relating to a person, organization or business if the person, organization or owner of the business consents to the disclosure in writing.

In exercising this discretion, the Chief Statistician is guided by the Discretionary Release Policy which sets out a review and approval process for all requests for disclosure of information under sub-section 17(2) of the Statistics Act.

According to the Discretionary Release Policy, the Chief Statistician could authorize disclosure when:

  • the information is needed for statistical or analytical purposes; and
  • the information released does not disadvantage Statistics Canada’s respondents and does not harm the relationship between the agency and its respondents.

Ultimately, it is only the Chief Statistician who can authorize disclosure and then, only within the limits set out in sub-section 17(2) of the Statistics Act.

Summary

Confidential information can only be disclosed by the program area only upon receipt of a signed Discretionary Disclosure Order.

The data file is transmitted to the approved recipient in an approved manner, such as an encrypted CD-ROM or using the e-File Transfer Service.  The transmission of encrypted removal medium has been used for a number of years with no instances of breaches of data confidentiality.

The privacy impact assessment indicates that appropriate safeguards are in place.  The privacy impact assessment will be reviewed if and when significant modifications to the current process are implemented.

Date Modified: 2010-06-28

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

(2)         SECTION 3 OF THE STATISTICS ACT IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE “STATISTICS BUREAU”

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

Statistics bureau

3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are  . . . .

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

(3)         THE RULES REGARDING “DISCLOSURE” ARE IN SECTION 17 OF THE STATISTICS ACT.  This “Section 3 on Authorized Disclosures seems to be an interpretation of Sections 11 and this Section 17 ?

SECRECY

Prohibition against divulging information

17. (1) Except for the purpose of communicating information in accordance with any conditions of an agreement made under section 11 or 12 and except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act but subject to this section,

(a) no person, other than a person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, and sworn under section 6, shall be permitted to examine any identifiable individual return made for the purposes of this Act; and

(b) no person who has been sworn under section 6 shall disclose or knowingly cause to be disclosed, by any means, any information obtained under this Act in such a manner that it is possible from the disclosure to relate the particulars obtained from any individual return to any identifiable individual person, business or organization.

Exception to prohibition

(2) The Chief Statistician may, by order, authorize the following information to be disclosed:

(a) information collected by persons, organizations or departments for their own purposes and communicated to Statistics Canada before or after May 1, 1971, but that information when communicated to Statistics Canada shall be subject to the same secrecy requirements to which it was subject when collected and may only be disclosed by Statistics Canada in the manner and to the extent agreed on by the collector thereof and the Chief Statistician;

(b) information relating to a person or organization in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the person or organization concerned;

(c) information relating to a business in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the owner for the time being of the business;

(d) information available to the public under any statutory or other law;

(e) information relating to any hospital, mental institution, library, educational institution, welfare institution or other similar non-commercial institution except particulars arranged in such a manner that it is possible to relate the particulars to any individual patient, inmate or other person in the care of any such institution;

(f) information in the form of an index or list of individual establishments, firms or businesses, showing any, some or all of the following in relation to them:

I.        their names and addresses,

II.        the telephone numbers at which they may be reached in relation to statistical matters,

III.        the official language in which they prefer to be addressed in relation to statistical matters,

IV.        the products they produce, manufacture, process, transport, store, purchase or sell, or the services they provide, in the course of their business, or

V.        whether they are within specific ranges of numbers of employees or persons engaged by them or constituting their work force; and

(g) information relating to any carrier or public utility.

Definitions

(3) In this section,

“carrier” «transporteur»

“carrier” means any person or association of persons that owns, operates or manages an undertaking that carries or moves persons or commodities by any form of land, sea or air transport;

“public utility” «entreprise…»

“public utility” means any person or association of persons that owns, operates or manages an undertaking

(a) for the supply of petroleum or petroleum products by pipeline,

(b) for the supply, transmission or distribution of gas, electricity, steam or water,

(c) for the collection and disposal of garbage or sewage or for the control of pollution,

(d) for the transmission, emission, reception or conveyance of information by any telecommunication system, or

(e) for the provision of postal services. R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 17; 1992, c.1, s. 131

Information is privileged

18. (1) Except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act, any return made to Statistics Canada pursuant to this Act and any copy of the return in the possession of the respondent is privileged and shall not be used as evidence in any proceedings whatever.

Idem

(2) No person sworn under section 6 shall by an order of any court, tribunal or other body be required in any proceedings whatever to give oral testimony or to produce any return, document or record with respect to any information obtained in the course of administering this Act.

Application of section

(3) This section applies in respect of any information that Statistics Canada is prohibited by this Act from disclosing or that may only be disclosed pursuant to an authorization under subsection 17(2). 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 17.

Census taken between 1910 and 2005

18.1 (1) The information contained in the returns of each census of population taken between 1910 and 2005 is no longer subject to sections 17 and 18 ninety-two years after the census is taken.

Census in 2006 or later

(2) The information contained in the returns of each census of population taken in 2006 or later is no longer subject to sections 17 and 18 ninety-two years after the census is taken, but only if the person to whom the information relates consents, at the time of the census, to the release of the information ninety-two years later.

