Sandra Finley

2011-01-11 TO CBC: vaccinations and autism

Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt) No Responses »

Jan 112011

It is plausible that autism is caused by a COMBINATION of vaccinations, or by a combination of the heavy metals and other ingredients in vaccinations. First it became known that mercury (thimerasol) was being used in vaccinations. Aluminum, another neuro toxin, is also being used.

The interview centred entirely on ONE vaccination, MMR (measels-mumps-rubella). The work of only ONE man was used to discredit the question of the possible role of vaccinations in autism. The body of evidence was disregarded.

Your guest made a statement suggesting that the vaccinations have remained the same over time. There are more vaccinations given to children now than in the past. And they are given at younger ages when development is largely incomplete, hence more easily disrupted.

Your guest said that the incidence of autism is escalating. Yes. He spoke of the need to provide assistance to individuals and their families.

That is a typical response of the drug-centred medi-care system. Construct an industry out of treating the condition.

Why would you not place major resources into identifying and eliminating the causes of autism? That is a much more humane and cost-effective approach for everyone in the community.

It is the same story as cancer. We KNOW many of the major causes and have for decades. But we won’t take the steps to eliminate them.

Follow the money, you’ll understand why we refuse to work aggressively on identifying and discovering ways to eliminate causes.

The problem is exacerbated by Government guidelines for research funding: priority is given to projects that have the potential for commercialization. There is great benefit to society for addressing the causes of developmental problems, but there is no direct commercial benefit to any corporate entity. Alas for us and the babies who will develop autism and other developmental problems.

Sandra Finley

2011-01-10 Enviro-Pig = pig genes + E. coli genes + mouse DNA. Seriously. Coming to your favourite restaurant and you will never know the difference!

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified, Health No Responses »

Jan 102011

(Scroll down to the articles that make up the “CONTENTS” of this posting. This first part is badly in need of editing – – sorry.)

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

Transgenic means “of, pertaining to, or containing a gene or genes transferred from another species.”

These transgenic pigs = pig genes + E. coli genes + mouse DNA. The lead researcher doing all this is Cecil Forsberg.

The genetically-modified (GM) (transgenic) pig trade-marked by the University of Guelph, Ontario is real and it is intended to enter the food system. When? . . see item #2.

Backup copy of U of G webpage: Enviropig, trade-marked by the University of Guelph, Ontario.

The GM pig is an opportunistic response to problems created by industrialized meat production. It is a seriously wrong response.

Conveniently for the biotech industry, food that contains GMOs does not get labelled as such in Canada or in the U.S. They are required to be labelled in Europe. In Canada the battle to get labelling of GM food ended in defeat when the industry bought the Consumers Association to come on-side with them.

See item #13, Elizabeth May on “progress traps”. She mentions the over-production of phosphorous with its consequences for water pollution that comes with industrial-scale hog production (phosphorous – think eutrophication, think Lake Winnipeg, think “dead zones”, for example in the Gulf of Mexico).

I would like to draw to attention that the pigs are also being genetically-engineered because “. . . they’re not very efficient at digesting the kind of corn and soybeans that make the cheapest livestock feed. As a consequence, their poop is thick with undigested waste products, including phosphorous.”

Remember: corn and soybeans are two of the largest bioteched crops. People may remember GM “smartstax” corn: inserted into it is material related to EIGHT different biocides to produce resistance to various chemical applications for “weeds”, insects, fungi, etc. Yes, the problems are created because the animals are being fed materials they have not evolved to eat. The same is happening with cattle in intensive livestock operations, as with pigs.

There is no way of tracking the health impacts of pork produced from “enviro-pigs” with their E. coli and mouse DNA, themselves raised on a diet of GM corn and soy because the Government regulatory system bowed to industry demands to require no labeling.

You think that we have an epidemic of childhood obesity, diabetes and cancer? Wait until the full effects of the introduction of GM meat are experienced. But it will be impossible to establish cause-and-effect because the interactions are complex, and because there is no labeling.

“ … will be probably the most significant transgenic food to be approved. We’re in new territory,” Steven Liss (University of Guelph Vice-President of Research, now moved to a similar position at Queen’s University).

Monsanto has a long-standing and large involvement in the University of Guelph where the pigs are being engineered. In 2005 Monsanto tried to patent pigs, as preposterous as that may seem (item #2).

CBAN has done a terrific job so far in battling the Canadian Government over “enviro-pig”. (There is nothing “enviro” about it. See item #4, the description of the trademark.)

Now CBAN needs help for the final push to stop transgenic pigs. See item #8, register resistance with the Minister of Health and get more people to help:

– Get information to ethnic groups that use a lot of pork.

– Restaurants that serve pork should receive a heads-up.

– Food organizations have a particular interest.

– Health organizations.

– I wonder if there is organized resistance in the U.S. where (item #7) enviro-pig is being registered?

Letters to elected representatives will not necessarily win the day, although with a minority Government and enough of us joining the CBAN effort, we might be able to do it.

The problem:

· unelected Government officials in the bureaucracy, many of them with ties to industry AND

· some scientists and administrators in the Universities

carry the ball for the corporations. The biotech agenda is carried out covertly. So we need to make the anonymous people known, they have responsibility. If they are truly serving the public interest, they will want their names known – – they are our benefactors.

From item #6 (March 2010), “Steven Liss, associate vice-president of research services of the university (of Guelph) says it’s (enviro-pig) an important milestone and means that other facilities can now start breeding the pigs for research — and hopefully, one day, for more”. Liss is now the vice-principal (research) at Queen’s University, as mentioned.

See item #15. I emailed Steven Liss. I invite you to make your views known to administrators, faculty and students in the universities, especially to universities that have Colleges of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine.

Also from Liss: “Canada has approved only limited production of the Enviropigs, in controlled research environments. It will be years before meat from genetically engineered pigs could be available for human consumption. “This will be probably the most significant transgenic food to be approved. We’re in new territory,” Steven Liss, a spokesperson for the project, told (Link no longer valid) National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/ (Item #14)

Liss is an academic who got his PhD from the University of Saskatchewan. You may remember theGM Triffid flax fiasco at the University of Saskatchewan that cost tax-payers, farmers and Europeans millions of dollars? I will get the emails on Triffid from our network posted to this blog as soon as time permits.

IMPORTANT: The lesson taught by the movie Inside Job (released Oct 2010, narrated by Matt Damon, subject of another posting):

some players in academia will sell their souls on behalf of industry (i.e. for money)�· industry works with (buys) some elected officials who make the laws· the regulators are sometimes just industry people who have been strategically placed in the bureaucracy.· Other times the regulators simply get overpowered by high-priced industry lawyers.· There will be repeated warnings from honest people inside and outside the system.· The people who are profiting from the lack of regulation and the corrupted products KNOW full well what they are doing, but they are completely without conscience. They lie through their teeth, don’t bat an eye and laugh their way to the bank.· The warnings go unheeded.
· And then it’s the collapse of the system. Everything was there to know what was coming. The financial crisis of 2008 did not have to happen. It was catastrophic for millions of people and there’s more to come.

That’s the template.

And we will pay the price – big time — again. You had best be informed and actively participate with other citizens to see that WE chart the path forward. There is no room for naivete or “trust” in the system. It is badly corrupted. As Jane Jacobs explained in her book “Systems of Survival, A Dialogue on the Ethics of Commerce and Politics” when you start to mix the corporate sphere with the public interest, you get corruption.

Our industrial food supply is not health-giving; it is about to get worse with transgenic pigs, unless we do something about it.

Or, just fight it for the sake of the pigs. The media does not tell you about the grotesque creatures engineered by the scientists and then thrown on the trash heap. Pigs that have had human growth genes mixed with their DNA – solid film footage. Please refer to
2004-11-13 Genetically modified: documentary “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL”. GM fish and pigs. Also
2005-02-07 Genetically modified: “Life Running Out of Control” debuts (item #2, the interview with Bertram Verhaag).

Together, we can rustle up lots more help for CBAN, just by forwarding information, thinking – – WHO will help? (it doesn’t take much when there are so many of us).

Cheers!

/Sandra

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

CONTENTS

(1) COMMENTARY

(2) 2005: MONSANTO’S ATTEMPT TO REGISTER PATENTS ON PIGS. AND WHAT IS THE STATUS OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIROPIG? …. WHEN?

(3) UNIVERISTY OF GUELPH’S WEB PAGE ON “ENVIRO-PIG” (a registered trademark)

(4) WHAT DOES THE ENVIRO-PIG TRADE MARK COVER AND WHO OWNS IT?

(5) INTERVIEW WITH LEAD SCIENTIST, CECIL FORSBERG

(6) U.S. TO VATICAN, “GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS A ‘MORAL IMPERATIVE’”

(7) GUELPH’S “ENVIROPIG” SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS OF EPA, MARCH 19, 2010

(8) BUT GO TO THE “CBAN” WEBSITE (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network). THE BEST INFO. BLESS AND SUPPORT THEM! LUCY SHARRATT IS AN AMAZING LADY.

(9) MONSANTO DEVELOPS “GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIG”, THE PATENTING OF LIVESTOCK (GLOBAL RESEARCH, May 2006)

(10) PATENTING PORKY (ALIVE MAGAZINE, #281, March 2006)

(11) VOTES OPPOSING GMOs CRASH THE ECONOMIST POLL WEBSITE, NOVEMBER 2010

(12) A NICE PIECE OF SATIRE, MONSANTO PRESENTS: THE PORKEN

(13) ELIZABETH MAY ON ENVIRO-PIG, “PROGRESS TRAPS”, APRIL 2010

(14) National Geographic March 30, 2010, REPORTING IS ONE-SIDED, UN-CRITICAL

(15) STEVEN LISS (VP UNIVERSITY RESEARCH) SAYS HE WANTS TO HEAR FROM “THE COMMUNITY”

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

(1) COMMENTARY

There is HUGE incentive to pitch in on the CBAN effort to stop the University of Guelph, the Federal Government and the Pork Producers of Ontario from putting genetically-modified pigs on the menu.

The Pork Producers own the trademark on “enviro-pig”.

Given:

– Monsanto’s attempt in 2005 to patent pigs (item #2)

– knowing how Monsanto works through producer organizations (e.g. Canola Growers Executive bought and paid for)

– from experience with bovine growth hormone (attempted bribery in Canada, but Monsanto got it registered in the U.S. through their placements of people in the bureaucracy, the buying of politicians, and lobbying)

– Monsanto’s funding of the Agricultural Colleges in Saskatoon and at Guelph

I think it is possible that Monsanto has a discreet role in the enviro-pig.

Before the call-to-action to join the CBAN effort I like to supply background information, especially for newcomers.

This is related to the “Inside Job” movie on the financial crisis in the U.S. that created repercussions and hardships around the world (posted January 8). The conditions are the same, it is only the business sector that is different (financial versus biotechnology). The universities play the same role (service to the corporate interest). The characteristics are the same – centralization of money and power in the sector followed by its corrupting influence on democracy and on our institutions like the universities. And then disaster for the society.

The regulators won’t step in and regulate. The “influential” people who should know better and do something about the situation are instead content to sell their souls and make money.

In the end, the warnings become the reality. Who gets left holding the sorry bag?

But it doesn’t have to be. We have won numerous important victories in the biotech field. We can win this one. See item #8. Mount the steeds! CBAN leads the way!

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

(2) 2005: MONSANTO’S ATTEMPT TO REGISTER PATENTS ON PIGS. AND WHAT IS THE STATUS OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIROPIG? …. WHEN?

For the January 5^th update on GMO’s I forgot that in 2005 Monsanto was trying to register the same patents in a number of countries, all related to pigs. Greenpeace stumbled onto it; Monsanto’s attempts were thwarted at least for the time being.

2005-08-02 GMO’s – Monsanto applies for global pig patent

What is the status of approval for Enviropig? FROM CBAN:

The University of Guelph is now waiting for Health Canada to approve Enviropig™ for human consumption. According to the University, they submitted an application for approval on April 23, 2009. The application and the process for its evaluation are kept secret by the University and Health Canada so there is no way of knowing when the application could be approved, but it could be granted at any time.

The University also submitted an application for approval to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) which is likely a request to approve Enviropig™ for use in other livestock feed. This is because pigs are rendered to feed to poultry and other animals, as a protein source. The nature of the request to the CFIA is unknown because the agency will neither confirm nor deny that they are assessing a request.

Approval requested in the U.S.

In 2007, the University of Guelph submitted a request for approval of Enviropig™ to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where it will be assessed as a new drug.

Approval requested in China

The University of Guelph is seeking licensees for Enviropig™, especially in China. In 2008, David Hobson of the University of Guelph, and the Board Chair of Ontario Pork traveled to China to “pursue access to China’s regulatory process and potential partners for commercialization of the Enviropig.”

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

(3) UNIVERISTY OF GUELPH’S WEB PAGE ON “ENVIRO-PIG” (a registered trademark)

Many thanks to Elaine.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/

Enviropig™

The Enviropig™ is a genetically enhanced line of Yorkshire pigs with the capability of digesting plant phosphorus more efficiently than conventional Yorkshire pigs. These pigs produce the enzyme phytase in the salivary glands that is secreted in the saliva. When cereal grains are consumed, the phytase mixes with the feed as the pig chews. Once the food is swallowed, the phytase enzyme is active in the acidic environment of the stomach, degrading indigestible phytate in the feed that accounts for 50 to 75% of the grain phosphorus.

Figure 1. Phytase produced in the salivary glands and secreted in the saliva increases the digestion of phosphorus contained in feed grains.

Since the Enviropig™ is able to digest cereal grain phosphorus there is no need to supplement the diet with either mineral phosphate or commercially produced phytase, and there is less phosphorus in the manure. When the phosphorus depleted manure is spread on land in areas of intense swine production there is less potential of phosphorus to leach into freshwater ponds, streams and rivers. Because phosphorus is the major nutrient enabling algal growth that is the leading cause of fish kills resulting from anoxic conditions, and reduced water quality, the low phosphorus manure from Enviropigs has a reduced environmental impact in areas where soil phosphorus exceeds desirable levels. Therefore the enviropig biotechnology has two beneficial attributes, it reduces feed cost and reduces the potential of water pollution. Furthermore, the technology is simple, if you know how to raise pigs, you know how to raise Enviropigs!

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

(4) WHAT DOES THE ENVIRO-PIG TRADE MARK COVER AND WHO OWNS IT?

Note: transgenic means of, pertaining to, or containing a gene or genes transferred from another species.

And don’t you love it?! The enviro-pig is related to “Natural agricultural products”! (Who do these @$#^* think they’re kidding? Strip them of their doctoral degrees.)

(Link no longer valid) http://healthcare.zibb.com/trademark/enviro-pig/29733216

Trademark details

(Trademark owned by Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, (Link no longer valid) http://www.ontariopork.on.ca/cms/en/AboutUs/aboutus.aspx )

Enviro-Pig® is a registered trademark used for Swine Feed Supplements, Medicated Swine Feed Additives, Vaccines For Swine, Pharmaceutical Preparations For the Treatment of Disease In Swine, and Swine Sperm Swine Eggs For Breeding Purposes, Swine Feed, Non-Medicated Swine Feed Additives, Swine Embryos, and Live Transgenic Swine Wholesale Distributorships Featuring Transgenic Swine, Swine Embryos, Swine Sperm, Swine Eggs, Swine Feed, Pharmaceutical Preparations For the Treatment of Disease In Swine, Vaccines For Swine, Swine Feed Supplements and Medicated and Non-Medicated Swine Feed Additives Animal Breeding and Insemination Services, Namely, Transgenic Swine Breeding, Artificial Insemination of Swine, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Eggs, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Sperm, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Embryos, Technical Consultation and Advice Regarding Transgenic Swine Breeding and Transgenic Swine Production, Production of Transgenic Swine, Swine Eggs, Swine Sperm, Swine Embryos, Swine Feed, Swine Feed Supplements and Swine Medicated and Non-Medicated Feed Additives and Pharmaceutical Preparations For Swine To the Order and Specification of Others and owned by Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board. Full trade mark registration details, registered images and more information below.

Goods and/or Services:	Swine Feed Supplements, Medicated Swine Feed Additives, Vaccines For Swine, Pharmaceutical Preparations For the Treatment of Disease In Swine, and Swine Sperm Swine Eggs For Breeding Purposes, Swine Feed, Non-Medicated Swine Feed Additives, Swine Embryos, and Live Transgenic Swine Wholesale Distributorships Featuring Transgenic Swine, Swine Embryos, Swine Sperm, Swine Eggs, Swine Feed, Pharmaceutical Preparations For the Treatment of Disease In Swine, Vaccines For Swine, Swine Feed Supplements and Medicated and Non-Medicated Swine Feed Additives Animal Breeding and Insemination Services, Namely, Transgenic Swine Breeding, Artificial Insemination of Swine, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Eggs, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Sperm, Implantation of Genetic Material Into Swine Embryos, Technical Consultation and Advice Regarding Transgenic Swine Breeding and Transgenic Swine Production, Production of Transgenic Swine, Swine Eggs, Swine Sperm, Swine Embryos, Swine Feed, Swine Feed Supplements and Swine Medicated and Non-Medicated Feed Additives and Pharmaceutical Preparations For Swine To the Order and Specification of Others
Serial Number:	75753719
Registration Number:	2699082
Filing Date:	Jul 15, 1999
Last Applicant(s)/ Owner(s) of Record	Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board 15 Waulron Street Po Box 740 Etobicoke, Ontario, M9c 5h3 CA
Related Products:	Pharmaceuticals, Natural Agricultural Products, Advertising and Business, Miscellaneous Services; Scientific and technological services, and research and design relating thereto; Industrial analysis and research services; Design and development of computer hardware and software; Legal services

As always there is excellent and better information on the CBAN website. See item #8.

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

(5) INTERVIEW WITH LEAD SCIENTIST, CECIL FORSBERG

http://www.dnafiles.org/programs/designing-garden/transcript/297 EXCERPT

JOHN HOCKENBERRY (interviewer) : So far, we’ve been talking about food from genetically modified plants, but what about animals? The U.S. doesn’t have specific regulations for GM animals. You won’t find any GM salmon at the fish counter yet or hamburger at the meat case or bacon either.

Canadian scientist Cecil Forsberg has been working for years to market his ““Enviropig”s.” They would have a tough time getting to market in the U.S., because they’ve been engineered using e-coli. In Canada, GM animals are called “novel foods,” and even there, the ““Enviropig” have been stuck in the pen. The DNA Files producer Brian Mann has the story.

BRIAN MANN: A mile outside of Guelph, Ontario, the tree lined streets give way to fields and stretches of wood. Microbiologist Cecil Forsberg points me down a gravel drive towards what looks like a modern industrial farm.

CECIL FORSBERG: You make a left turn. I’d stay away from the front door where your vehicle can pick up the smell.

BRIAN MANN: It’s a rental. So I don’t mind the smell. [Cecil laughs.]

BRIAN MANN: We park a safe distance away. Despite the wind, there is an odor–cows and mowed grass, but overwhelming it all, the sickly sweet stench of pig manure. Forsberg opens the door to a sprawling barn operated by the University of Guelph. The building is part pigsty, part high tech laboratory. Massive fans churn constantly, maintaining the temperature and easing the odor. Pigs are famous for eating a lot, and it turns out they’re not very efficient at digesting the kind of corn and soybeans that make the cheapest livestock feed. As a consequence, their poop is thick with undigested waste products, including phosphorous. For 11 years, this has been Cecil Forsberg’s obsession. . . . read more http://www.dnafiles.org/programs/designing-garden/transcript/297

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

(6) U.S. TO VATICAN, “GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS A ‘MORAL IMPERATIVE’”

This article elaborates on industry efforts mentioned in the Jan 5th posting, at the Vatican and in Europe to coerce the acceptance of GM foods.

Thanks to Elaine:

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/us-to-vatican-genetically-modified-food-is-a-moral-imperative/

US to Vatican: Genetically Modified Food Is a “Moral Imperative”
Mike Ludwig, Truthout: “Secret United States diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks detail efforts to promote genetically modified (GM) crops and biotechnology across the globe, including the Vatican, where US diplomats pushed the Roman Catholic Church to support biotech food in developing nations. Cables from embassies in Spain, Austria and even Pakistan reveal the US diplomats have clearly sided with the biotech industry, even as court cases and public debates over GM food raged in the US and abroad.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =

(7) GUELPH’S “ENVIROPIG” SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS OF EPA, MARCH 19, 2010

Also thanks to Elaine:

http://gefreebc.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/guelphs-enviropig-satisfies-requirements-of-epa/

From: GE Free B.C. (GE = Genetically Engineered)

Guelph’s “Enviropig” Satisfies Requirements of EPA

Posted on March 19, 2010

Angela Mulholland, CTV.ca News Date: Saturday Mar. 6, 2010 11:01 AM ET

The Enviropig, a Canadian-designed, genetically-engineered hog, recently edged a little closer to full regulatory approval. But how likely is the pig to ever make it to the dinner tables of Canadians?

Enviropigs are a line of line Yorkshire pigs genetically enhanced to be more environmentally friendly. The porkers, created by researchers at the University of Guelph, have a modified gene that gives them the ability to digest phosphorus in grain more efficiently.

The result? They poop up to 60 per cent less phosphorus into their manure.

That’s a good thing, since the phosphorus in the manure of factory farm animals is known to promote algae growth in water, leading to fish kills and other water problems.

Enviropigs have been under development for well over 10 years, with the aim that they could be one day be sold to commercial hog farmers.

But so far, while the researchers have enjoyed the support of Ontario Pork, a full commercial partner has yet to sign on. And much of the reason for that is the complicated regulatory hurdles of getting the pigs and their meat approved for eating.

One of those hurdles was finally crossed last month, when the University of Guelph announced that it had satisfied the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, allowing the Enviropig to be produced under strict confinement and control measures.

What that means is that the federal government has determined that the pigs are not toxic to the environment. They are also convinced that the pigs do not pose any other threats to the environment — such as what might happen if the pigs escaped their quarters at the university and integrated themselves into other pig populations. (April here: so what happened to studies on human health? Why do they always miss that?)

Pigs in production? Won’t happen soon

Steven Liss, associate vice-president of research services of the university says it’s an important milestone and means that other facilities can now start breeding the pigs for research — and hopefully, one day, for more.

“This is really the first step in the approval process which, at the end of the day, is intended to get final approval to be able to commercially produce the Enviropig,” he told CTV.ca by phone.

The university has an application into Health Canada, submitted last year, asking the agency to declare the pigs fit for human consumption. Another application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been pending for even longer.

The FDA recently released draft guidelines that outline how genetically modified animals will be regulated. Health Canada has not offered any insight into how it might do the same, though it’s expected they will follow the FDA’s lead.

But the wait for those final approvals could be long. Still, Liss says even after more than 10 years, his researchers are not discouraged.

“It’s been a long haul, but that’s partly because really, it’s still early days in the regulatory approval of transgenic animals particularly for commercial production and human consumption,” explains Liss.

“It’s not just checking off the boxes that the government requires, but it’s also about ensuring that regulators can properly address concerns that the public may have.”

The university contends the Enviropig is just a regular pig, like any other in every way except one: it can produce phytase enzymes in its saliva.

That phytase allows the porkers to break down phytate, which is the indigestible phosphorus in the corn, barley and soybeans that hogs on commercial farms are typically fed.

As it works now, hog farmers generally either supplement their animal feed with phytase or add digestible phosphorus. But either option adds costs to the farmer.

So Guelph biotechnologists decided the answer was to change the pig. They took a gene from — of all things — E. coli bacteria. (The bacteria, as it turns out, are great at producing phytase) That gene was attached to a piece of mouse DNA and then introduced into pig embryos and transferred into a sow.

The first phytase-producing pig — dubbed Wayne by the hockey-loving research team — was born in 1999. Thirty more have been born since.

Experiments have shown that Enviropigs are as healthy as conventional pigs and that the phytase production gene passes along well from one generation to the next.

Liss says the pigs should appeal to commercial hog farmers not only because of their environmental benefits but because they could help producers lower their costs.

“We know that there’s significant risk to the Canadian pork industry, which is not strong at the moment, in terms of the global marketplace,” he said.

But will the pigs and their pork appeal to average Canadians?

That’s an open-ended question. Surveys from Health Canada and others have found the vast majority of Canadians remain deeply suspicious of “biotech” food and concerned about the long-term risks of genetically modified organisms.

That’s despite the fact that about 70 per cent of the food on supermarket shelves already contains GM ingredients.

Liss concedes there will always be a certain segment of the population that will never accept the technology behind Enviropigs. But surveys also suggest that many simply do not understand animal biotechnology or the benefits it can offer.

In the end, Liss says it’s not really for university’s researchers to try to sway public opinion.

“What we do is do the best science that we can. That’s the important thing that the university brings. We’re very interested in commercialization, but what we can best do is bring forth the appropriate science to bear on the question,” he said.

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

(8) BUT GO TO THE “CBAN” WEBSITE (Canadian Biotechnology Action Network). THE BEST INFO. BLESS AND SUPPORT THEM! LUCY IS AN AMAZING LADY.

(Link no longer valid) http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Enviropig

(Sandra): There is a place for suggestions on the website. Maybe you have some? I will add some later.

I don’t know if the responsible scientists are aware of public reaction to their work, which is ostensibly to serve the interests of the citizens who own the Universities. It is our responsibility not just to make our views known to the Government officials, but also to University administrators and scientists.

Students should also be drawn into the discussion. If there is no discussion, it is not “education” that they are receiving.

Faculty at the Universities of Saskatchewan and Guelph,

– Departments of Agriculture

– Departments of Veterinary Medicine

Students in these faculties.

I also think that Departments of Philosophy (ethics) should have valuable input for the discussion.

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

(9) MONSANTO DEVELOPS “GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIG”, THE PATENTING OF LIVESTOCK, FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH, May 2006

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2480

Monsanto develops “Genetically Modified Pig”The patenting of livestockby Chris Gupta

Global Research, May 20, 2006

Editor’s Note: Greenpeace has covered this issue in several 2005 reports, when Monsanto launched the GM pigs Patent

“The Earth is flat, pigs were invented by Monsanto, and genetically modified organisms are safe. Right.”

Through more patent perversions such as the earlier “Terminator Corporations’ Suicide Seeds” Monsanto is blatantly continuing their scheme of rounding up the food chain from A to Z!

“One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don’t own — and the record shows they don’t care if it’s safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level. So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they’ve made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig. ”

“The big picture is chilling to anyone who mistrusts Monsanto’s record disinterest for environmental safety. And if you’re not worried, you should be: central control of food supply has been a standard ingredient for social and political control throughout history. By creating a monopoly position, Monsanto can force dangerous experiments like the release of GMOs into the environment on an unwilling public.They can ensure that GMOs will be sold and consumed wherever they say they will.”

Such blatant abuse can only continue if it is not challenged. . . . . full text at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2480 )

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

(10) PATENTING PORKY, ALIVE MAGAZINE, #281, March 2006

(Link no longer valid) http://www.alive.com/4324a12a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=635

Patenting Porky
by author Susan Safyan

(Excerpt)

“ . . . . . . Mapping Miss Piggy

Monsanto Choice Genetics™, a division of Monsanto, was the first to complete a physical map of the pig genome (the genetic material of a living organism) in January 2001. This was the first genome map completed for any livestock species. Monsanto is eager to play corporate catch-up with the lead player in the US pork industry, Pig Improvement Company (PIC), a subsidiary of British biotech firm Sygen International, which controls an estimated 40 percent of US market share. Monsanto currently holds about 10 percent of the US swine production market. Ron Schinnour, general manager of Monsanto Choice Genetics™, was quoted as saying “We’d like to build a business like theirs.”

Greenpeace and the Organic Consumers Association, on the other hand, are concerned that once Monsanto holds a patent on pig populations they can sue farmers whose pigs display the same characteristics outlined in the patent claims. Monsanto has, after all, successfully sued farmers, such as Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser, for allowing Monsanto canola seeds to grow on his land, even though the seeds accidentally blew onto his fields. Monsanto’s aggressive stance on protecting its patent seems to make it oblivious to the real possibility of cross-pollination by insects, wind, or rain.

What would happen if a genetically modified pig was accidentally bred with an ordinary pig? Who would own the piglets? Would royalties have to be paid to Monsanto? If you think it would be impossible for GE pigs to escape from their closely-guarded labs, read on.

A Pig in a Poke

So far, no transgenic animals have been approved for human or animal consumption in Canada, although they are increasingly used in laboratory and field tests. The carcasses of these animals are supposed to be disposed of by incineration or composting. However, in 2002, and again in 2004, genetically engineered pigs from biotech labs in Ontario and Quebec were inadvertently rendered into animal feed. Whether the meat from animals fed the GE pigs reached consumers is “unclear,” according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). In the US, hundreds of transgenic pigs have accidentally entered the human food supply, some as food for other factory-farmed animals, others more directly–as sausages.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Canada are monitored by the CFIA and Environment Canada. The CFIA assesses the safety of genetically altered foods and products derived from biotechnology, including plants and animals.

However, there is no system in Canada that allows consumers to determine whether foods have been genetically engineered or whether food products contain GE ingredients; there is no mandatory labelling of GE foods, making them something of a pig in a poke. Food growers and manufacturers are governed only by the Canadian Standard for Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering–which, clearly, is entirely voluntary and, therefore, unenforceable.

An estimated 60 percent of processed foods sold in Canada and the US contain genetically engineered materials–amounting to almost 30,000 food products. Foods that are genetically engineered now include canola oil, soybean products, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and, in the US, dairy products containing Monsanto’s rBGH, a growth hormone injected into some dairy cattle. (rBGH has been banned by Health Canada.) These can also be “hidden” in food products, for example as cornstarch made from GE corn or lecithin derived from soybeans.

Many more GE foods are on the brink of being approved and marketed. Farmed Atlantic salmon have been genetically engineered to grow faster than their wild counterparts. Chickens are being developed containing genes that make them resistant to viral diseases, able to grow faster, lay more eggs, and produce less body fat. Merck, better known as a pharmaceutical corporation, has produced the MacroChicken, a bigger bird engineered with bovine growth hormones.

Makin’ Bacon

Scientists are just as creative with GE pigs as they’ve been with fish, chicken, and dairy cattle. The EnviroPig™, produced at the University of Guelph, is being marketed as an environmentally friendly product. An unpleasant side-effect of factory-farmed pigs is the enormous amount of pig manure, rich in phosphates, which must be disposed of. When these phosphates leach into water supplies, fish stocks can be damaged, even wiped out. The EnviroPigs™ have been genetically engineered, using E. coli and mouse genes, to produce up to 60 percent less phosphate in their waste.

The Guelph researchers assure consumers that “pork from these animals will be safe when it is approved,” although it is unknown what affect the bacteria and mouse genes spliced into the pigs will have on humans. Moreover, these are the same researchers who accidentally released 11 enviropiglets to a rendering plant for livestock feed in 2002.

Other reported transgenic pig projects, currently under development at Monsanto, involve using the gene IGF-1 (associated with cancer risk in humans) to enhance porcine muscle growth, and recombinant growth hormone (which has caused heart abnormalities in the pigs) to increase overall growth. The Pig Improvement Company is genetically engineering pigs to reproduce more prolifically, resist disease, and carry less backfat.

Pigs with Wings?

It’s entirely possible. Whether it’s tomatoes with fish genes, corn with bacteria genes, or pigs with mouse genes, genetic engineering raises human health, environmental, and
ethical concerns. A number of scientific, consumer advocacy, and animal welfare groups have issued warnings about the inherent and often unknown risks of genetically modifying life.

Canadian geneticist and environmental activist David Suzuki has spoken out against corporate genetic engineering. While a form of genetic modification through same-species breeding has been practised by farmers for millennia (known as vertical inheritance), biotechnology is now allowing us to transfer genes from species to species (horizontal inheritance), with unpredictable and sometimes unintended consequences. For example, salmon genetically engineered with growth hormone unexpectedly turned green, while petunias that had the gene for the colour red spliced into them showed decreased fertility and growth.

Among other possible unintended consequences are those outlined by the Ecological Society of America (ESA), in its position paper on Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment. The ESA expresses concerns that transgenic organisms (like faster-growing GE salmon) could spread and disrupt wild populations, leading to a loss of biological diversity. Plants bred to be resistant to herbicides (like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products) could spread their herbicide-resistant traits to weeds through cross-pollination, creating super-weeds requiring ever stronger, more toxic herbicides. It will be impossible to recall such GE life forms back to their labs once they have been released, and the crops of both organic and nonorganic farmers will be–and have been–altered forever.

The Organic Consumers Association has issued a statement calling for a global moratorium on genetically engineered foods; they cite studies showing the toxicity of some GE foods to humans and animals; increased cancer risk from consumption of GE foods such as rBGH dairy products; serious food allergies to hidden GE ingredients; potential increased antibiotic resistance in those who consume GE foods; and damage to beneficial insects and soil micro-organisms exposed to GE crops.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Council for Responsible Genetics have issued warnings about the potential environmental and human health risks of genetic engineering, including the creation of new and especially virulent viruses. Both Andrew Weil, integrated-medicine practitioner, and Barry Commoner, a founder of the modern environmental movement, have spoken out about the faulty science guiding genetic engineering. Many animal rights groups have raised ethical concerns about the grisly and casually cruel ways laboratory animals, such as transgenic pigs bred for human organ donation, are treated.

No More Hogwash

Proponents of genetic engineering say it promises to improve our food resources, clean up the environment, even end world hunger. But each of these chimerical marketing claims has been knocked down as the illusion it is. Mutating and patenting life doesn’t improve the lives and health of farmers, consumers, or the animal species with whom we share a majority of our genes.

Rather, as consumers, we can support better farming practices by buying organically raised beef, sheep, and pigs (which cannot be fed GMOs or undergo engineering), wild fish, and organic produce. Communities in Canada, the US, Asia, and Europe have declared themselves “GE-Free” (see www.canadians.org). Make your town the next GE-Free Zone in Canada. Wilbur and Babe will thank you.

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

(11) VOTES OPPOSING GMOs CRASH THE ECONOMIST POLL WEBSITE, NOVEMBER 2010

The “Natural News” view of what happened is followed by The Economist’s explanation.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030406_GMOs_survey.html

Monday, November 15, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030406_GMOs_survey.html#ixzz1AVDBIscY

Last week we published a story urging our readers to vote NO on the GMO / biotech survey being hosted by The Economist (http://www.naturalnews.com/030370_G…). Within two hours after our post went live and people started sharing it on Facebook and elsewhere, the Economist’s poll servers crashed hard and stayed offline for the entire weekend.

Before this happened, we were winning the vote, of course. Word had spread among the natural health community, and we all began calling for people to vote. Right after we published our article, NO votes from readers all around the world started to flood in, and we saw the survey begin to shift even more strongly in our favor. Had The Economist’s servers actually been able to handle the voting, I have no doubt the final vote would have been 70% against GMOs and 30% in favor.

But as it stood, with their servers offline, the voting was halted at 62% no and 38% yes. Still a victory against the idea of GMOs, of course, but nowhere near the numbers that should have been recorded.

The Economist explains their server problem

“We had a technical problem with our site,” explains Tom Standage, the Digital Editor for the magazine.

“During the last few days of the debate the address of the staging server was circulated on a number of environmental mailing lists, and on Twitter. This caused a sudden flood of “no” votes on the staging server, causing the underlying database to collapse because it was not load-balanced. That’s why we’ve been unable to announce the vote in the usual way.

Instead, we have taken the votes from both servers and have added them up to calculate the final tally: 38% yes, 62% no.

…Now you know what happened and why the voting tallies appeared to be behaving so oddly. We apologise for the confusion.” (http://www.economist.com/blogs/news…)

When the masses revolt against biotech…

The interesting part about this is found in the observation of what happens when the masses take action to protest their foods and seeds being poisoned by corporations. This mass online uprising took down The Economist’s servers in about two hours. (Most NaturalNews readers never even got a chance to vote.) And this was after many days of the so-called “science bloggers” trying desperately to win the vote even before we found out about it.

If you think an online survey crashing from the sheer weight of opposition to GMOs is bad, just wait until there’s a global crop failure caused by the unintended consequences of GMOs and the people suffer mass starvation as a result. If that scenario unfolds, you might see a mass violent uprising that could very well involve people marching on Monsanto’s headquarters and quite literally burning it down out of anger and frustration.

When you mess with nature and deprive people of their right to seeds, crops and food, you’d better be willing to face some rather serious consequences. When corporations like Monsanto are playing God with the food supply, they’re also playing God with people’s lives. And if something goes terribly wrong that leads to a collapse in one or more food crops, I have a feeling the public isn’t going to be very forgiving. I wouldn’t want to be a Monsanto executive in the aftermath of such a scenario, that’s for sure…

The Economist

Despite the glitches, it’s good to know the Economist wasn’t engaged in outright cheating on this survey. We’ve seen lots of cheating before. There were times in the past when NaturalNews readers were actually winning a survey, and the outfit running the survey would simply take it down, remove all the votes they didn’t like, and put it back online with wildly different numbers. (A lot of online surveys are rigged from the start, which is why we normally don’t even participate in them.)
—- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THE ECONOMIST EXPLAINS:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/11/economist_debates

Biotechnology debate: The result

Nov 12th 2010, 16:48 by The Economist online

“This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory”

THE voting has shifted dramatically during this debate, starting out heavily in favour of the motion, swinging strongly in the other direction (seemingly in response to an organised campaign by anti-GM activists), and then swinging back towards the middle. But in the end the opponents of biotechnology—or, more precisely, the opponents of genetic modification in its current form—carried the day with 62% of the votes, against 38% for supporters of the motion.

This is a subject that arouses strong passions on both sides, as can clearly be seen in the comments, but I hope you still found the debate informative. I certainly did, in particular because of the comments from farmers themselves, on both sides of the argument. Neither a rapprochement between the two sides, nor a resolution of the arguments one way or another, seems likely any time soon. Thank you all for participating.

Moderator’s note: The result is being announced in this rather unusual way (in the form of this blog post, rather than on the debate microsite) for an unusual reason; a reason that also explains why the voting tallies have appeared to leap around rather erratically during the debate. Several commenters pointed this out and suggested that this was evidence of foul play. In fact the explanation is much less exciting, and rather complicated: we had a technical problem with our site. Non-techies can stop reading here, but here are the full details for those who are interested.

Our debates are hosted at economist.com/debate, and we also have a “staging” server, where we prepare material for posting, at preview-debates.economist.com/debate/. This second server is only intended for internal use, but Google’s crawlers managed to find it during the past few days and added it to Google’s index.

As a result, people who searched for the debate were directed to one of two different versions of it. The staging server is set up identically to the main debate server, which means it also has its own voting mechanism. Votes were thus being tallied on two entirely separate servers; anyone who visited one, and then the other, would have seen different voting tallies. During the last few days of the debate the address of the staging server was circulated on a number of environmental mailing lists, and on Twitter. This caused a sudden flood of “no” votes on the staging server, causing the underlying database to collapse because it was not load-balanced. That’s why we’ve been unable to announce the vote in the usual way.

Instead, we have taken the votes from both servers and have added them up to calculate the final tally: 38% yes, 62% no. (For completeness, the final tally on the main server was 46% yes, 54% no; on the staging server it was 35% yes, 65% no.) This technical problem has not affected the outcome, then (the motion was defeated); but now you know what happened and why the voting tallies appeared to be behaving so oddly. We apologise for the confusion.

Tom Standage
Digital editor, The Economist

Update Nov 17th: The debate server is now back up, and our technical team has combined the two sets of votes so that the voting tally displayed for this debate on the overview page is now correct.

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

(12) A NICE PIECE OF SATIRE, MONSANTO PRESENTS: THE PORKEN

(Link no longer valid) http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Monsanto-Porken-EarthFirst.htm

The vice president of Monsanto Canada, Ray Mowling, recently held a press conference at the University of Guelph to announce Monsanto’s latest product of food biotechnology. The Porken, a small pig-like creature with wings, is the product of a pig genetically engineered with a chicken.

Developed with funding from the federal government, “The Porken will revolutionize the way Canadians eat breakfast,” stated Mowling.

According to Stephen Yarrow of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, commercial approval of the Porken is expected quickly. “We have deemed that if a pig and chicken could produce an offspring naturally that the Porken would likely be substantially equivalent to it, and therefore no human health testing will be required.”

Monsanto Canada’s Director of Risk Communications, Professor Douglas Powell from the University of Guelph, stated, “Today is a great day for all Canadians: The Porken will feed the world’s hungry, eliminate the need for pesticides, reverse global warming, and will undoubtedly cure cancer and AIDS.”

The National Post’s resident ecologist, Terrence Corcoran, wrote that Monsanto should win a Nobel Prize for this accomplishments. “The world would be at a loss if it weren’t for innovative companies like Monsanto: Who else would try to genetically engineer a pig with a chicken?” insisted Corcoran.

Gord Surgenor of Ontario AgriFood Technologies, a government-funded Biotech lobby group, stated that “Canadians want choice” and therefore Monsanto will be pushing for mandatory labeling.

Joyce Groote of BIOTECanada, another government-funded biotech lobby group, is thrilled with the federal government’s decision to waive further testing. “This new product is the most tested Porken in the history of the world. Consumers should feel safe about this.”

For more information, contact Monsanto at (Link no longer valid) www.tao.ca/~ban or www.primalseeds.org.

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

(13) ELIZABETH MAY ON ENVIRO-PIG, “PROGRESS TRAPS”, APRIL 2010

http://www.elizabethmay.ca/in-the-news/the-next-%E2%80%98greener%E2%80%99-revolution%E2%80%99-challenging-the-industrialized-food-model/

Excerpt:

“ . . . The most chilling of industrialized agricultures progress traps may be the Enviro-pig. These pigs are being raised in isolation at the University of Guelph in hopes that they will be approved for human consumption. The problem Enviro-pigs are supposed to solve is water pollution from hog manure.

Due to the latest craze in inhumane treatment of pigs: raising tens of thousands of animals in single barns— indoors for their whole lives in cages over metal slotted floors—a new water pollution threat has been created. Liquid hog manure in the millions of gallons is being created in these mega-hog factories across Canada. The ‘disposal method’ is to spray the hog manure on farm fields as fertilizer. But the liquid hog manure is rich in phosphorus. The over-fertilizing effect of this manure in water courses causes eutrophication, choking the life out of lakes and rivers.

A sensible solution would be to return to more traditional ways of raising hogs. … (read more)

http://www.elizabethmay.ca/in-the-news/the-next-%E2%80%98greener%E2%80%99-revolution%E2%80%99-challenging-the-industrialized-food-model/

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

(14) National Geographic March 30, 2010, REPORTING IS ONE-SIDED, UN-CRITICAL

Gene-Altered “Enviropig” to Reduce Dead Zones?

Pigs modified to excrete less phosphorus win limited approval in Canada.

Genetically altered “Enviropigs” can pass on greener genes to their offspring.

Photograph by Cecil W. Forsberg

Anne Minard

for National Geographic News (Link no longer valid)

Published March 30, 2010

Move over, bacon. Here comes something greener.

A genetically engineered pig recently approved for limited production in Canada makes urine and feces that contain up to 65 percent less phosphorous, officials have announced.

That could be good news for lakes, rivers, and ocean deltas, where phosphorous from animal waste can play a role in causing algal blooms. These outbursts of algae rapidly deplete the water’s oxygen, creating vast dead zones for fish and other aquatic life. (Related: “World’s Largest Dead Zone Suffocating Sea.”)

Dubbed Enviropig, the genetically altered animal cleared a major hurdle last month, when the government-run Environment Canada approved the animal for production in controlled research settings.

The new biotech pig could take years to pass U.S. and Canadian tests for commercial use and human consumption, noted Steven Liss, an environmental scientist at the University of Guelph in Ontario and a spokesperson for the project.

But the Enviropig’s creators are hopeful the animal will eventually pass muster.

“This will be probably the most significant transgenic food to be approved. We’re in new territory,” Liss said.

The Problem With Pig Poop

Like all living things, pigs need phosphorous from their food, because the element plays a key role in the formation of bones, teeth, and cell walls as well as in a variety of cellular and organ functions.

Swine in the United States primarily eat corn, while those in Canada munch on cereal grains, including barley. But the kind of phosphorus that occurs naturally in those plants is indigestible without an enzyme called phytase, which pigs lack.

Most farmers feed their pigs this enzyme as a supplement. But ingested phytase isn’t as effective at breaking down phosphorus as phytase created inside the pig would be, so a fair amount of the element gets flushed out in pig waste. That waste, in turn, can make its way into the water supply.

Enviropig would eliminate the need for added phytase, because the animal has been engineered to make its own. (Related: “Rabbits Milked for Human Protein; Drug Soon for Sale?”)

Researchers spent more than a decade hunting for an enzyme in nature responsible for breaking down phosphorous, finally finding it in the genome of the bacterium E. coli.

To make sure the modification would work in mammals, the team paired the E. coli genes with a mouse DNA promoter, a section of DNA that encourages replication of a specific segment—in this case the bacterial genes. Researchers then injected microscopic fertilized pig embryos with the mixture.

Early trials revealed that the bacterial enzyme was not only incorporated into the pig genome, it could be inherited by the genetically engineered pigs’ offspring.

“We are now in the eighth generation of pigs, and it has been transmitted to all of those generations,” said Cecil Forsberg, a University of Guelph microbiologist and lead researcher on the project.

“And from our testing, there is no change in the structure of the gene throughout those generations.”

With the added genes, Enviropig is able to absorb more phosphorous from its feed, so less of the element ends up unused and excreted.

Greener Pig Also a Cost Saver?

Enviropig addresses not only environmental concerns but also societal challenges in pig farming, the University of Guelph researchers say.

In addition to cutting feed-supplement costs, Enviropig could help farmers comply with “zero discharge” rules in the United States that allow no nitrogen or phosphorous runoff from animal operations.

Right now, most pork producers meet this law by collecting pig waste in pits and lagoons until it can be treated or recycled as fertilizer—resulting in added expenses for the farmers. (Related: “Human Waste Used by 200 Million Farmers, Study Says.”)

“The cost to produce animals is increasing, putting the burden on farmers in a global marketplace,” project spokesperson Liss said.

Now that Enviropig has reached a milestone, pork producers will be watching to see if the transgenic animal passes safety tests with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, noted Paul Sundberg, vice president of science and technology for the U.S. National Pork Board.

Industry professionals will also want to see a cost-benefit analysis, to be sure Enviropig will be a boon to the industry, Sundberg said.

“Pork producers are in favor of any technologies that can increase their competitiveness,” he said.

So far, no transgenic animal has been approved for consumption in the United States. But in 2008 the FDA announced approval of the first human health product made from a genetically engineered animal.

The goat-derived anticoagulant, ATryn, is used for the prevention of blood clots in patients with a rare disease-causing protein deficiency.

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

(15) STEVEN LISS SAYS HE WANTS TO HEAR FROM “THE COMMUNITY”

(Link no longer valid) http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/profiles/steven-liss

“ … In addition to advancing priorities and goals, Dr. Liss will also be listening to the community and paying close attention to the developing academic plan.”

I emailed steven.liss AT queensu.ca at 12:21 PM. It is now 1:03 and the email has not been returned as undeliverable. So this email address might work. I sent him a slightly edited version of the introduction to this email.

Google brings up this on Steven Liss, among others:

(Link no longer valid) https://cfmx1.webapps.ccs.uoguelph.ca/envbio/f_liss.shtml he got his PhD from the University of Saskatchewan. Was at Ryerson. May 2007 he became Associate Vice-President (Research Services) at University of Guelph. April 2010, it was announced that he is vice-principal (research) at Queen’s University, effect Sept. 1 http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/04/queens_names_li.html and (Link no longer valid) http://www.innovationpark.ca/article/new-vice-principal-research-appointed

2011-01-08 “Inside Job”, movie narrated by Matt Damon, highly recommended

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Culture and Ethics, Take back the University, Why we flounder or do not flounder No Responses »

Jan 082011

I just about didn’t go to this movie. Having seen it, I believe it will go on the record as a critical contribution to the shaping of what comes next. It is up there with “The Corporation” and “Bowling for Columbine”. The audience was generally riveted to the screen. It is well worth making the effort to see it.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk

Synopsis: ‘Inside Job’ is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused… ‘Inside Job’ is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.

Released in Oct 2010.

Some REVIEWS from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/:

Inside Job really is the movie of the decade, unfortunately.

Full Review | Comment

Jan 3, 2011

Stuart Klawans

Nation

A brilliant, scrupulous breakdown of how giant egos and greed led to a disaster that would imperil the American public.

Full Review | Comment

Dec 25, 2010

Stephen Saito

IFC.com

Though I can’t claim it’s a work of cinematic artistry, nor that I would ever want to see it again, Inside Job is an absolutely crucial work of journalism that every American needs to see.

Full Review | Comment

Dec 10, 2010

Jeffrey M. Anderson

Combustible Celluloid

An exhaustively infuriating recap of the causes and effects of our country’s three decade-commitment to financial deregulation.

Full Review | Comment

Dec 2, 2010

Nick Schager

Lessons of Darkness

…will make you angry. More importantly, it will make you smarter.

Full Review | Comment

Nov 28, 2010

Philip Martin

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

2011-01-05 Updates: GMO’s, Monsanto, chemicals (roundup / glyphosate), genetically modified pigs

Food, Genetically Modified, Health 1 Response »

Jan 052011

CONTENTS

(1) COMMENTARY

(2) GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIG, THANKS TO CANADA. YOU’LL WANT IT ON YOUR GROCERY LIST.

(3) MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP): IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND PLANT LIFE

(4) THE TRAGIC HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF GLYPHOSATE SPRAYING OF GM SOY (ARGENTINA)

(5) THANKS TO WIKILEAKS: U.S. EMBASSY RECOMMENDS A LIST OF COUNTRIES FOR ‘RETALIATION’ OVER THEIR OPPOSITION TO GENETIC MODIFICATION

(6) THANKS TO WIKILEAKS: POPE ‘QUIETLY’ SUPPORTIVE OF GMO’s

(7) WHEN AN APPLE A DAY MAKES THINGS WORSE: GMO APPLES, ALSO COMPLIMENTS OF CANADA

(Note: update on Bayer’s GMO’s in a separate posting)

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

(1) COMMENTARY

Looking over the recent updates in the field of GMO’s, Monsanto, chemicals, and food, the options are:

– Commit suicide

– Finish off the bottle of wine

– Let the soul be transported by music, forget this stuff

– Call on your friends: … hey! There’s an easy thing to do, and … it will make a difference!

I opted for the latter, lucky you!

First I thoroughly depress you, then comes the trumpet call-to-action – – in a separate posting.

It’s YOU who are sending me these email updates. So let me thank YOU on behalf of all us!

The following is just A SAMPLING of what’s going on. It’s a continuation of previous work; we became thoroughly engaged in GMO’s in about 2003, the battle to stop the introduction of genetically modified wheat.

I have started posting some of that past documentation onto the blog, so newcomers can refer to it if they wish. The situation has not changed. The lack of information and discussion in the public domain (mainstream media) in North America is appalling and disgusting.

In 2004 we circulated information on the documentary “Life Running Out of Control” with its footage of the PIGS that have human growth genes inserted into them. The images of the deformities are hard to forget. But that was happening in the UNITED STATES. You will see in item #2 where the genetically modified pigs are in CANADA, too.

In “Life Running Out of Control” the genetically modified FISH were being developed in CANADA. Now the genetically modified SALMON are in the UNITED STATES. … I forgot. There’s another thing I’d like to do (besides suicide, drinking, sticking my head-in-the-sand and that is – – swear. And swear loudly. There are so many obvious questions that these people are not addressing. And the Government is part of it all.

I apologize for oversights in giving credit where credit is due for the following input. /Sandra

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

(2) GENETICALLY MODIFIED PIGS, THANKS TO CANADA. YOU’LL WANT IT ON YOUR GROCERY LIST.

This is a BBC report. There is a lot of subtle propaganda in the newscast. They present only the cute little pigs. They do not address the agonies of the animals that have gone before, that have been “rejects” in the production process and so on (see Note* below). They use minimizing words like “small” changes. And it is inferred that it is only a matter of time before we, the unenlightened, will see the wisdom and accept the genetically modified pigs (and other life forms).

Thanks to Elaine:

WATCH: Enviropig: First Genetically Modified Farm Animal (from blog Dandelion Salad)

*Note: “Life Running Out of Control” (emails 2004 – -2005) would indicate that these are not the first genetically modified farm animals. And also that there is much more to the story.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/enviropig-first-genetically-modified-farm-animal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DandelionSalad+%28Dandelion+Salad%29

2004-11-13 Genetically modified: documentary “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL”. GM fish and pigs.

2005-02-07 Genetically modified: “Life Running Out of Control” debuts (item #2, the interview with Bertram Verhaag).

2005-08-02 GMO’s Monsanto applies for global pig patent

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

(3) MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP): IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND PLANT LIFE

What is being said here is consistent with scientific research circulated earlier: fusarium (a fungus that you absolutely do not want in the food supply because of the health implications) is a problem in genetically modified crops (wheat at the time of the discussion). The crops are engineered to be resistant to applications of glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup). In my simple description: the application of the chemicals compromises the immune systems of the plants. The “scientists” who promote these technologies are doing an incredible disservice to the long term viability of the food system. This is just one of the associated issues.

Thanks to Elaine.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21039.cfm for the complete text.

Excerpts:

. . . . Don Huber: I have been doing research on glyphosate for 20 years. I began noticing problems when I saw a consistent increase in “take-all” (a fungal disease that impacts wheat) where glyphosate had been applied in a previous year for weed control. I tried to understand why there was an increase in disease with glyphosate. . . . .

. . . There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology. I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.

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

(4) THE TRAGIC HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF GLYPHOSATE (ROUNDUP) SPRAYING OF GM SOY (ARGENTINA)

Thanks to Michael:

Watch this 2 part video. It is our thirst for cheap processed food and animal feed that fuels the soybean industry which is behind the horror. I avoid buying anything from the supermarket that contains soybean oil, soya, tofu and pork, chicken, beef and atlantic salmon (which are usually fed a steady diet of soybean), unless the product is certified organic.

(Link no longer valid) http://www.gmwatch.eu/gm-videos/26-gm-in-latin-america/12580

This news report by journalist Rolando Grana, recorded in Santa Fe, Argentina, graphically shows the tragic human consequences of glyphosate spraying of GM soy. It contains interviews with Dr Dario Gianfelici, a medical doctor; scientist Prof Andres Carrasco, whose research showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying; and the journalist Marie-Monique Robin, who made the film, The World According to Monsanto.

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

(5) THANKS TO WIKILEAKS: U.S. EMBASSY RECOMMENDS A LIST OF COUNTRIES FOR ‘RETALIATION’ OVER THEIR OPPOSITION TO GENETIC MODIFICATION

TWO REPORTS:

Thanks to Robin who writes: Not sure if aware but is said to be missing the media – what else is new?

http://www.truth-out.org/wikileaks-us-ambassador-planned-retaliation-against-france-over-ban-monsanto-corn66131

Thanks to Herman:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

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

(6) THANKS TO WIKILEAKS: POPE ‘QUIETLY’ SUPPORTIVE OF GMO’s

Thanks to Michael:

December 20, 2010

Newly Leaked Cable: Pope ‘quietly supportive’ of GMOs

By Rady Ananda

Just released yesterday, a November 19, 2009 leaked cable indicates Pope Benedict XVI supports genetically modified foods, though he will not publicly admit it. A June 2009 cable from the US Vatican Embassy confirmed the Pontiff’s refusal to take a stance on GM foods, which was verified in December 2010 by a Vatican spokesperson. However, this latest cable tells quite a different story:

“Linking development with use of agricultural technologies (i.e., biotechnologies), Benedict stressed good governance and further infrastructure development as essential to increasing food security over the long-term. (Note: Benedict’s mention of agricultural technologies is a small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support of biotechnologies. End Note)”

The analyst further concludes:

“While the Vatican’s message on caring for the environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical decision for farmers and governments.”

Providing much more analysis than the June 2009 cable, the November 2009 cable indicates strong support within the Vatican scientific community, which apparently remains unaware of the biotech industry’s penchant for suppressing science:

“The Vatican’s own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global food security. However, when individual Church leaders, for ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the Vatican does not — at least not yet — feel that it is its duty to challenge them.”

Vatican proponents of GM foods may have missed several scientific reports [1] that highlight problems with GMOs. As previously reported, several times:

* GM foods have been linked to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. There’s also the question of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

* GM crops (and GM forests) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, has been linked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. Their use is also linked to 11 million acres of superweeds in the U.S.

* Further, GM crops cannot be contained. They’ve spread in nations all over the world, even becoming established in the wild.

Given such strong evidence of environmental harm, the Pope’s strong advocacy of the environment would logically include opposition to GM crops. In fact, we find the opposite.

This latest cable further confirms that globally promoting genetically modified foods is a high priority for the US State Department. As discussed in a prior piece, numerous leaked cables reveal a strong focus by embassy officials on cataloging how nations perceive GMOs, boosting GM acceptance in Africa, and even going so far as to discuss spiking food prices to spur GM acceptance in Europe. The latest cable is no different:

“Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views. End Comment.”

Strong opposition within the church cites the monopoly control over food held by multinational corporations:

“The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier’s November 16 comments to a news agency that ‘Africans do not need GMOs, but water’ is another example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential benefits of new biotechnologies. End note.).”

Corporate control of the food supply is only one problem with biotech foods, albeit a major one. After fourteen years of commercial experience, the U.S. is fast becoming the poster child for why nations, and the Church, should reject such technology.

NOTES:

[1] See, e.g.:

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? Summary of scientific evidence on genetically modified soy and the effects of the herbicide glyphosate, Sept. 2010

Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center, November 2009

Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2009

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods by Nathan Batalion, 2000, rev. 2009

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/pope-supports-gmos/

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

(7) WHEN AN APPLE A DAY MAKES THINGS WORSE: GMO APPLES, ALSO COMPLIMENTS OF CANADA

Thanks to Elaine:

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/11/30/when-an-apple-a-day-makes-things-worse-gmo-apples/

By Boris Gitlin | November 30th, 2010

A Canadian specialty biotechnology company has asked USDA to approve a genetically modified apple variety that keeps from oxidizing and going brown when cut or damaged.

Unlike the typical commercial GMOs that focus on pesticide or insecticide resistance, the company’s gamble is that tree fruits that do not deteriorate as quickly when cut will help boost sales of freshly sliced apples. The fresh-cut sliced apple market segment has been booming, but this bet is bound to face enormous challenges with consumer, farmer, and industry acceptance.

The company behind the GM apple is Okanagan Specialty Fruits (OSF) based in British Columbia that was founded in 1996. OSF exclusively licensed its gene control technology from Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, and it is looking to alter genes of apples, as well as pears, peaches and cherries. The company expects that genetic modification will be the right cosmetic touch to benefit apple processors and the food service industry, however it is bound for a failure.

While the USDA and FDA approval process has barely started, the biggest challenge for OSF may be winning over consumer approval. Beyond public concerns over genetic modified foods, there are also worries that this technology may help hide any damage that apples had incurred during harvest and transportation, as well as the real age of produce on the store shelf. And the company’s actual stated goal is to genetically alter the symbol of nutrition and health and to put this novelty in children’s lunch boxes — that’s hardly a way to win over worried parents.

Already some apple industry leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential of this product. Why tinker with DNA when we already have a number of existing readily-available approved and safe alternatives that keep packaged apple slices fresh.

Similarly, OSF will face an uphill battle in convincing farmers to grow GM apples. “Genetically modified — that’s a bad word in our industry,” said Todd Fryhover, president of Washington Apple Commission, to the Associated Press. Fryhover also put the price of replanting for apple farmers as possibly too high to make economic sense. Fryhover’s Washington state produces more than half of U.S. apple crop.

The company doesn’t specify which apple variety was the basis for its proprietary variety named “Arctic” apple which critics dubbed as the “botox apple.”

Whichever way you slice it, the regulatory approval process for non-browning GM apples is expected to take years. This may be one cosmetic surgery on produce that nobody wants.

2011-01-04 BIG BROTHER: The Police State Mentality in the Electronic Age + The Code for Global Ethics, Rodrigue Tremblay

Culture and Ethics, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys No Responses »

Jan 042011

It is so amazing! Yesterday I was putting information up on the blog, coming across things I had forgotten entirely. Like a warning from Robert F. Kennedy Jr to Canadians about water: Americans have designs. The same from Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta, etc. Along with various emails related to increasing militarization. I went to bed troubled: how does one ever get the seriousness of the present situation across to Canadians?

Then the self-doubt. Maybe I am putting up TOO MUCH information on the blog? It will obscure the central issues. But it is the accumulated details that paint the broader picture which is what people need to see. And I don’t want them to take my word for things. Give them the information, they can decide for themselves what to think. Then I wish I had learned the blogging earlier. Maybe then I could do better. I’d know how to make only a summary appear, with a “read more” button to make it easier for you to select what you want. It’s coming but I haven’t quite figured it out yet.

Then ZING! One of you always comes to my rescue! This morning I am lifted up and set back on my feet. This time it is Elaine – – many thanks to her for BIG BROTHER: The Police State Mentality in the Electronic Age authored by Rodrigue Tremblay http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/tremblay=1132 .

That article appears first below and is related to the census work.

But in the course of contacting Professor Tremblay I came upon his words related to the situation we are in. That’s the real ZING. . . Cripes – I go on a very big high, my energy and spirits soar over the top when you send me . . . thoughts that reinforce my own!! (Now, is that scary?!) Actually it’s a sign of great hope to me when I see how many of us are saying essentially the same thing. Professor Tremblay says it exceedingly well.

Cheers,

/Sandra

CONTENTS (BY RODRIGUE TREMBLAY)

(1) BIG BROTHER: THE POLICE STATE MENTALITY IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE

(2) “HISTORICALLY IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT WHEN THE MORAL ENVIRONMENT IN A SOCIETY IS DETERIORATING PROBLEMS TEND TO PILE UP” … ten fundamental principles in The Code for Global Ethics

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

(1) BIG BROTHER: THE POLICE STATE MENTALITY IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

BIG BROTHER: The Police State Mentality in the Electronic Age

by Rodrigue Tremblay

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790), American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman (1775)

“Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security.” Norman Vincent Peale (1898 –1993), American Christian preacher and author

“A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. …At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother. Big Brother is infallible and all-powerful. Every success, every achievement, every victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue, are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration.” George Orwell (1903-1950) (Eric Arthur Blair), (book: 1984)

“Since information gives power, access to personal files can lead to unreasonable pressures, even blackmail, especially against those with the least resources, people who depend upon public programs, for example. Big Brother isn’t a camera. Big Brother is a computer.” C.J. Howard, political novel “Cybercash”

In 2049, when the 100th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell political novel “1984” will be celebrated, it will be recalled that the immediate post September 11, 2001 period marked the beginning of a gradual decline in personal liberty and freedom, especially in the United States but also elsewhere, and the emergence of a great information-obsessed Leviathan. Freedom rarely disappears in one fell swoop. Its disappearance is rather the end result of a thousand encroachments.

Pushed to the extreme and without clear democratic oversight, it becomes the mark of a totalitarian state, when authorities feel that they never have enough information on the people. It is because information is power and state bureaucrats and politicians naturally like to be in control; on the one hand, releasing as little information about their own actions through an imposed secrecy, and on the other, accumulating as much information as possible about the citizens.

And today, modern governments have all the tools to transform their country into a creeping police state, more so now then ever before, in this electronic age. They have access to information technology that previous full-fledged “police state” governments could only have dreamed about.

Nowadays, with super computers and revolutionary new models to gather information and build databases, governments, i.e. bureaucrats and politicians, are in a position as never before to accumulate and correlate tremendous amounts of personal information on their citizens, from public (federal, state and local) as well as from a plethora of private sources. Government intelligence on each and every citizen is thus rendered much easier and, I would add, much more frightening. Indeed, the potential for abuse is enormous.

In 2002, for example, retired Vice Admiral John Poindexter proposed that the U.S. government create a tracking and monitoring system called “Total Information Awareness”, in order for the U.S. government to gather information in a preventive way about individuals from widely varied sources, including tax records, telephone calling records, credit card charges, banking transactions, airline or ship reservations, and various biometric databases, without taking into consideration civil liberties or a citizens’ right to privacy, the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974, or without having to request search warrants and without having to give prior notice to the persons involved. —The pretext was to allow the government to thwart possible terrorist activity, thus creating an unlimited appetite for information.

Well, there are clear signs that this massive data mining system on individuals is now solidly in place and is in full operation and can be expected to grow over time. George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

First, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s network of fusion centers, launched in 2003, has allowed the government to centralize a host of previously disparate information about Americans and foreigners alike, whether related to personal and business records, drivers licenses, local taxes, local infractions, police records, etc., through a host of coordinated information-sharing networks. (N.B.: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 and is the domestic equivalent of the Department of Defense.)

Secondly, central provisions of the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, allow the government to operate roving wire taps, search any individual’s business, personal, and even library records upon presentation of a national security letter, and spy on so-called “lone wolf” suspects, i.e., foreign nationals who have no known links to groups designated as terrorist. On this, the current Obama administration, by extending those provisions, is scarcely different than the previous Bush administration.

Thirdly, since passports and tight intelligence screening have been made a requirement for most international travel by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, since January 1, 2008, every individual traveling in and out of the United States has all his or her whereabouts and movements recorded so the government knows at all times his or her address and the places he or she has traveled to and from.

For instance, U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s recent decision to use full-body airport X-ray scanners and full body groping at airports is another example where so-called security procedures are applied blindly and indiscriminately. There is more to come, since it has been announced that such invasive intelligence screening is coming to hotels and shopping malls, as well as to trains, buses and ports, etc.

These are some of the main features of the new government apparatus to gather information on people. There are many others. —Take for instance the requirement, since 2002, that all American high schools must give Pentagon military recruiters the names and contact information of all their juniors and seniors. Failure to comply on their part may result in the loss of government funding.

The logical next step for the U.S. government would be to follow a recent Italy’s lead and outlaw outright the use of cash for most transactions, except for small ones, thus providing the government even more minute information about an individual’s income, purchases and displacements. Nothing will escape the watching eye of the government in the electronic age. People will be filed, photographed, corralled and branded.

Indeed, the way mass government surveillance systems are growing, by year 2020, chances are good that Americans will be living in a “Brave New World”!

—CYBER BIG BROTHER would know it all and it will be watching you.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal. He is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books. Please visit the book site at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 2010, 300 p. ISBN: 978-1616141721.

*****The French version of the book is also now available. See: www.lecodepouruneethiqueglobale.com/ or on Amazon Canada

Blog at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com Please register to receive free alerts on new postings of articles. Send an email with the word “subscribe” to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com

The above is presented for educational purposes only.

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

(2) “HISTORICALLY IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT WHEN THE MORAL ENVIRONMENT IN A SOCIETY IS DETERIORATING PROBLEMS TEND TO PILE UP” … ten fundamental principles in The Code for Global Ethics

Dr. Tremblay is the author of thirty nonfiction books, including a basic textbook in Economics, and the 2010’s The Code for Global Ethics (Prometheus Books), and he writes an international blog about geopolitics on the Internet (www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/blog) that is posted in ten languages.

Now that he is semi-retired, Dr. Tremblay feels that he has more time to devote to big issues. He is particularly worried that our current economic and financial problems are as much moral as technical in nature. “Why do political leaders seem to be lying most of the time? Why is uncontrolled greed so prevalent in corporate boardrooms? … Why does materialism seem to trump everything else? Why do we have the uneasy feeling that our society is going in the wrong direction? The very fact that we have to raise such questions may be a sign of the times,” Dr. Tremblay wrote in a recent blog entitled “The Moral Dimension of Things”. “Historically”, he says, “it can be shown that when the moral environment in a society is deteriorating, problems tend to pile up.”

Tremblay thinks that we are presently living in one of those times, characterized by deep and entrenched political corruption, by routine abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law in high places, and by unchecked greed, fraud and deception in the economic sphere. The results are all there to see: Severe and prolonged economic and financial crises, rising social inequalities and social injustice, increasing intolerance toward individual choices, the disregard for environmental decay, the rise of religious absolutism, a return to whimsical wars of aggression (or of pre-emptive wars), to blind terrorism, and to the repugnant use of torture, and even to genocide and to blatant war crimes. These are all indicators that our civilization has lost its moral compass.

And devising such a moral compass is the central object of his most recent book, The Code for Global Ethics. In it, Dr. Tremblay postulates that many of our problems and threats are not only severe but they have also become global in nature. He also thinks that our scientific and technological progress is advancing faster than our moral progress, with the consequence that problems seem to arise faster than our moral ability to face them and solve them. Dr. Tremblay doesn’t hesitate to place part of the blame on old religion-based rules of morality, essentially because they have not incorporated new scientific knowledge discovered over the last four centuries.

Indeed, Dr. Tremblay stresses three facts that have changed forever our worldview and humans’ vision of themselves in the Universe. They are:

• Galileo’s proof, in 1632, that the Earth and humans were not the center of the Universe.

• Darwin’s discovery, in 1859, (“On the Origin of Species”) that humans are the outcome of a very long natural biological evolution.

• And, the Watson-Crick-Wilkins-Franklin’s discovery, in 1953, of the structure of the double helix DNA molecule in human cells, and the devastating knowledge that humans share more than 98 percent of the same genes with chimpanzees.

These discoveries have tremendous consequences for our moral stance and for the pursuit of a global civilization.

Asked what a more universal civilization would look like, Dr. Tremblay answers the following:

“First and foremost, the scope of human empathy would be more universal and more comprehensive, and would not merely apply to some chosen people, to members of a particular religion or to persons belonging to a particular civilization. In practice, this would require that we establish a higher threshold of human morality, beyond the traditional norm of the Golden Rule (“Treat others as you would have others treat you.”) It would require that we adopt what I call a Super Golden Rule of humanist morality that incorporates the humanist rule of empathy: “Not only do to others as you would have them do to you, but also, do to others what you would wish to be done to you, if you were in their place.” — Of course, the corollary also follows: “Don’t do to others what you would not like to be done to you, if you were in their place.”

Dr. Tremblay does not believe that we currently live in such a global civilization. “My best hope, he says, “is that we will avoid falling back into an age of obscurantism and of decadence, and that we will be able to build a truly humanist civilization for the future.”

To meet the basic criterion for such a future global civilization, Dr. Tremblay establishes ten fundamental principles in The Code for Global Ethics.

2011-01-02 “Expert Political Judgement: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” Bottom line: think for yourself.

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Empowerment, Knowledge Base No Responses »

Jan 022011

Thanks to Hart who writes:

There is a German custom at the year end: dropping molten lead into a bucket of water. The resulting lead shapes are used to predict the future.

The German paper “Die Zeit” had a short article this morning about experts’ predictions of the future. A much better article with the same content and basis was published five years ago in the “New Yorker”. The result: the predictions are similar to the tim- honoured German tradition.

The following article challenges our convictions. The good news: we are no experts.

Happy New Year, and things might turn out differently from what you think!

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

Expert Political Judgement

Books

Everybody’s An Expert

Putting predictions to the test.

by Louis Menand December 5, 2005

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205crbo_books1#ixzz19tAOxZIf

Predictions;

“Expert Political Judgement: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton, $35);

Tetlock, Philip;

Prediction is one of the pleasures of life. Conversation would wither without it. “It won’t last. She’ll dump him in a month.” If you’re wrong, no one will call you on it, because being right or wrong isn’t really the point. The point is that you think he’s not worthy of her, and the prediction is just a way of enhancing your judgment with a pleasant prevision of doom. Unless you’re putting money on it, nothing is at stake except your reputation for wisdom in matters of the heart. If a month goes by and they’re still together, the deadline can be extended without penalty. “She’ll leave him, trust me. It’s only a matter of time.” They get married: “Funny things happen. You never know.” You still weren’t wrong. Either the marriage is a bad one—you erred in the right direction—or you got beaten by a low-probability outcome.

It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s new book, “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (Princeton; $35), that people who make prediction their business—people who appear as experts on television, get quoted in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses, and participate in punditry roundtables—are no better than the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. They insist that they were just off on timing, or blindsided by an improbable event, or almost right, or wrong for the right reasons. They have the same repertoire of self-justifications that everyone has, and are no more inclined than anyone else to revise their beliefs about the way the world works, or ought to work, just because they made a mistake. No one is paying you for your gratuitous opinions about other people, but the experts are being paid, and Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be. The accuracy of an expert’s predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence, renown, and, beyond a certain point, depth of knowledge. People who follow current events by reading the papers and newsmagazines regularly can guess what is likely to happen about as accurately as the specialists whom the papers quote. Our system of expertise is completely inside out: it rewards bad judgments over good ones.

“Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley—and his conclusions are based on a long-term study that he began twenty years ago. He picked two hundred and eighty-four people who made their living “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends,” and he started asking them to assess the probability that various things would or would not come to pass, both in the areas of the world in which they specialized and in areas about which they were not expert. Would there be a nonviolent end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Gorbachev be ousted in a coup? Would the United States go to war in the Persian Gulf? Would Canada disintegrate? (Many experts believed that it would, on the ground that Quebec would succeed in seceding.) And so on. By the end of the study, in 2003, the experts had made 82,361 forecasts. Tetlock also asked questions designed to determine how they reached their judgments, how they reacted when their predictions proved to be wrong, how they evaluated new information that did not support their views, and how they assessed the probability that rival theories and predictions were accurate.

Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a “three possible futures” form. The respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo, more of something (political freedom, economic growth), or less of something (repression, recession). And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?), and how accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes. The results were unimpressive. On the first scale, the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices.

Tetlock also found that specialists are not significantly more reliable than non-specialists in guessing what is going to happen in the region they study. Knowing a little might make someone a more reliable forecaster, but Tetlock found that knowing a lot can actually make a person less reliable. “We reach the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge disconcertingly quickly,” he reports. “In this age of academic hyperspecialization, there is no reason for supposing that contributors to top journals—distinguished political scientists, area study specialists, economists, and so on—are any better than journalists or attentive readers of the New York Times in ‘reading’ emerging situations.” And the more famous the forecaster the more overblown the forecasts. “Experts in demand,” Tetlock says, “were more overconfident than their colleagues who eked out existences far from the limelight.”

People who are not experts in the psychology of expertise are likely (I predict) to find Tetlock’s results a surprise and a matter for concern. For psychologists, though, nothing could be less surprising. “Expert Political Judgment” is just one of more than a hundred studies that have pitted experts against statistical or actuarial formulas, and in almost all of those studies the people either do no better than the formulas or do worse. In one study, college counsellors were given information about a group of high-school students and asked to predict their freshman grades in college. The counsellors had access to test scores, grades, the results of personality and vocational tests, and personal statements from the students, whom they were also permitted to interview. Predictions that were produced by a formula using just test scores and grades were more accurate. There are also many studies showing that expertise and experience do not make someone a better reader of the evidence. In one, data from a test used to diagnose brain damage were given to a group of clinical psychologists and their secretaries. The psychologists’ diagnoses were no better than the secretaries’.

The experts’ trouble in Tetlock’s study is exactly the trouble that all human beings have: we fall in love with our hunches, and we really, really hate to be wrong. Tetlock describes an experiment that he witnessed thirty years ago in a Yale classroom. A rat was put in a T-shaped maze. Food was placed in either the right or the left transept of the T in a random sequence such that, over the long run, the food was on the left sixty per cent of the time and on the right forty per cent. Neither the students nor (needless to say) the rat was told these frequencies. The students were asked to predict on which side of the T the food would appear each time. The rat eventually figured out that the food was on the left side more often than the right, and it therefore nearly always went to the left, scoring roughly sixty per cent—D, but a passing grade. The students looked for patterns of left-right placement, and ended up scoring only fifty-two per cent, an F. The rat, having no reputation to begin with, was not embarrassed about being wrong two out of every five tries. But Yale students, who do have reputations, searched for a hidden order in the sequence. They couldn’t deal with forty-per-cent error, so they ended up with almost fifty-per-cent error.

The expert-prediction game is not much different. When television pundits make predictions, the more ingenious their forecasts the greater their cachet. An arresting new prediction means that the expert has discovered a set of interlocking causes that no one else has spotted, and that could lead to an outcome that the conventional wisdom is ignoring. On shows like “The McLaughlin Group,” these experts never lose their reputations, or their jobs, because long shots are their business. More serious commentators differ from the pundits only in the degree of showmanship. These serious experts—the think tankers and area-studies professors—are not entirely out to entertain, but they are a little out to entertain, and both their status as experts and their appeal as performers require them to predict futures that are not obvious to the viewer. The producer of the show does not want you and me to sit there listening to an expert and thinking, I could have said that. The expert also suffers from knowing too much: the more facts an expert has, the more information is available to be enlisted in support of his or her pet theories, and the more chains of causation he or she can find beguiling. This helps explain why specialists fail to outguess non-specialists. The odds tend to be with the obvious.

Tetlock’s experts were also no different from the rest of us when it came to learning from their mistakes. Most people tend to dismiss new information that doesn’t fit with what they already believe. Tetlock found that his experts used a double standard: they were much tougher in assessing the validity of information that undercut their theory than they were in crediting information that supported it. The same deficiency leads liberals to read only The Nation and conservatives to read only National Review. We are not natural falsificationists: we would rather find more reasons for believing what we already believe than look for reasons that we might be wrong. In the terms of Karl Popper’s famous example, to verify our intuition that all swans are white we look for lots more white swans, when what we should really be looking for is one black swan.

Also, people tend to see the future as indeterminate and the past as inevitable. If you look backward, the dots that lead up to Hitler or the fall of the Soviet Union or the attacks on September 11th all connect. If you look forward, it’s just a random scatter of dots, many potential chains of causation leading to many possible outcomes. We have no idea today how tomorrow’s invasion of a foreign land is going to go; after the invasion, we can actually persuade ourselves that we knew all along. The result seems inevitable, and therefore predictable. Tetlock found that, consistent with this asymmetry, experts routinely misremembered the degree of probability they had assigned to an event after it came to pass. They claimed to have predicted what happened with a higher degree of certainty than, according to the record, they really did. When this was pointed out to them, by Tetlock’s researchers, they sometimes became defensive.

And, like most of us, experts violate a fundamental rule of probabilities by tending to find scenarios with more variables more likely. If a prediction needs two independent things to happen in order for it to be true, its probability is the product of the probability of each of the things it depends on. If there is a one-in-three chance of x and a one-in-four chance of y, the probability of both x and y occurring is one in twelve. But we often feel instinctively that if the two events “fit together” in some scenario the chance of both is greater, not less. The classic “Linda problem” is an analogous case. In this experiment, subjects are told, “Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” They are then asked to rank the probability of several possible descriptions of Linda today. Two of them are “bank teller” and “bank teller and active in the feminist movement.” People rank the second description higher than the first, even though, logically, its likelihood is smaller, because it requires two things to be true—that Linda is a bank teller and that Linda is an active feminist—rather than one.

Plausible detail makes us believers. When subjects were given a choice between an insurance policy that covered hospitalization for any reason and a policy that covered hospitalization for all accidents and diseases, they were willing to pay a higher premium for the second policy, because the added detail gave them a more vivid picture of the circumstances in which it might be needed. In 1982, an experiment was done with professional forecasters and planners. One group was asked to assess the probability of “a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983,” and another group was asked to assess the probability of “a Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspension of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983.” The experts judged the second scenario more likely than the first, even though it required two separate events to occur. They were seduced by the detail.

It was no news to Tetlock, therefore, that experts got beaten by formulas. But he does believe that he discovered something about why some people make better forecasters than other people. It has to do not with what the experts believe but with the way they think. Tetlock uses Isaiah Berlin’s metaphor from Archilochus, from his essay on Tolstoy, “The Hedgehog and the Fox,” to illustrate the difference. He says:

Low scorers look like hedgehogs: thinkers who “know one big thing,” aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who “do not get it,” and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters, at least in the long term. High scorers look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible “ad hocery” that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.

A hedgehog is a person who sees international affairs to be ultimately determined by a single bottom-line force: balance-of-power considerations, or the clash of civilizations, or globalization and the spread of free markets. A hedgehog is the kind of person who holds a great-man theory of history, according to which the Cold War does not end if there is no Ronald Reagan. Or he or she might adhere to the “actor-dispensability thesis,” according to which Soviet Communism was doomed no matter what. Whatever it is, the big idea, and that idea alone, dictates the probable outcome of events. For the hedgehog, therefore, predictions that fail are only “off on timing,” or are “almost right,” derailed by an unforeseeable accident. There are always little swerves in the short run, but the long run irons them out.

Foxes, on the other hand, don’t see a single determining explanation in history. They tend, Tetlock says, “to see the world as a shifting mixture of self-fulfilling and self-negating prophecies: self-fulfilling ones in which success breeds success, and failure, failure but only up to a point, and then self-negating prophecies kick in as people recognize that things have gone too far.”

Tetlock did not find, in his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs, who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes.

The upside of being a hedgehog, though, is that when you’re right you can be really and spectacularly right. Great scientists, for example, are often hedgehogs. They value parsimony, the simpler solution over the more complex. In world affairs, parsimony may be a liability—but, even there, there can be traps in the kind of highly integrative thinking that is characteristic of foxes. Elsewhere, Tetlock has published an analysis of the political reasoning of Winston Churchill. Churchill was not a man who let contradictory information interfere with his idées fixes. This led him to make the wrong prediction about Indian independence, which he opposed. But it led him to be right about Hitler. He was never distracted by the contingencies that might combine to make the elimination of Hitler unnecessary.

Tetlock also has an unscientific point to make, which is that “we as a society would be better off if participants in policy debates stated their beliefs in testable forms”—that is, as probabilities—“monitored their forecasting performance, and honored their reputational bets.” He thinks that we’re suffering from our primitive attraction to deterministic, overconfident hedgehogs. It’s true that the only thing the electronic media like better than a hedgehog is two hedgehogs who don’t agree. Tetlock notes, sadly, a point that Richard Posner has made about these kinds of public intellectuals, which is that most of them are dealing in “solidarity” goods, not “credence” goods. Their analyses and predictions are tailored to make their ideological brethren feel good—more white swans for the white-swan camp. A prediction, in this context, is just an exclamation point added to an analysis. Liberals want to hear that whatever conservatives are up to is bound to go badly; when the argument gets more nuanced, they change the channel. On radio and television and the editorial page, the line between expertise and advocacy is very blurry, and pundits behave exactly the way Tetlock says they will. Bush Administration loyalists say that their predictions about postwar Iraq were correct, just a little off on timing; pro-invasion liberals who are now trying to dissociate themselves from an adventure gone bad insist that though they may have sounded a false alarm, they erred “in the right direction”—not really a mistake at all.

The same blurring characterizes professional forecasters as well. The predictions on cable news commentary shows do not have life-and-death side effects, but the predictions of people in the C.I.A. and the Pentagon plainly do. It’s possible that the psychologists have something to teach those people, and, no doubt, psychologists are consulted. Still, the suggestion that we can improve expert judgment by applying the lessons of cognitive science and probability theory belongs to the abiding modern American faith in expertise. As a professional, Tetlock is, after all, an expert, and he would like to believe in expertise. So he is distressed that political forecasters turn out to be as unreliable as the psychological literature predicted, but heartened to think that there might be a way of raising the standard. The hope for a little more accountability is hard to dissent from. It would be nice if there were fewer partisans on television disguised as “analysts” and “experts” (and who would not want to see more foxes?). But the best lesson of Tetlock’s book may be the one that he seems most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself. ♦

2010-12-29 CONTEXT, an essential consideration. Of what is context composed? A list of Eleven.

Knowledge Base No Responses »

Dec 292010

A topic I sometimes harp on! the need to think through and spell out the CONTEXT in which a decision is being made.

Some thoughts regarding context, excerpts from other postings:

A decision process is unsound if it fails to address context.

The principle can be applied generally, but using this excerpt from the Great Sand Hills example:

The CONTEXT in which the Great Sand Hills exist in 2005 should be a separate item in the Reporting Document because it is a crucial consideration, a determinant.

The conclusions I would reach about a child in a refugee camp in Ethiopia could be starkly different from those reached in relation to a child raised in Disneyland Villa because of only one consideration: the context in which their lives are set is dramatically different. Failure to delineate context would be a serious error leading to unsound decisions.

Other examples of the importance of context: decisions about prairie resource allocation would be very different in a contextual setting of 1830 compared to the conditions that will exist in 2030. Decisions related to women could be very different in the context of a fundamentalist Muslim community versus Hollywood.

The Scoping Document identifies some items of context. But what would constitute a comprehensive list? Of what is context composed? … off the top of my head – factors that affect a decision outcome because they constitute the environment in which the decision is made:

– legal context

– system of governance (a decision made in an oppressive regime will be different from the same decision made in a democracy)

– time in history

– levels of awareness (is it an Age of Enlightenment or one of relative ignorance?)

– community values

– ecological context

The CONTEXT in which a decision is made needs to be spelt out. It greatly affects the decision and what becomes of the decision. One benefit of addressing CONTEXT is that some items of context can be changed.

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

AND THIS, FROM THE “SMART REGS” (Government Directive on Regulating) discussion. Ha! You might think I was high on drugs! I suggested to the Privy Council Office (PCO) that they include the following 11 items in statements of context for Government regulatory documents.

The terms-of-reference of a report can pre-determine the outcome to support wrong-headed policy. Conversely, the terms-of-reference can acknowledge and give appropriate weight to factors that contribute to a wholesome decision-making process. The inclusion of “context” in the terms-of-reference serves a legitimate need and will contribute to sound decisions, thereby to solid public policy.

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF CONTEXT, TO BE WORKED ON:

The Regulatory Directive is designed to address the realities of our time.

The realities are stated to enable users to better apply individual ingenuity to the creation of a responsive and responsible regulatory regime:

1) STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Climate change is a known threat. The pressure on water resources is mounting. A world standard for gauging threats to biodiversity exists. Many species face a high risk of extinction in the near future.

2) STATE OF HEALTH. There are rising levels of disease related to environmental toxins.

3) STATE OF SCIENCE. Confidence in science has been seriously eroded by corporate purchase and manipulation of “science” and scientists. Some 6,000 scientists including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) statement, “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

3) STATE OF GOVERNANCE. Unacceptable levels of corruption exist. “Public Private Partnerships” have been promoted since 1982. Government is a part of industry through entities such as BioTech Canada and other public-private partnerships. From John Kenneth Galbraith’s, The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time, published in 2004:

… As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. … Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation … This last must be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision. …

(4) GOVERNMENTS AND CITIZENS OPERATE IN A 4-YEAR TIME HORIZON, with little incentive to take long-term perspectives.

(5) ECONOMIC MODEL IN USE: In 2005, the Governments in Canada use out-dated and misleading accounting procedures. They do not include depletion of assets (natural resources) and cost of rehabilitation in economic evaluations. Businesses have to account for depletion of assets (depreciation). GDP does not. Such a model enables one to justify economic activity that is plunder with no thought for the ability of the economy to function in the future. Businesses could not last if they took this approach. Nor can a national or provincial economy in the long term.

Enlightened jurisdictions recognize the need for GDP to reflect resource depletion and rehabilitation costs if it is to be a helpful tool. There is pressure on Governments to adopt “Accounting for the costs and benefits of Externalities”.

(6) KNOWLEDGE LEVEL: In 2005, we don’t know a lot. If our state is one of ignorance, we should proceed with a great deal of caution. The Precautionary Principle for sustainable development arises out of the Bruntland Report, or Our Common Future, the report made by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.

(7) LEGAL ENVIRONMENT IN 2005. In 2001 from the Globe & Mail (excerpts):

. . the Supreme Court of Canada for the sixth consecutive time came down on the side of environmental protection in a precedent-setting decision. … “The protection of the environment has become one of the major challenges of our time.” (words from Supreme Court decision). “…the Supreme Court upheld the law, noting that environmental protection is a “fundamental value in Canadian society.”. “in the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine, a Newfoundland court issued one of the most strongly worded environmental judgments in Canadian legal history, emphasizing “the urgency of controlling the destruction of the Earth’s environment.”

All Canadians and their Governments are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

(8) CORPORATE WORLD

The movie “The Corporation” has contributed to people’s willingness to challenge the role of the corporation in society.

Corporate power is a major cause of health problems, according to the October/December 2005 special issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. Contributions to the issue reveal how corporate structure results in pressure to influence science and place the public at risk from pesticides, lead, asbestos, toxic municipal sewage sludge, and other harmful substances.”

(9) RELATIONSHIPS

In 2005 it is recognized that we live in a time of great disconnection.

People continue to move to urban centres where “the neighbours” are not known. People are disconnected from food sources. There is a failure to recognize our relationship to the natural world, that survival is dependent upon the gifts we are given: water, air, seeds, children. We abuse that which would be recognized as sacred if we were intelligent beings. Our ignorance is reflected in our language: water, trees, energy sources are “resources” to be exploited, not gifts to be cherished.

(10) SOCIETAL STRUCTURES

We are in a period of de-construction and re-construction. The institutions in the society that do not serve us well are being taken apart and re-defined. There is increasing movement away from hierarchical structures to relationships based on equality. The control of information by “credentialled” authorities is challenged by the access to information given by the internet. Titles used to address people are falling into dis-use.

(11) LEADERSHIP

In response to the problems in governance, there is a proliferation of non-government organizations that seek to organize people around issues.

Leadership is not centred in the political parties but is being provided by growing numbers of people outside government.

2010-12-27 Officials responsible for the Census Contracts with Lockheed Martin (American military)

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

Dec 272010

StatsCan dodges responsibility with the claim that they have nothing to do with the awarding of Government contracts. It is the responsibility of Public Works.

And behind it all is the Privy Council Office, running the Government’s show.

The responsible officials are:

STATSCAN

Wayne Smith
Chief Statistician of Canada since the summer of 2010
Telephone: 613 951 9493
E-mail:Wayne.Smith AT statcan.gc.ca

Munir Sheikh Munir.Sheikh AT a.statcan.ca was the Chief Statistician from July 2008 to July 21, 2010 when he resigned because the Government made the long form no longer mandatory (which it never was, anyway, because of the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information).

Anil Arora was a head of the Census operation. He was the StatsCan witness at my trial on January 11 & 12, 2010. I received an anonymous phone call from a StatsCan employee in March saying that Anil Arora is no longer at StatsCan. He was moved to another position. No explanation was offered.

The original census contracts with Lockheed Martin go back at least to 2003 when the Liberals were in power. Ivan Felligi was then the Chief Statistician, the one who received the initial onslaught of thousands of emails in protest over the out-sourcing to Lockheed Martin Corporation. Felligi remained at StatsCan in a senior advisory role after he stepped down from the job of Chief Statistician.

Tony Clement, Minister of Industry (responsible for StatsCan) since Oct 30, 2008

minister.industry AT ic.gc.ca; Clement.T AT parl.gc.ca (613) 944 7740.

PUBLIC WORKS

c. François Guimont, Deputy Minister of Public Works since June 2007 (before that he was head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, well-known to us because of the CFIA’s kowtowing service to the biotech corps like Monsanto, the patenting of life forms – our food supply engineered by the criterion that the crops can be sprayed with chemicals and not die). The Deputy of Public Works is responsible for the negotiation of Government contracts. 819 956 1706; francois.guimont AT tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

c. Rona Ambrose, Minister Responsible for Public Works since January 2010.

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/apropos-about/mnstr-eng.html Ambrose.R AT parl.gc.ca; 613 996 9778

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (PCO)

http://www.pco.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier

Clerk of the Privy Council

“The Privy Council Office (PCO) provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.”

The PCO has been instrumental in determining who goes into strategic jobs in the management of the public service – deputy minister positions, etc. Through strategic job placements, the public service can be molded to respond to corporate interests. People who are relatively weak, who are motivated by money and being able to rub shoulders with “influential” people are ideal candidates for strategic corporate-friendly job placements.

Privy Council Office
Telephone : (613) 957-5153
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier

Mr. Wayne G. Wouters was appointed Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet by the Prime Minister on July 1st, 2009.

e-mail: info AT pco-bcp.gc.ca

Contact the PM: pm AT pm.gc.ca

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.

Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys 2 Responses »

Dec 232010

ITEM B

(Sorry for the duplication of info. This is a paste together of parts of documents used for different purposes. /S)

CANADA, THE CHARTER RIGHT, PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

UPDATE (POST-TRIAL):

I checked with a senior professor of law about the Oakes Test (protects Charter Rights) – – is it still taught? I am assured – – yes, it is a mainstay of Canadian law.

(From #3 below: Section 1 of the Charter can be used to override charter rights, if the good of the larger society is more important than the individual right and freedom. BUT there are tests (the Oakes test) that must be passed, in order to allow an override.)

THE (UN)TRUTH OF THE MATTER? The Oakes Test is a seriously bad, easily understood MYTH. See: The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.

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

UPDATE Feb 2016: From posting 2016-02-04 Census, Lockheed Martin & Charter Right. Replies to student research, Philosophy Class, Truth & Propaganda. (Includes “What were my primary motivations?)

RE: former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.

MY REPLY:

Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual. However,

The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that. StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so. Charter Rights – – Constitutional Laws – – trump regular legislation such as the Statistics Act.
In order to override a Charter Right of individual citizens (and thereby all citizens), the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.

If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application for a “Section 1 over-ride” to the Courts, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test (“pressing and substantial” concern, sanctions are “reasonable and demonstrably justified”, “proportionality” between the sanction and the offence and so on – – details below) . The Court would have to agree that the Government met the Oakes Test criteria, and grant StatsCan the authority to over-ride our Right to Privacy of Personal Information. StatsCan (nor the Justice Dept) has even made such an application, let alone obtained a Court Ruling. So the Charter Right stands.

In my humble opinion, StatsCan/Justice Dept have not applied to the Courts for an override because it is doubtful they can meet the standards set by the Oakes Test. A Court ruling would go against them. Read on – – what do you think?

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT

THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION:

(NOTE, Additional postings related to the LEGAL ARGUMENT: go to the right-hand sidebar, to “Categories”, under that to “Rule of Law”)

CONTENTS OF THIS POSTING

(1) THE CASE LAW ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS PROTECTS PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION, R. v. Plant.

Also, see Charter argument Privacy of personal information, REASONABLE, R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128

(2) THE STATISTICS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IS A HIGHER LAW

(3) DOUBTFUL THE GOVERNMENT CAN MEET THE “OAKES TEST” TO OVERRIDE THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN RELATION TO THE CENSUS.

(4) AND IN MY TRIAL, THE CROWN DID NOT ARGUE AN OVERRIDE OF THE SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT. BUT THE CHARTER RIGHT WAS IN FACT OVER-RIDDEN.

(5) WHY do we have a Charter Right to privacy of personal information? IMPORTANT

(6) ELABORATION, EMAIL SENT TO THE CBC, YES THERE IS A LEGAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Dec 19, 2010

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

(1) THE CASE LAW ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS PROTECTS PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION, R. v. Plant

The case law (R. v. Plant) associated with Section 8 of the Charter (protection against undue “search and seizure”) says that the Government cannot force people to hand over a “biographical core of personal information”.

R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281

Section 31 of The Statistics Act makes it a punishable offence (jail and a fine) not to hand over the information requested on the Census form. I received the “long form”. It contains about 50 questions, many of them personal.

The Statistics Act is in contravention of the case law associated with Section 8 of the Charter. And the Government likely cannot meet the test (“Oakes test”) to override the Charter Right.

The StatsCan mantra is “you will be prosecuted, fined and jailed” if you don’t comply with the census. Additionally, your province or community will not receive transfer payments or Government funding if you don’t participate.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the American military through Lockheed Martin Corporation (contractor) and IBM (sub-contractor) will in time have access to the Canadian census data base. Part of the census work was “out-sourced”, effectively to the American military (Lockheed Martin) starting in 2003 and continues in spite of citizen protest.

It is possible that the June 29th announcement by the Government that the census long form is no longer mandatory is a consequence of my trial. And/or, it may be that the furor in the U.S. over their census (2010) had influence.

(UPDATE: although the Conservative (Harper) Government SAID that the long form is no longer mandatory, it never did pass legislation to change the law. They did one better: the census long form is now called the National Household Survey. By moving the data collection OUTSIDE the census – – i.e. by making it a “survey” instead of the “census long form”, they DID make it voluntary – – “surveys” are voluntary.

However, StatsCan tells citizens that the surveys ARE mandatory and failure to answer the questions is subject to fines and jail time.

The effect of changing the data collection from “census” to “survey” is to enable the collection of information on citizens on an on-going basis, 360 days a year, every year – – in contrast, census data collection can only be done once every 5 years. Surveys can be done anytime and always, if authorized by the Government through an Order-in-Council.)

At Court on March 17, I was no longer representing myself. Had I continued to represent myself I would have lost the case, as happened to Todd Stelmach and Darek Czernewcan. With the expertise and experience of Steve Seiferling (lawyer) we have a much better chance of successfully defending the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

We were NOT successful!

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

UPDATE October 2013: In the end, my case went as far as the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The “guilty” decision of the Saskatchewan Courts stands. They say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy if the demands for personal information come from Statistics Canada through a Census long form (which doesn’t actually exist any longer – it is now the National Household Survey and the number of questions is expanded). (BUT January 2016, the Liberal Government is re-instating the mandatory Census Long Form. The number of questions (demand for your information) keeps increasing.)

THE JUDGMENT: 2013SKCA047 Census Judgment SKCA.

(UPDATE: In order to uphold the Charter Right to privacy of personal information we sought leave-to-appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We were denied leave to appeal.

The finding of the Appeal Court in Saskatchewan applies in Saskatchewan; it is a bad precedent, but is not binding on other provincial appeal courts.)

(2) THE STATISTICS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IS A HIGHER LAW

Constitutional rights take precedence over the law that is set out in regular legislation such as the Statistics Act.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Canadian Constitution.

Our Charter Right to Privacy of personal information therefore overrides the Statistics Act.

UNLESS the Government can show that there is a greater value to the people of Canada if individual Charter Rights are extinguished.

BUT even then the Government has tests or criteria that it must pass in order to be able to override our Charter rights.

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

(3) DOUBTFUL THE GOVERNMENT CAN MEET THE “OAKES TEST” TO OVERRIDE THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN RELATION TO THE CENSUS

(The Oakes Test was never argued in my trial, as explained below.)

Section 1 of the Charter can be used to override charter rights, if the good of the larger society is more important than the individual right and freedom. BUT there are tests that must be passed, in order to allow an override.

THE OAKES TEST TO OVERRIDE CHARTER RIGHTS

Is there a “pressing and substantial” concern such that I must tell the Government (for example) how many bedrooms are in my house? (one of the questions on the “census long form” which I received and did not fill out).

Is there “proportionality”? – The Statistics Act allows the Government to put me in jail for 3 months and fine me $500 if I do not comply with the census. Is there “proportionality” between the sanction and the offence? (elaboration below).

I have a constitutional right not to be forced to hand over “a biographical core of personal information”. Legislation that forces me to do so (the Statistics Act) is unconstitutional, unless it passes the test for an override:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Oakes

The Court presents a two step test to justify a limitation (INSERT: of an individual’s Charter Rights and Freedoms) …

First, it must be “an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society“, and
second it must be shown “that the means chosen (INSERT: 3 months in jail and a fine of $500) are reasonable and demonstrably justified“.

The second part is described as a “proportionality test” which requires the invoking party (the Government) to show:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. (i.e. 3 months of jail and a fine of $500 must be shown to have a logical connection to the objective of the Census)
Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question.
Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance”.

(example using two actual questions on the Census long form – – it is of sufficient importance that the Government know what language I spoke at home when I was 5 years old, and how many bedrooms are in my home – – it is important enough that they can impose 3 months in jail and a $500 fine (“the effects of the measures” responsible for limiting the Right to Privacy) if I refuse to give up my Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.)

Note: this is about the Census. It is not about StatsCan “Surveys” because the Statistics Act says that surveys are not mandatory – – no matter what StatsCan might tell you. See Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?

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

4. IMPORTANT: IN MY TRIAL, THE CROWN DID NOT ARGUE AN OVERRIDE OF THE SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT. BUT THE CHARTER RIGHT WAS IN FACT OVER-RIDDEN.

Steve (lawyer) writes, 2013: (I, Sandra, added the parentheses.)

The “override” you’re talking about is section 1 of the Charter, which was not raised by the Crown, so it was not considered by Judge Whelan (Provincial Court, guilty decision) or Justice Conkin (Court of Queen’s Bench, guilty decision upheld).

Judge Whelan’s decision focused on whether the search was “reasonable” under section 8 of the Charter.

As I had previously understood lawyer Steve’s explanation:

under the procedures we, the defendants, could not place the argument against an override of the Section 8 Charter Right before the Court. The argument for an override had to be originated by the Crown, and then we could have placed the opposing argument, defending against an override.

IMPORTANT (INSERTED: The Judge asked the Prosecutor a few times, if he was going to argue a Section 1 override of my Charter Right to privacy of personal information. The prosecutor consistently said “no”. I was confused by this. My understanding of the law was that the Crown effectively wanted to extinguish my right to Privacy of Personal Information. And would therefore be compelled to successfully argue the Oakes Test (which I didn’t think they could do). As became clear, the Prosecution would have been crazy to follow the prescribed procedure for override on a Charter Right. Read on.)

For me, the EFFECT of the Crown not arguing a Section 1 override:

I was given a conditional discharge, but at the base, I was found guilty of non-compliance – – which has the effect of removing the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

The OAKES TEST is specifically a TWO-PART test, with a 1. AND a 2. The Crown Prosecutor and Judge did not consider it, although it is the procedure established by law to override a Charter Right.

We were denied the ability to make the Oakes Test arguments against an override of the Charter Right to privacy of personal information. The Judge did not have to address those arguments in her decision through the simple mechanism of NOT CALLING IT a Section 1 override.

The “REASONABLENESS” addressed by the Judge, as I understand, was whether it was reasonable for the Government to collect the information (because it is valuable information).

“THE OAKES TEST” (described above) received short shrift:

Did the Government have “an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society“, AND
Did it show “that the means chosen (3 months in jail and a fine of $500) are reasonable and demonstrably justified“? To meet this test the Prosecutor had to show 3 more things (the “proportionality test“):

- The measures adopted must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. They must be rationally connected to the objective. And,
- Even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, they should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question.
- Also, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance”.

There may, of course, be something that I am not seeing, or am not understanding. Please advise me.

THE (UN) TRUTH OF THE MATTER?

The Oakes Test is a seriously bad, easily understood myth. See: The Oakes Test to over-ride Charter Rights. How Prosecutors get around it.
Which means that Charter Rights are extremely vulnerable. The legal procedure to protect them needs to be changed — see #1 (a short posting).

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

(5) WHY do we have a Charter Right to privacy of personal information?

See THE ROLE OF MECHANIZED CENSUS DATA IN NAZI EUROPE (THE HOLOCAUST), COMPLIMENTS OF IBM. That’s one good reason. Comprehensive files on individual citizens is a characteristic of militaristic, fascist states – – has always been.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the driving force behind getting a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter came well before Edwin Black’s book, “IBM and the Holocaust, the strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s most powerful corporation” (2001) . The book is a meticulous documentation of the role of mechanized census data in Nazi Europe.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the application (interpretation) of it by the Supreme Court of Canada, are tools we can use to prevent a re-occurrence of Nazi Europe or anything like it.

Even prior to the publication of “IBM and the Holocaust” enlightened Canadian leadership understood the dangers of state collection of data on its citizens, the need for a tool to prevent the state from encroaching upon the privacy of the individual. We were given a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is useless if we don’t stand up and use it in times such as this.

An understanding of history, (“IBM and the Holocaust”) dictates we do so.

(Add the link to George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” which perfectly describes the erosion of the memory of democratic ideals we once had and how they are manipulated out of existence (“newspeak”, etc.)

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

(6) ELABORATION, EMAIL SENT TO THE CBC, YES THERE IS A LEGAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Dec 19, 2010

Sunday Dec 19, CBC Radio, The Sunday Edition, Host Michael Enright

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/

Click on Hour 1, Excellent panel discussion on Privacy, Starts halfway through hour 1

Email sent Dec 19, 2010:

SUBJECT: Yes, there is a Legal right to Privacy in Canada

Dear Michael,

The discussion on privacy was informative and thoughtful – – all in all excellent! Thank-you very much.

As I understood it, you posed the question of whether there is a legal right to privacy in Canada.

The answer is “yes” insofar as it involves the relationship between the state and the citizen. The protection is contained in the case law that has evolved out of Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See appended.

I am on trial at the moment. The right to privacy of personal information is the legal issue in the trial. Lawyer Steve Seiferling has specialized in privacy law. He is representing me. Judge Whelan’s decision is due January 13.

I don’t think there is any doubt but that we will win the case. (I WAS WRONG!!) For me it is about re-claiming the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, an important right that Canadians should not give up without a fight.

You asked your guests what is the greatest threat to privacy. Their responses were illuminating. I would add that ignorance of history and amnesia are also a serious threat.

Thanks again,

Sandra Finley

Census Lockheed: Charter argument Privacy of personal information REASONABLE R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128

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

Dec 232010

(You may want to scroll down to some of the high-lighted text to get the flavour of the arguments, skipping the details.)

EXCERPTS FROM LEGAL OPINIONS

SECTION 8 CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS “REASONABLE”

Note:

Section 8 of the Charter protects citizens against “undue search and seizure”. Near the end of this posting you will see where the Courts have applied the Charter to protect against undue search and seizure of personal information. Section 8 is therefore, also, the Charter right to privacy of personal information.
Keep in mind when reading the information regarding Statistics Canada, censuses and surveys that Lockheed Martin Corp (the American “defence” department, hugely into surveillance) is involved in the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada. Furthermore, the records are not anonymous: your name is on your record at StatsCan. The data collection on individuals is on-going every year and year-round through “surveys”, in addition to censuses.
Also, the leaks by Edward Snowden about the NSA reinforce and confirm the “back-door” if not front-door access by the American war machine to data bases.

And now to:

Charter argument Privacy of personal information

REASONABLE

R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128

Per Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.:

Several principles pertain to the s. 8 right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. A claim for relief under s. 24(2) of the Charter can only be made by the person whose Charter rights have been infringed. Like all Charter rights, s. 8 is a personal right. It protects people and not places.

The right to challenge the legality of a search depends upon whether the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if so, whether the search by the police was conducted reasonably.

A reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. The factors to be considered may include:

(i) presence at the time of the search;

(ii) possession or control of the property or place searched;

(iii) ownership of the property or place;

(iv) historical use of the property or item;

(v) the ability to regulate access;

(vi) the existence of a subjective expectation of privacy; and

(vii) the objective reasonableness of the expectation.

If an accused person establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inquiry must proceed to the second stage to determine whether the search was conducted in a reasonable manner.

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

I demonstrated the expectation of privacy.

– Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc.

– From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

Hearing: November 22, 1983
Judgment: September 17, 1984


Full case name:	Lawson A. W. Hunter, Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation Branch, Michael J. Milton, Michael L. Murphy, J. Andrew McAlpine, and Antonio P. Marrocco, also known as Anthony P. Marroco v. Southam Inc.
Citations:	[1984] 2 S.C.R. 145
Docket No.:	(Link no longer valid – 17569)
History:	on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Ruling:	Hunter appeal dismissed

Court membership

Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson

Reasons given

Unanimous reason by: Dickson J.
Laskin C.J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

– Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada privacy rights case and as well is the first Supreme Court decision to consider section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

– Background

– An investigation was begun by the government under the authority of the Combines Investigation Act into Southam Newspaper. The investigators entered Southam’s offices in Edmonton and elsewhere to examine documents. The search was authorized prior to the enactment of the Charter but the search did not commence until afterwards. The challenge was allowed.

– At the Alberta Court of Appeal, the judge found that part of the Act was inconsistent with the Charter and therefore of no force or effect.

– The Supreme Court considered section 8 for the first time and upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal.000

– Reasons of the Court

– Chief Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the Combines Investigation Act violated the Charter as it did not provide an appropriate standard for administering warrants.

– The Court held that the purpose of section 8 is to protect an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, and to limit government action that will encroach on that expectation. Furthermore, to assess the extent of those rights the right to privacy must be balanced against the government’s duty to enforce the law.

– In reaffirming the doctrine of purposive interpretation when reading the Constitution, Dickson goes on to make a fundamental and oft quoted statement of the purpose of the Constitution and how it should be interpreted, stating:

– The task of expounding a constitution is crucially different from that of construing a statute. A statute defines present rights and obligations. It is easily enacted and as easily repealed. A constitution, by contrast, is drafted with an eye to the future. Its function is to provide a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power and, when joined by a Bill or a Charter of Rights, for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties. Once enacted, its provisions cannot easily be repealed or amended. It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and must, in interpreting its provisions, bear these considerations in mind. Professor Paul Freund expressed this idea aptly when he admonished the American courts ‘not to read the provisions of the Constitution like a last will and testament lest it become one’.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1984/1984canlii33/1984canlii33.html

Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a purposive document, the provisions of which must be subjected to a purposive analysis. Section 8 of the Charter guarantees a broad and general right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures which extends at least so far as to protect the right of privacy from unjustified state intrusion. Its purpose requires that unjustified searches be prevented. It is not enough that a determination be made, after the fact, that the search should not have been conducted. This can only be accomplished by a requirement of prior authorization. Accordingly, prior authorization, where feasible, is a precondition for a valid search and seizure. It follows that warrantless searches are prima facie unreasonable under s. 8. The party seeking to justify a warrantless search bears the onus of rebutting the presumption of unreasonableness.

, are constitutionally defective in two respects.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

DICKSON J.—The Constitution of Canada, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the supreme law of Canada. Any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 so mandates. The constitutional question posed in this appeal is whether s. 10(3), and by implication s. 10(1), of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, (the “Act”) are inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter by reason of authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures and are therefore of no force and effect.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. …

The authorization has a breathtaking sweep; it is tantamount to a licence to roam at large on the premises of Southam Inc. at the stated address “and elsewhere in Canada”.

…. A unanimous five-judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal, speaking through Prowse J.A., held that s. 10(3) and by implication s. 10(1), of the Act were inconsistent with the provisions of s. 8 of the Charter and therefore of no force or effect. It is from this ruling that the present appellants bring their appeal before this Court.

II The Positions of the Parties

A) The Respondent, Southam Inc.

In alleging that subss. 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines Investigation Act are inconsistent with the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, Southam Inc. relies heavily on the historic protections afforded by common law and by statute as defining the correct standard of reasonableness for purposes of s. 8 of the Charter. This was essentially the approach taken by Prowse J.A. when he said:

[Page 152]

The roots of the right to be so secure are embedded in the common law and the safeguards according that right are found in common law, in statutes subsequently enacted, and in decisions of the courts made as the society in which we live has evolved. The expression of the right in a constitutional document reminds us of those roots and the tradition associated with the right. One would be presumptuous to assume that we have attained the zenith of our development as a civilization and that the right accorded an individual is frozen for eternity. Section 8, however, requires us to be ever mindful of some of the criteria that have been applied in the past in securing the right.

Applying this approach, Prowse J.A. concluded—correctly in Southam Inc.’s submission—that, absent exceptional circumstances, the provisions of s. 443 (no longer section 443) of the Criminal Code, which extends to investigations of Criminal Code offences the procedural safeguards the common law required for entries and searches for stolen goods, constitute the minimal prerequisites for reasonable searches and seizures in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence, ( INSERT: I was not even being investigated in relation to criminal activity) including possible violations of the Combines Investigation Act. Prowse J.A. summarized these procedural safeguards in the following propositions:

Southam Inc. contends that subss. 10(1) and 10(3) fail to provide any of these safeguards.

III “Unreasonable” Search or Seizure

At the outset it is important to note that the issue in this appeal concerns the constitutional validity of a statute authorizing a search and seizure. It does not concern the reasonableness or otherwise of the manner in which the appellants carried out their statutory authority. It is not the conduct of the appellants, but rather the legislation under which they acted, to which attention must be directed.

As is clear from the arguments of the parties as well as from the judgment of Prowse J.A., the crux of this case is the meaning to be given to the term “unreasonable” in the s. 8 guarantee of freedom from unreasonable search or seizure. The guarantee is vague and open. The American courts have had the advantage of a number of specific prerequisites articulated in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as a history

[Page 155]

of colonial opposition to certain Crown investigatory practices from which to draw out the nature of the interests protected by that Amendment and the kinds of conduct it proscribes. There is none of this in s. 8. There is no specificity in the section beyond the bare guarantee of freedom from “unreasonable” search and seizure; nor is there any particular historical, political or philosophic context capable of providing an obvious gloss on the meaning of the guarantee. (INSERT: what about World War 2?)

It is clear that the meaning of “unreasonable” cannot be determined by recourse to a dictionary, nor for that matter, by reference to the rules of statutory construction. The task of expounding a constitution is crucially different from that of construing a statute. A statute defines present rights and obligations. It is easily enacted and as easily repealed. A constitution, by contrast, is drafted with an eye to the future. Its function is to provide a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power and, when joined by a Bill or a Charter of Rights, for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties. Once enacted, its provisions cannot easily be repealed or amended. It must, therefore, be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities often unimagined by its framers. The judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and must, in interpreting its provisions, bear these considerations in mind. Professor Paul Freund expressed this idea aptly when he admonished the American courts “not to read the provisions of the Constitution like a last will and testament lest it become one”.

The need for a broad perspective in approaching constitutional documents is a familiar theme in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. It is contained in Viscount Sankey’s classic formulation in Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, at p. 136, cited and applied in countless Canadian cases:

[Page 156]

The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada… Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board—it is certainly not their desire—to cut down the provisions of the Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation.

More recently, in Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher, [1980] A.C. 319, dealing with the Bermudian Constitution, Lord Wilberforce reiterated at p. 328 that a constitution is a document “sui generis, calling for principles of interpretation of its own, suitable to its character”, and that as such, a constitution incorporating a Bill of Rights calls for:

…a generous interpretation avoiding what has been called “the austerity of tabulated legalism,” suitable to give individuals the full measure of the fundamental rights and freedoms referred to.

Such a broad, purposive analysis, which interprets specific provisions of a constitutional document in the light of its larger objects is also consonant with the classical principles of American constitutional construction enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall in M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). It is, as well, the approach I intend to take in the present case.

I begin with the obvious. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a purposive document. Its purpose is to guarantee and to protect, within the limits of reason, the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines. It is intended to constrain governmental action inconsistent with those rights and freedoms; it is not in itself an authorization for governmental action. In the present case this means, as Prowse J.A. pointed out, that in guaranteeing the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, s. 8 acts as a limitation on whatever powers of search and seizure the federal or provincial governments already and otherwise possess. It does not in itself confer any powers, even of “reasonable” search and seizure,

[Page 157]

on these governments. This leads, in my view, to the further conclusion that an assessment of the constitutionality of a search and seizure, or of a statute authorizing a search or seizure, must focus on its “reasonable” or “unreasonable” impact on the subject of the search or the seizure, and not simply on its rationality in furthering some valid government objective.

Since the proper approach to the interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a purposive one, before it is possible to assess the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the impact of a search or of a statute authorizing a search, it is first necessary to specify the purpose underlying s. 8: in other words, to delineate the nature of the interests it is meant to protect.

Historically, the common law protections with regard to governmental searches and seizures were based on the right to enjoy property and were linked to the law of trespass. …

In view of the lack of proper legal authorization for the governmental intrusion, the plaintiff was protected from the intended search and seizure by the ordinary law of trespass.

In my view the interests protected by s. 8 are of a wider ambit than those enunciated in Entick v. Carrington. Section 8 is an entrenched constitutional provision. It is not therefore vulnerable to encroachment by legislative enactments in the same way as common law protections. There is, further, nothing in the language of the section to restrict it to the protection of property or to associate it with the law of trespass. It guarantees a broad and general right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, also guarantees a broad right. It provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Construing this provision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Stewart J. delivering the

[Page 159]

majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court declared at p. 351 that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places”. Justice Stewart rejected any necessary connection between that Amendment and the notion of trespass. With respect, I believe this approach is equally appropriate in construing the protections in s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Katz, Stewart J. discussed the notion of a right to privacy, which he described at p. 350 as “his right to be let alone by other people”. Although Stewart J. was careful not to identify the Fourth Amendment exclusively with the protection of this right, nor to see the Amendment as the only provision in the Bill of Rights relevant to its interpretation, it is clear that this notion played a prominent role in his construction of the nature and the limits of the American constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. In the Alberta Court of Appeal, Prowse J.A. took a similar approach to s. 8, which he described as dealing “with one aspect of what has been referred to as the right of privacy, which is the right to be secure against encroachment upon the citizens’ reasonable expectation of privacy in a free and democratic society”.

Like the Supreme Court of the United States, I would be wary of foreclosing the possibility that the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure might protect interests beyond the right of privacy, but for purposes of the present appeal I am satisfied that its protections go at least that far. The guarantee of security from unreasonable search and seizure only protects a reasonable expectation. This limitation on the right guaranteed by s. 8, whether it is expressed negatively as freedom from “unreasonable” search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a “reasonable” expectation of privacy, indicates that an assessment must be made as to whether in a particular situation the public’s interest in being left alone by government must give way to the government’s interest in intruding on the individual’s privacy in

[Page 160]

order to advance its goals, notably those of law enforcement. (INSERT: it is not even law enforcement in this case of StatsCan.)

The question that remains, and the one upon which the present appeal hinges, is how this assessment is to be made. When is it to be made, by whom and on what basis? Here again, I think the proper approach is a purposive one.

A) When is the Balance of Interests to be Assessed?

… Such a post facto analysis would, however, be seriously at odds with the purpose of s. 8. That purpose is, as I have said, to protect individuals from unjustified state intrusions upon their privacy. That purpose requires a means of preventing unjustified searches before they happen, not simply of determining, after the fact, whether they ought to have occurred in the first place. This, in my view, can only be accomplished by a system of prior authorization, not one of subsequent validation.

A requirement of prior authorization, usually in the form of a valid warrant, has been a consistent prerequisite for a valid search and seizure both at common law and under most statutes. Such a requirement puts the onus on the state to demonstrate the superiority of its interest to that of the individual. As such it accords with the apparent intention of the Charter to prefer, where feasible, the right of the individual to be free from state interference to the interests of the state in advancing its purposes through such interference.

[Page 161]

… Here also, the decision in Katz, supra, is relevant. In United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), the Supreme Court of the United States had held that a search without warrant was not ipso facto unreasonable. Seventeen years later, however, in Katz, Stewart J. concluded that a warrantless search was prima facie “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. The terms of the Fourth Amendment are not identical to those of s. 8 and American decisions can be transplanted to the Canadian context only with the greatest caution. Nevertheless, I would in the present instance respectfully adopt Stewart J.’s formulation as equally applicable to the concept of “unreasonableness” under s. 8, and would require the party seeking to justify a warrantless search to rebut this presumption of unreasonableness.

In the present case the appellants make no argument that it is unfeasible or unnecessary to obtain prior authorization for the searches contemplated by the. Combines Investigation Act and, in my view, no such argument could be made. I would therefore conclude that in the absence of a valid procedure for prior authorization searches conducted under the Act would be unreasonable. …

B) Who Must Grant the Authorization?

The purpose of a requirement of prior authorization is to provide an opportunity, before the event, for the conflicting interests of the state and the individual to be assessed, so that the individu-

[Page 162]

al’s right to privacy will be breached only where the appropriate standard has been met, and the interests of the state are thus demonstrably superior. …

In his view circumstances may arise under the Act where “the Director is acting as investigator and prosecutor and the Commission is acting as investigator and judge with respect to breaches of the Act”. Southam Inc. summarizes and enlarges upon Prowse J.A.’s analysis, producing the following list of investigatory functions bestowed upon the Commission or one of its members by the Act:

(i) the power in s. 47 to instruct the Director to commence a s. 8 inquiry;

(ii) the power to cause evidence to be gathered pursuant to ss. 9, 10, 12 and 17;

(iii) the power to issue a s. 17 order;

(iv) the power under ss. 17, 22(2)(b) to seek further or better evidence after the Commission has commenced a hearing;

[Page 164]

(v) the power under s. 22(2)(b)after commencing a hearing and receiving evidence to direct the Director to make further inquiry and, in effect, to go back to the investigatory stage;

(vi) the power under s. 22(2)(c)to compel the Director to turn over to the R.T.P.C. copies of all books, papers, records or other documents obtained by the Director in such further inquiry;

(vii) the power under s. 27.1 to order the Director to give evidence before any other federal board, commission or other tribunal;

(viii) the power under s. 45.1 to seek production of statistics for evidence in an inquiry;

(ix) the power to deliver to the Director all books, papers, records or other documents produced on a s. 17 hearing;

(x) the power under s. 13 to request the appointment and instruction of counsel to assist in the inquiry.

In my view, investing the Commission or its members with significant investigatory functions has the result of vitiating the ability of a member of the Commission to act in a judicial capacity when authorizing a search or seizure under s. 10(3). This is not, of course, a matter of impugning the honesty or good faith of the Commission or its members. It is rather a conclusion that the administrative nature of the Commission’s investigatory duties (with its quite proper reference points in considerations of public policy and effective enforcement of the Act) ill-accords with the neutrality and detachment necessary to assess whether the evidence reveals that the point has been reached where the interests of the individual must constitutionally give way to those of the state. A member of the R.T.P.C. passing on the appropriateness of a proposed search under the Combines Investigation Act is caught by the maxim nemo judex in sua causa. He simply cannot be the impartial arbiter necessary to grant an effective authorization.

On this basis alone I would conclude that the prior authorization mandated by s. 10(3) of the

[Page 165]

Combines Investigation Act is inadequate to satisfy the requirement of s. 8 of the Charter and consequently a search carried out under the authority of subss. 10(1) and 10(3) is an unreasonable one. Since, however, the Alberta Court of Appeal found other, perhaps even more serious defects in these provisions I pass on to consider whether even if s. 10(3) did specify a truly neutral and detached arbiter to authorize searches it would nevertheless remain inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter.

C) On What Basis must the Balance of Interests be Assessed?

…As Prowse J.A. pointed out, if the powers of a Commission member are as the Federal Court of Appeal found them to be, then it follows that the decision of the Director in the course of an inquiry to exercise his powers of entry, search and seizure is effectively unreviewable. The extent of the privacy of the individual would be left to the discretion of the Director. A provision authorizing such an unreviewable power would clearly be inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter.

Assuming, arguendo, that the Federal Court of Appeal was wrong, and the member is authorized, or even required, to satisfy himself as to (1) the legality of the inquiry and (2) the reasonableness of the Director’s belief that there may be evidence relevant to the matters being inquired into, would that remove the inconsistency with s. 8?

To read subss. 10(1) and 10(3) as simply allowing the authorizing party to satisfy himself on these questions, without requiring him to do so, would in my view be clearly inadequate. Such an amorphous standard cannot provide a meaningful criterion for securing the right guaranteed by s. 8. The location of the constitutional balance between a justifiable expectation of privacy and the legitimate needs of the state cannot depend on the subjective appreciation of individual adjudicators. Some objective standard must be established.

Requiring the authorizing party to satisfy himself as to the legality of the inquiry and the

[Page 167]

reasonableness of the Director’s belief in the possible existence of relevant evidence, would have the advantage of substituting an objective standard for an amorphous one, but would, in my view, still be inadequate. The problem is with the stipulation of a reasonable belief that evidence may be uncovered in the search. Here again it is useful, in my view, to adopt a purposive approach. The purpose of an objective criterion for granting prior authorization to conduct a search or seizure is to provide a consistent standard for identifying the point at which the interests of the state in such intrusions come to prevail over the interests of the individual in resisting them. To associate it with an applicant’s reasonable belief that relevant evidence may be uncovered by the search, would be to define the proper standard as the possibility of finding evidence. This is a very low standard which would validate intrusion on the basis of suspicion, and authorize fishing expeditions of considerable latitude. It would tip the balance strongly in favour of the state and limit the right of the individual to resist, to only the most egregious intrusions. I do not believe that this is a proper standard for securing the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Anglo-Canadian legal and political traditions point to a higher standard. The common law required evidence on oath which gave “strong reason to believe” that stolen goods were concealed in the place to be searched before a warrant would issue. Section 443 of the Criminal Code authorizes a warrant only where there has been information upon oath that there is “reasonable ground to believe” that there is evidence of an offence in the place to be searched. The American Bill of Rights provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…” The phrasing is slightly different but the standard in each of these formulations is identical. The state’s interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual’s interest in being left alone at the point where credibly-based probability replaces suspicion. History has confirmed the appropriateness of this requirement

[Page 168]

as the threshold for subordinating the expectation of privacy to the needs of law enforcement. Where the state’s interest is not simply law enforcement as, for instance, where state security is involved, or where the individual’s interest is not simply his expectation of privacy as, for instance, when the search threatens his bodily integrity, the relevant standard might well be a different one. That is not the situation in the present case. In cases like the present, reasonable and probable grounds, established upon oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search, constitutes the minimum standard, consistent with s. 8 of the Charter, for authorizing search and seizure. In so far as subss. 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines Investigation Act do not embody such a requirement, I would hold them to be further inconsistent with s. 8.

D) Reading In and Reading Down

The appellants submit that even if subss. 10(1) and 10(3) do not specify a standard consistent with s. 8 for authorizing entry, search and seizure, they should not be struck down as inconsistent with the Charter, but rather that the appropriate standard should be read into these provisions. An analogy is drawn to the case of McKay v. The Queen, 1965 CanLII 3 (S.C.C.), [1965] S.C.R. 798, in which this Court held that a local ordinance regulating the use of property by prohibiting the erection of unauthorized signs, though apparently without limits, could not have been intended unconstitutionally to encroach on federal competence over elections, and should therefore be “read down” so as not to apply to election signs. In the present case, the overt inconsistency with s. 8 manifested by the lack of a neutral and detached arbiter renders the appellants’ submissions on reading in appropriate standards for issuing a warrant purely academic. Even if this were not the case, however, I would be disin-

[Page 169]

clined to give effect to these submissions. While the courts are guardians of the Constitution and of individuals’ rights under it, it is the legislature’s responsibility to enact legislation that embodies appropriate safeguards to comply with the Constitution’s requirements. It should not fall to the courts to fill in the details that will render legislative lacunae constitutional. Without appropriate safeguards legislation authorizing search and seizure is inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter. As I have said, any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. I would hold subss. 10(1) and 10(3) of the Combines Investigation Act to be inconsistent with the Charter and of no force and effect, as much for their failure to specify an appropriate standard for the issuance of warrants as for their designation of an improper arbiter to issue them.

= = = = = = = = ==

“Biographical core of personal information”

(Link no longer valid: csc.lexum.umontreal.ca – -)

R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281

The United States Supreme Court has limited application of the Fourth Amendment (the right against unreasonable search and seizure) protection afforded by the United States Constitution to situations in which the information sought by state authorities is personal and confidential in nature: United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). That case determined that the accused’s cheques, subpoenaed for evidence from a commercial bank, were not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. While I do not wish to be taken as adopting the position that commercial records such as cancelled cheques are not subject to s. 8 protection, I do agree with that aspect of the Miller decision which would suggest that in order for constitutional protection to be extended, the information seized must be of a “personal and confidential” nature. In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.

= = = = = = = = = =

The Crown bears the burden of demonstrating, on the balance of probabilities, that a search was authorize4d by a reasonable law and carried out in a reasonable manner.

(Link no longer valid: csc.lexum.umontreal.ca – – )

R. v. Buhay, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, 2003 SCC 30

To establish an infringement of s. 8, the person raising the claim must first establish that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing searched or seized (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 159; Edwards, at para. 30). Reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (see, for example, Edwards, at para. 31, and R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, at p. 62). The factors to be considered in assessing the totality of the circumstances include, but are not restricted to, the accused’s presence at the time of the search, possession or control of the property or place searched, ownership of the property or place, historical use of the property or item, ability to regulate access, existence of a subjective expectation of privacy, and the objective reasonableness of the expectation (Edwards, at para. 45).

22 A reasonable expectation of privacy is contextual. The expectation does not have to be of the highest form of privacy to trigger the protection of s. 8.

24 As recently stated in R. v. Law, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227, 2002 SCC 10, this Court has adopted a liberal approach to the protection of privacy. Bastarache J. stressed at para. 16 that this protection extends not only to homes and personal items, but to information which we choose to keep confidential

32 We must now determine whether the search of the locker by the police was a reasonable search within the meaning of s. 8 (Edwards, supra, at para. 45). “A search will be reasonable if it is authorized by law, if the law itself is reasonable, and if the manner in which the search was carried out is reasonable”: Collins, supra, at p. 278. The search of the locker was a warrantless search. Such searches are prima facie unreasonable, and the onus rests on the Crown to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the search was reasonable.

38 The warrantless search and seizure of the items stored in the rented and locked bus depot locker was an impermissible intrusion of the state on a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy and, therefore, constitutes a violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

59 It should first be noted that the officer’s subjective belief that the appellant’s rights were not affected does not make the violation less serious, unless his belief was reasonable (see, e.g., Mercer, supra, at p. 191). As Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant note, supra, at p. 450, “good faith cannot be claimed if a Charter violation is committed on the basis of a police officer’s unreasonable error or ignorance as to the scope of his or her authority”.

63 The failure of the police officers to explore the other investigative techniques that were available to them shows the absence of sincere effort to comply with the Charter (see R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980, at p. 1008, per Dickson C.J.; Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, supra, at p. 455). As Lamer J. wrote in Collins, supra, at p. 285,“the availability of other investigatory techniques and the fact that the evidence could have been obtained without the violation of the Charter tend to render the Charter violation more serious”. This principle was reiterated in R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13, at para. 76, where Sopinka J. held that “[i]f other techniques were indeed available, it is demonstrative of bad faith and is particularly serious that the police chose to violate the appellant’s rights”. Similarly, in Dyment, supra, where there was no evidence that the respondent’s rights were knowingly breached, but where there was no urgency and other investigative techniques were available, this Court made it clear, at p. 440, that “such lax police procedures cannot be condoned”.

65 Some other elements must be considered and some militate in favour of admission of the evidence. The search was not especially obtrusive and the appellant had a lesser expectation of privacy than there is in one’s body, home or office. As Cory J. stressed in Belnavis, supra, at para. 40: “Obviously, the degree of the seriousness of the breach will increase the greater the expectation of privacy.

66 However, in balancing all of the relevant factors in the circumstances of this case, I cannot conclude that the conclusion of Aquila Prov. Ct. J. as to the seriousness of the violation is unreasonable. The evidence considered as a whole supports a conclusion that the violation was serious. The trial judge’s assessment of the seriousness of the interference with the appellant’s privacy interests reveals no misapprehension of the evidence, or failure to consider relevant factors, and is not unreasonable. His reasons reveal a full and clear understanding of the law. There is, in my view, no question that Aquila Prov. Ct. J. was in the best position to weigh the testimonies that led him to conclude that the police took a casual approach at infringing the appellant’s rights.

70 Lamer J. stressed at p. 281 in Collins that s. 24(2) is not a remedy for police misconduct. However, he also stressed that the purpose of s. 24(2) “is to prevent having the administration of justice brought into further disrepute by the admission of the evidence in the proceedings. This further disrepute will result from the admission of evidence that would deprive the accused of a fair hearing, or from judicial condonation of unacceptable conduct by the investigatory and prosecutorial agencies” (first emphasis in original; second emphasis added). Iacobucci J. also recalled in R. v. Burlingham, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206, at para. 25, that the purpose of the Collins test is “to oblige law enforcement authorities to respect the exigencies of the Charter . . .”. The expressed concern of the trial judge that admitting the evidence in these circumstances may encourage similar police conduct in the future is in line with this purpose of the Collins test. More importantly, provincial court judges handle these kinds of issues on a daily basis. They have a much better understanding than we do about the likely effects of their decisions on their communities and on those who enforce the law in those communities. A concern such as the one expressed by Aquila Prov. Ct. J. should not, in my view, be dismissed lightly. The administration of justice does not have to be brought into disrepute on a national scale before courts may interfere to protect the integrity of the process within which they operate.

Older Entries Newer Entries

Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board

15 Waulron Street Po Box 740 Etobicoke, Ontario, M9c 5h3 CA

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal. He is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/

Books

Everybody’s An Expert

Putting predictions to the test.

by Louis Menand December 5, 2005

(5) WHY do we have a Charter Right to privacy of personal information? IMPORTANT

15 Waulron Street
Po Box 740
Etobicoke, Ontario, M9c 5h3 CA