Library and Archives of Canada

(3) When sections 17 and 18 cease to apply to information referred to in subsection (1) or (2), the information shall be placed under the care and control of the Library and Archives of Canada. 2005, c. 31.

(The entire document at this URL has “Date Modified: 2010-05-26”.)

2011-01-19 Census Lockheed Martin Trial, SENTENCING takes place tomorrow + What IS the law?

 Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Jan 192011
 

Sentencing takes place:   Thursday January 20,  9:30 Courtroom #8    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Provincial Court on 19th Street.

“What IS the law?”   see  2011-01-21 .

StatsCan “surveys” that take place in between censuses, are, according to the Statistics Act NOT mandatory.  They are voluntary and the sanctions (a fine and/or jail) do not apply.   Taking us back to my original statement:  what StatsCan is doing in between censuses, telling people that they have to supply the information requested in the “surveys”, under threat, is VERY illegal.  It is coercive, using the threat of prosecution, a fine and/or jail to force people to supply information, when the Statistics Act specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions.

A NOTE REGARDING THE CURRENT LAW IN THE STATISTICS ACT and  INPUT FROM TONY CLEMENT’S OFFICE:

–        As far as I know, there were NO CHANGES to the Statistics Act, in the fall sitting of the Legislature.  The existing Statistics Act stands.

The proposal, as I understand it,  is to tell people that the census long form – –  the “new” National Household Survey (NHS) – –  is mandatory, but really it’s voluntary, because there won’t be penalties if you don’t fill it in.  And so (using our great capacity to use language to manipulate) it can be mandatory to hand over your personal information AND it won’t offend the Charter Right to Privacy.   Orwellian newspeak.

In the real world StatsCan workers are telling citizens that the NHS is mandatory, and if they don’t supply the information, they can be prosectued, fined $500 and go to jail for 3 months.    By law, a “survey” is voluntary.  StatsCan is using the threat of court active as a tool of coercion to force citizens to hand over personal information.

 

–        June 2010-06-29  Tories announce that the compulsory census long form is no longer mandatory

–        I subsequently emailed Tony Clement’s office to ask:    are you introducing LEGISLATION to CHANGE the Statistics Act?    (The Minister of Industry, Tony Clement,  is responsible for Statistics Canada.)

–        September 17, 2010    Tony Clement’s office responded:  “ … our government announced its intention to introduce legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the Census and all mandatory surveys administered by Statistics Canada”

(Full text is at:  2010-09-25 entitled  Contradiction in proposed census legislation. George Orwell’s “newspeak”.)

–        My response (September 17 – – from 2010-09-25)  Excerpt:

SIMULTANEOUS “VOLUNTARY” AND “MANDATORY”

An  important contradiction I point out, with the intention that it will be helpful to the changes to the legislation you are making.  You say:

–        “Census information . . .  will be collected as part of a new voluntary NHS.” (INSERT:  National Household Survey”.)  You follow with the statement

–        “legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the Census and all mandatory surveys”

I think you would be the same as me:   I would laugh in derision at any legislation which said that the census long form (INSERT:  and/or StatsCan surveys) was simultaneously “voluntary” and “mandatory”.   However, it is more than a laughing matter.

(INSERT:  I didn’t word this properly.  The Government’s statement makes “surveys” “mandatory”.  This would actually be worse than the current law which makes surveys voluntary.  See  “THE LAW ON STATSCAN “SURVEYS”  at  2011-01-21. The Statistics Act, as it currently stands, specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions that apply to failure to fill in a census form (prosecution, fine and jail).   “Surveys” take place IN BETWEEN censuses.)

Continuing with my input to the Minister:

The word “mandatory” BY DEFINITION, means you have to fill it in.

That is what the actual word says and means.   “Required or commanded by authority.”

By saying that the census long form (INSERT:  or the Surveys)  are  “mandatory” you misinform people, whether there is threatened punishment (jail time) or not.   I spend all my time trying to INFORM, not mislead.   “Communications” or “spin-doctoring” is not right or helpful.   Using words to say something that they don’t mean debases our language (“Newspeak” from George Orwell).  Language is an extremely important communication tool.  There is more than enough room for misunderstanding without deliberately saying what you don’t mean.

The proposal, as I understand it,  is to tell people that the census long form – –  the “new” National Household Survey – –  is mandatory, but really it’s voluntary, because there won’t be penalties if you don’t fill it in.  And so (using our great capacity to rationalize) it can be mandatory to hand over your personal information AND it won’t offend the Charter Right to Privacy.   Orwellian newspeak.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

And as explained many times over, the Census Long Form NEVER WAS MANDATORY because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a “biographical core of personal information” and the Government cannot meet the criteria for overriding the individual right.  (Charter Rights are a higher law than legislation such as the Statistics Act.)

The Judge disagrees (I was found guilty).  Her interpretation of the Law is under appeal.

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

Court decisions are posted on-line at  http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/WhatsNew/NewJudgmentsPC.htm

See also   2010-03-31 What is the law: StatsCan “surveys” vs census?    Edmontonian Susan Crowther threatened by StatsCan.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries