Sandra Finley

2010-10-10 Stunning victory: Breaking the law to obey a higher law (Lockheed Martin’s unmanned drones, Creech Air Force Base).

Drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles / UAVs) No Responses »

Oct 102010

This story is classic: a handful of people, David vrs Goliath. I didn’t know there is an effort to stop the American military use of the unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The UAV’s drop bombs on other countries by remote-control from the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

It’s an issue for Canadians because of our “compatible doctrine” and “interoperability” with the U.S. military, thanks to the Canada First Defence Strategy, June 2008.

Old-timers in our network will remember the name of Ramsey Clark (former Attorney-General of the U.S.), from our attempts to get George Bush arrested for war crimes (illegal war of aggression on Iraq) when he was in Canada in 2009. Ramsey came to Calgary to testify in the trial of Splitting-the-Sky who was charged after he attempted a citizen’s arrest of Bush. Ramsey surfaces again in the article below. He’s a pretty amazing old guy.

Lockheed Martin Corporation (the American military) has funded training at the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology (SIIT) in Saskatoon for the UAV programme.

We are in bad need of local dialogue to boot them out. See 2010-10-15, an email to Father John Dear to see if he will come to Saskatoon.

Today (Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!) I am thankful for the group of people who are on trial because of their protest over the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as a weapon against the citizens of other countries. Please assist them by passing this email along. We can’t stand in solidarity if people don’t know their story!

/Sandra

CONTENTS

(1) A PEACE MOVEMENT VICTORY IN COURT

(2) EMAIL TO FATHER JOHN DEAR, COULD YOU COME TO SASKATOON? (LOCKHEED MARTIN’S UAV TRAINING PROGRAMME AT THE SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)

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

(1) A peace movement victory in court

by John Dear SJ on Sep. 21, 2010

On the Road to Peace

“Fourteen anti-war activists may have made history today in a Las Vegas courtroom when they turned a misdemeanor trespassing trial into a possible referendum on America’s newfound taste for remote-controlled warfare.” That’s how one Las Vegas newspaper summed up our stunning day in court last Tuesday, Sept. 14, when fourteen of us stood trial for walking on to Creech Air Force Base last year on April 9, 2009 to protest the U.S. drones.

We went in hoping for the best and prepared for the worst. As soon as we started, the judge announced that he would not allow any testimony on international law, the necessity defense or the drones, only what pertained to the charge of “criminal trespassing.”

With that, the prosecutors called forth a base commander and a local police chief to testify that we had entered the base, that they had given us warnings to leave, and that they arrested us. They testified that they remembered each one of us. Then they rested their case.

We called three expert witnesses, what the newspaper called “some of the biggest names in the modern anti-war movement.” These were: Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson; Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army colonel and one of three former U.S. State Department officials who resigned on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and Bill Quigley, legal director for the New York City-based Center for Constitutional Rights. We presumed they would not be allowed to speak.

All fourteen of us acted as our own lawyers, and were not allowed any legal assistance, so members of our group took turns questioning our witnesses, and trying not to draw the judge’s wrath. Lo and behold, the judge let them speak, and they spoke for hours.

They were brilliant. They spoke about the meaning of “trespassing,” and the so-called necessity defense and international law, which allows citizens to break minor laws in adherence to a higher law. Ramsey Clark, looking like Atticus Finch on the stand, said it was a duty.

They cited the classic example of someone driving down a street, seeing a house on fire, noticing a child in the third floor window, hearing the screams, breaking through the front door, violating the no trespass law, and entering the house to save the child.

“[People] are allowed to trespass if it’s for the greater good — and there are certainly exceptions [to the law] when there is an emerging, urgent need,” said Quigley.

He cited the history of protesters who broke petty laws, from our nation’s founders to the Suffragists to the civil rights activists who illegally sat in at lunch counters. In the long run, we honor them for obeying a higher law, for helping to bring us toward justice, he said. Unfortunately, there is a gap between “the law” and “justice,” and so, he explained, the struggle today is to narrow that gap. The best test is through “a hundred year vision,” he explained. That is, how will this law and ruling be seen one hundred years from now?

The prosecutors challenged each witness, but their questions only enabled the witnesses to speak further on our behalf. When they were asked if they actually knew us, the prosecutors and judges were stunned to hear that they were our friends, in some cases, lifelong friends. When the prosecutors presented our experts’ articles from the internet in order to discredit them (such as Bill Quigley’s superb Common Dreams piece, “Time for a U.S. Revolution — Ten Reasons”), that only added fuel to their fire. Bill launched into an eloquent plea for citizens to stand up and work for nonviolent change.

Through carefully crafted questions, the defendants were able to extract several key points from their witnesses:

Intentional killing is a war crime, as embodied in U.S. constitutional law.
Drone strikes by U.S. and coalition forces kill a disproportionate number of civilians.
People have the right, even the duty, to stop war crimes.
According to the Nuremberg principles, individuals are required to disobey domestic orders that cause crimes against humanity.

After our experts testified, co-defendant Brian Terrell told the judge we would now call five of us to take the stand. The judge said he would not recommend that. So our group huddled together for a minute.

“He’s sending us a signal,” co-defendant Kathy Kelly said. “He’s telling us not to call any more witnesses, that if one of us testifies that we crossed the line under cross examination, he will have no choice but to find us guilty. Let’s rest our case.” So, despite days of preparation, we did.

With that, Brian Terrell stood up and delivered a short, spontaneous closing statement. It was one of the most moving speeches I have ever heard. Here are excerpts:

Several of our witnesses have employed the classic metaphor when talking of a necessity defense. There’s a house on fire, and a child crying from the window and there’s a no trespassing sign on the door. Can one ignore the sign, kick down the door and rescue the child?

It was a great privilege for us to hear Ramsey Clark, a master of understatement, who put it best. “Letting a baby burn to death because of a no trespass sign would be poor public policy.”

I submit that the house is on fire and babies are burning in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan because of the activities at Creech AFB.

The baby is burning also in the persons of the young people who are operating the drones from Creech AFB, who are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder at rates that even exceed that of their comrades in combat on the ground.

Colonel Ann Wright testified that soldiers do pay attention to what is going on in the public forum, and that they do respond to a “great debate” in the public sphere. There is no great debate going on about drone warfare in our country. Some have noted that the trend toward using drones in warfare is a paradigm shift that can be compared to what happened when an atomic bomb was first used to destroy the city of Hiroshima in Japan.

When Hiroshima was bombed, though, the whole world knew that everything had changed. Today everything is changing, but it goes almost without notice. I hesitate to claim credit for it, but there is certainly more discussion of this issue after we were arrested for trespassing at Creech AFB on April 9, 2009, than there was before.

Judge Jansen, we appreciate the close attention you’ve given to the testimony you’ve heard here. The question that you asked Bill Quigley, — “Aren’t there better ways of making change than breaking the law?”, is a question we are often asked and that we often ask ourselves.

It was a question that was asked of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 when he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. Several clergy people of Birmingham wrote a letter to Dr. King asking him the very same questions that you asked Professor Quigley. Isn’t there a better way? Why sit-ins? Why marches, why protests? Isn’t negotiation the better way?

Dr. King’s reply to these questions – in his famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is regarded by many as one of the finest things ever written in the English language – heartily agreed that negotiation is the better way. But, he said that a society that refuses to face crucial issues needs “nonviolent gadflies” using direct action to raise the level of awareness and raise the level of “creative tension” for a society to rise from the depths of monologue to the majestic heights of dialogue, where the great debate that Colonel Ann Wright says we need, can happen.

The house is on fire. And we fourteen are ones who have seen the smoke from the fire and heard the cries of the children. We cannot be deterred by a No Trespassing sign from going to the burning children.

As he finished, Brian burst into tears and sat down. Many in the courtroom wept. Then Judge Jansen stunned us by announcing that he needed three months to “think about all of this” before he could render a verdict. He marked twenty five years on the bench just the day before, he said, and this was his first trespassing case and he wanted to make the best decision he could. There is more at stake here than the usual meaning of trespassing, he noted. The prosecutors were clearly frustrated and disappointed. With that, we were assigned a court date of January 27, 2011, to hear the verdict. As he left, he thanked the fourteen of us and the audience, and then seemed to give a benediction: “Go in peace!” Everyone applauded.

“By all accounts, the Creech 14 trial is the first time in history an American judge has allowed a trial to touch on possible motivations of anti-drone protesters,” the local paper said.

While I wish he had immediately found us Not Guilty and sent a signal to the U.S. military that these weapons are illegal, it was astonishing to watch this judge begin with his hostile directives and then slowly listen to the testimony of our friendly experts, and then conclude that he needed more time to seriously consider their argument. That alone was a minor victory. I wish everyone in the United States would take time to reconsider our drone program, beginning with the president, the Secretary of State, Pentagon officials, military officers, and Creech Air Force Base employees. The more one thinks about it, the more we realize how terrifying it is, and the harm it will inflict on the whole world for generations to come.

We saw that future as we walked onto Creech Air Force Base on April 9, 2009. We wanted to rescue the children and civilians who are being killing by our “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” as they’re called.

I hope and pray the judge will “think” about the drones, and issue a verdict on our behalf, on behalf of all the victims of our drones, on behalf of the world’s children, that we might reject the drones, learn nonviolent ways to resolve international conflict, and let everyone live in peace.

******

John will be speaking in Nova Scotia from Sept. 23-26, and on Sept. 27, at Drew University. His latest book, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings (Orbis), along with other recent books, A Persistent Peace and Put Down Your Sword, as well as Patricia Normile’s John Dear On Peace, are available from www.amazon.com. To contribute to Catholic Relief Services’ “Fr. John Dear Haiti Fund,” go to: http://donate.crs.org/goto/fatherjohn. For further information, see:www.johndear.org.

—

Peace is not just the absence of violence but the manifestation of human compassion. – His Holiness the Dalai Lama

“your politics are your spirituality, demonstrated.” I believe that with all my heart and soul. I think that politics is one place where we get the power to do in our collective civil life what our spirituality calls upon us to do.

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

(2) EMAIL TO FATHER JOHN DEAR, COULD YOU COME TO SASKATOON? (LOCKHEED MARTIN’S UAV TRAINING PROGRAMME AT THE SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)

Please see 2010-10-15. The email is there along with the response received from Father John Dear.

2010-09-25 Statement to legislators. Contradiction in proposed legislation, simultaneous Mandatory and Voluntary. IMPORANT re George Orwell’s double think & newspeak

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

Sep 252010

(2) EMAIL FROM TONY CLEMENT’S OFFICE, MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CENSUS. AND MY REPLY.

(Today, #2 comes before #1!)

(I phoned before sending this. I don’t have much faith that these communications get dealt with. All you can do is try. The email from Clement’s office follows my reply to it.)

SENT: September 17, 2010

Dear Correspondence for Minister Clement,

Thank-you for your communication. I appreciate the steps you are taking.

REQUEST:

(1) Please forward this to the drafters of the legislation for the proposed changes to the Statistics Act. It is orwellian to say that a census form can be simultaneously voluntary and mandatory. I elaborate on this point following request # 2.

(2) Please draw to the attention of Tony Clement: changing the Statistics Act does not address the fundamental objection to the Census.

The resistance in Canada to the census is because Public Works and Industry Canada (StatsCan) awarded and continue to award census contracts to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is the American military, a corporation

– with a long record of court convictions

– that has paid tens of millions of dollars (maybe hundreds of millions) in fines

– that manufactures weapons that are in contravention of Canadian and International Law

– that is well-known for crossing political palms with silver

– that was a large force behind, that has profited handsomely from the illegal war of aggression on Iraq.

You say I encourage all Canadians who receive the 2011 Census form to complete it and participate in the National Household Survey.

I regret to inform you that as long as Lockheed Martin has ANYTHING to do with the Canadian census, I will find it very difficult if not impossible, to be encouraged by you.

Furthermore, you are now generating $16 billion dollars of debt for Canadian tax-payers, to purchase Lockheed Martin fighter jets that can only be used for coercive and violent ends (war). This puts me in a position where I cannot pay my income tax in full. My installment payment made on September 15^th deducted a representative portion for the amount of public money you are transferring to this corporation that is in the business of making money from killing people and the environment. I sent the amount deducted from my income tax payment to Conscience Canada http://www.consciencecanada.ca.

I am frustrated by the obsolete thinking displayed by the Government. I cannot understand it. Is it “boys with their toys” (fighter jets, bam! bam! bam!)? … Have you seen the photographs of, or driven past the miles and miles of discarded military equipment lined in precision formation on the American desert? If you believe that misappropriating billions of dollars on war machinery that becomes obsolete (thereby not funding the true needs of the society), that bombing people and their land to oblivion does not create terrorists, if you can show me one example from history where it has been a successful strategy in the long term, please enlighten me.

I believe the wisdom of Buffy Ste Marie and others: it is the American tax-payers who are responsible for illegal war and the deaths and dislocations that accompany it – – they provide the money to make it possible. Lockheed Martin feeds at the public trough. Without tax-payers’ money Lockheed Martin, a destructive force in the World, would not exist. I have criticized the American public for being complicit. I will not now be complicit when Lockheed Martin and the American military worm their way into Canada. I will not pay the portion of my taxes that go to fund what is malevolent, irrational and that displays incapacity to engage in creative problem-solving.

Back to Point #1:

SIMULTANEOUS “VOLUNTARY” AND “MANDATORY”

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

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

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

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

(INSERT: I didn’t word this properly. The Government’s statement makes “surveys” “mandatory”. This would actually be worse than the current law which makes surveys voluntary. See “THE LAW ON STATSCAN “SURVEYS”)

Continuing with my input to the Minister:

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

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

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

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

The media debate doesn’t raise the question: wait a minute, we have a Charter Right to Privacy (Section 8 of the Charter). How does that figure in the census debate? The “voluntary mandatory” census form becomes a process, as so cleverly unfolded in “Animal Farm” (Orwell), through which people forget that they ever had such a thing as a Right to Privacy. Most Canadians have already forgotten it, if the current public debate is any indication.

The majority of people will interpret “mandatory”, and the Government will propagandize it, to mean that YOU HAVE TO FILL IN the census long form. That is the intent after all.

The U.S. census is this year. The Lockheed Martin and IBM duo are the internal workings of the American Census Bureau, as they are working to become in Canada and in the UK.

If you look at the ad campaigns – – huge – – AND

If you look at the strategy in the 2006 Canadian ads,

the Government and Lockheed Martin/IBM use large amounts of propaganda to get people to throw away their charter right to privacy.

Propaganda (impressive ad campaigning) is only a more subtle form of coercion than using the threat of prosecution and jail.

Here’s what you get:

– The census is mandatory

– Hand over your personal information.

– If you don’t we won’t give you money (one of the approaches used in the 2006 Canadian census – you will lose transfer payments and Government funding for various programmes if you don’t fill in the form. The other coercion was, of course, “if you don’t fill in the form we’ll prosecute you, send you to jail, and fine you”).

We badly need an educated and informed public; you can’t have democratic government without it.

By calling the census “mandatory” you are setting people up to give away Charter Rights, in ignorance and through propaganda.

I (and I suspect you) would laugh at any legislation (law) which said that the census long form was simultaneously “voluntary” and “mandatory”. You cannot have both at the same time. The words are opposite in meaning.

Please relay this to the drafters of the legislation. It is not good to undermine respect for the laws of the land.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon

– – – – – – – – – – – — – – — – –

From: CorrespondenceMinister AT ic.gc.ca [mailto:CorrespondenceMinister AT ic.gc.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 8:37 AM
To: sabest1 AT sasktel.net
Subject: The 2011 Census of Population

Dear Ms. Finley:

I have received a copy of your email regarding the 2011 Census of Population. This government recognizes the importance of this issue for Canadians and appreciates the time you have taken to share your views on this matter.

As you are aware, the Government of Canada has made the decision to conduct the census as the short form only, which will be sent to all Canadian households in May 2011. We believe that these recent changes to the Census, along with the introduction of the voluntary National Household Survey (NHS), strike a better balance between the need to collect information on households to inform public policy and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

The 2011 Census of Population will consist of 10 questions: the same 8 questions that appeared on the 2006 Census short-form questionnaire plus 2 questions regarding the ability to speak in one of Canada’s two Official Languages and the language spoken at home. I assure you that the addition of these questions will support the implementation of the Official Languages Act and its regulations. The Government of Canada remains committed to official languages and to supporting the vitality of official language communities.

Census information previously collected by the long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of a new voluntary NHS. The NHS will be distributed to 1 in 3 households, which represents approximately 4.5 million households, an increase from 2.9 million households surveyed in 2006. Statistics Canada has extensive experience in conducting voluntary surveys and will apply its same rigorous methods and standards to conduct and release survey data. The Chief Statistician has indicated that this new approach will provide useful and usable data that can meet the needs of many users.

Beyond the provision of limited and essential information, we do not believe it is appropriate to demand extensive private and personal information from Canadians under threat of imprisonment. That is why our government announced its intention to introduce legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the Census and all mandatory surveys administered by Statistics Canada. An additional legislative amendment will also be made to require respondents’ consent on whether personal information from the NHS questionnaire can be released after 92 years.

I encourage all Canadians who receive the 2011 Census form to complete it and participate in the National Household Survey if their household is selected.

Yours sincerely,
Tony Clement

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

Sheesh!

You may have noticed the news that the opposition parties are uniting to save the mandatory long form census.

In addition to phone calls, I sent an email to every individual opposition MP and to the Liberal Senators with subject line: The census long form is BEFORE THE COURTS (item #1).

Sometimes I think we’ve lost our marbles. I received an email from Tony Clement’s office (Minister Responsible) which speaks of the new legislation to change the Statistics Act. They propose to make the census long form both “voluntary” and simultaneously “mandatory”, as I read the email. I asked that my reply which points out that you can’t have it both ways, be forwarded to the drafters of the legislation. Maybe they are struggling with the contradiction?

(Not really – – see George Orwell on Love and a few not on love.)

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

CONTENTS

(1) LETTER TO OPPOSITION MEMBERS-OF-PARLIAMENT AND LIBERAL SENATORS IN RESPONSE TO PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL, “UNITE TO SAVE THE CENSUS”: THE CENSUS LONG FORM IS BEFORE THE COURTS.

(2) EMAIL FROM TONY CLEMENT’S OFFICE, MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CENSUS. AND MY REPLY.

– SOMETHING CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY BE “VOLUNTARY” AND “MANDATORY”. THE WORDS ARE OPPOSITE IN MEANING.

– MAKING THE LONG FORM VOLUNTARY DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WHICH IS LOCKHEED MARTIN.

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

(1) LETTER TO OPPOSITION MEMBERS-OF-PARLIAMENT AND LIBERAL SENATORS IN RESPONSE TO PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL, “UNITE TO SAVE THE CENSUS”: THE CENSUS LONG FORM IS BEFORE THE COURTS.

In response to the news: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-unites-in-bid-to-save-census/article1721997/

Opposition unites in bid to save census,

I tried phoning the leaders of the Opposition Parties but it’s Friday and hard to get an answer. I phoned the offices of some MP’s who might be influential with their leaders.

And then, using MP and Senator email addresses at http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html I sent the following to the opposition MP’s and to all the Liberal Senators. I don’t know if it will do any good because earlier I sent almost all of them (except the Senators), including the Conservatives, the information on the census – – at least some of them should have known from that: the issue is under judicial review.

I’ve done all I can to alert them to the fact that a legal ruling is pending. Their efforts for a private member’s bill to make the long form mandatory are ill-advised.

SENT: Sept 24, 2010.

SUBJECT: The census long form is BEFORE THE COURTS

Dear (Member-of-Parliament),

I am concerned that your efforts around the census long form are well-intentioned but lack information: the Courts are dealing with the issue.

Bluntly stated: It is the Conservatives, not you, who will win the day if the census long-form is determined to be unconstitutional. It is my intention to be helpful by drawing this to your attention.

Judge Whelan, Provincial Court, Saskatoon heard final argument on the census long form on September 9^th , 2010 (R. v. Finley).

The trial has been on-going since April 2008.

A decision is expected (date changed).

The lawyer for the case, Steve Seiferling, Saskatoon, (306) 664-1339, is an expert in privacy law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has precedence over the Statistics Act. The case law associated with Section 8 (freedom from undue search and seizure) establishes that the Government cannot force citizens to hand over a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to . . control from dissemination to the State.

It is anticipated that whichever way the decision goes, it will be appealed.

It is possible that you are more or less walking into a trap. The Government (Justice Dept) knows about the trial. The Prosecution did not offer the argument that the benefit to all Canadians of the census long form is greater than the individual right to privacy of personal information (which the Government can’t meet the test for). The consequence is that the case will proceed focused solely on the question of whether the long form is constitutional. Which it is not , under Charter Section 8 case law.

I suggest that you wait for the legal decisions before you unite to save the long form. It is the Conservatives who will win if the Courts decide that the long form is unconstitutional – – which they will do; they have to follow the law. You may then end up with egg on your face, the idea being that you are legislators with some responsibility to act within the confines of the law. Governments are not allowed to run roughshod over Charter Rights, which exist for a very good reason.

“Whites” say there is nothing wrong with the census questions. Put yourselves in the shoes of, for example, Maher Arar or Omar Khadr. Look at history – the deliberate demonization of Poles and Jews in nazi Europe in order to create fear and hatred which is then followed by the imposition of a military (“security”) state – – all enabled by detailed profiling of citizens through census data bases (“IBM and the Holocaust”).

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a legacy given to us by collections of people in the past who have fought, suffered and died at various times for democratic principles. Through their actions they gave us the understanding of and tools to protect ourselves against state tyranny. We should not, through ignorance, throw those rights away. Especially not when the American military through Lockheed Martin Corporation is involved in our census.

The Conservatives, through making the census long form no longer mandatory (which it never was because of Charter Section 8) have still not addressed the fundamental issue. And you are ignoring it: Lockheed Martin Corporation (the American military) in the Canadian census.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon

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

2010-09-24 Conscience Canada. I deducted the military portion from my income tax quarterly instalment. $16 Billion for Lockheed Martin fighter jets.

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) 2 Responses »

Sep 242010

The way of killing wars makes it less likely that we will be able to succeed where we must: making progress against climate change, poisoning of the Earth, widening disparities and injustice, etc. $16 billion on the machinery of war means we are following the American model – – huge indebtedness from the investment in war to the point where we don’t have the money to meet our true needs.

At this point it has to be no-holds-barred, all our strength, or we won’t make it. The military machinery and mentality of the U.S. and the Harper Government will take us all down; they are spending our resources in the wrong place. I will push with everything I have to help get us onto a path with a future, the “new economy” or the “empathic economy” or the “moral economy”. We are at the tipping point. There is so much traction from all the good that is going on. Just need to take a minute and push this fighter jet mound of snow out of the way. Push hard and then we’re unstuck and over the hump.

We have responsibility and the power to exercise the responsibility. Or so I see it, and that is why it makes sense to me that I should deduct from my income tax payment, proportionately, the amount of my taxes that will go to help pay the $16 billion dollars for Lockheed Martin fighter jets. There is an organization of people that has been making a statement in this way since the 1970’s = = Conscience Canada. You place the money into a trust fund that they operate. I phoned them; I am grateful that they have thought through and set up this vehicle for registering protest. It is a way for me to exercise my power.

I explain my action in the letter to Tony Clement ( need the hyperlink ). There are good suggestions on the Conscience Canada website: http://www.consciencecanada.ca

… I regret to inform you that as long as Lockheed Martin has ANYTHING to do with the Canadian census, I will find it very difficult if not impossible, to be encouraged by you.

In a later email I want to relate this to:

– An interview on American PBS (Public Broadcast), Sept 16, “Charlie Rose” in conversation with New York Times columnist David Brooks. I interpreted Brooks to say that a reason the Obama strategies have not worked is because they required a buy-in from the American public which did not happen. That was the mistake of the Obama administration: they did not understand that the American public does not trust the Government. They would not get the buy-in they needed to make things work.

– I heard Brooks, who is a mainstream journalist, describe the times as being “pre-revolution”. Which surprised me – – I still wonder if I heard right – – it is unexpected to hear a mainstream journalist on relatively conservative PBS make such a statement! And if I heard right, he said that the American financial structure will not survive for more than another 10 years.

– The addition by the RCMP of “coup d’etat” to the list of four threats faced by Canadians is not independent of the situation in the U.S.

– Which reminds me (recent CBC Radio, “The Current”) : the ratio of individual debt to GDP in Canada is second in the world only to the U.S. And we are rapidly closing the gap so that we will be a contender for the #1 spot. That makes our economy very vulnerable. Once defaults on debt-repayment start you get a domino effect, as in the American housing market example. It’s another reason why we as tax-payers don’t need $16 billion more in debt for fighter jets. (UPDATE: by December Canadians overtook the Americans on the individual debt ratio. We are #1 in the world in indebtedness. Makes for a very shaky financial foundation. It is like the deliberate manufacture of the conditions for civil unrest which in turn becomes the justification for bringing in the American troops eventually, under the Troop Exchange Agreement, Feb 14, 2008).

2010-09-23 The corporate agenda at the University: Tackle this one with a quick phone call or email

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

Sep 232010

Your quick phone call or email will serve the general public interest of people across Canada.

Please, will you contact the new Dean of the Edwards School of Business at the University of Saskatchewan? And pass this along to friends who might do the same? wherever you may live.

The dean’s name is Daphne Taras.

Scroll down – – a picture of her and copy of the Notice of Appointment is appended.

Daphne was interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonti, Monday Sept 13^th on “The Current”.

You can listen for yourself. She seems to be speaking for “the people”, but she certainly doesn’t represent my understanding of things. ( http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/09/september-13-2010.html Click on “Part 2, New faces in Saskatoon”.)

Daphne won’t know she is out-of-synch if she doesn’t receive feedback. I phoned and left a voice message for her. And have followed-up with below, a copy of what I sent to “The Current”.

Old-timers in our network will know of my concerns over the direction of university education.

Some University of Saskatchewan alumni, myself included and through the efforts of our network, got elected to the University Senate which is the voice of the community in the governance of the University. Our first Senate meeting is on October 16^th. The meeting is open to the public and to media.

Your assistance in providing a different vision to the new Dean of the Business School, through a phone call or email, serves the public interest. We new Senators can help effect a change in direction, but your help is needed.

Thanks!

Sandra

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

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE DEAN:

Daphne Taras

306 966 4785 (The receptionist will transfer the call to the Dean’s office) Email: taras AT edwards.usask.ca

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

EMAIL SENT TO “THE CURRENT”, copy to Daphne:

September 13, 2010

Dear Anna-Maria,

You interviewed Daphne Taras, new Dean of the Edwards School of Business, University of Saskatchewan. Daphne comes from Calgary. I am not sure that in two months she has learned enough to speak for the people of the province.

Daphne is correct that the University belongs to the people of Saskatchewan.

She does not mention that we are seeing a steady takeover of the University by corporations and corporate values. Corporate values are different from the human, community and environmental values of the people of Saskatchewan.

The Business School will not tackle the societal problem of, for example, the ability of corporations to pass their environmental and health costs off to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta to pay. The Toxicology Department will not engage in public efforts to prevent poisons from going into our water supply, whether these are locally-produced or whether they come from upstream cross-border petro-chemical activity.

The University in its Economics and Business curriculum pays lip service to critical problems such as that GDP does not account for resource depletion. This is at a time when Saskatchewan is in the throes of a resource fire-sale, Alberta style, accompanied by depletion of clean water, soil, and air. We are slowly poisoning ourselves and killing life support systems. It does not bode well for future generations. Is the University providing any leadership in helping the people of Saskatchewan transition to an economy that is based on real values that serve the longterm interests of the people who live here?

The health of the electoral system is fundamental to healthy functioning democracy. But the Political Science department hasn’t helped create a drive to change our obsolete and dysfunctional first-past-the-post electoral system. The public sphere is in bad need of remedies, of new thinking, at a time when the University is selling out to corporate and vested interests in the status quo.

The arguments presented by Martha Nussbaum in her book “Not for Profit, Why Democracy Needs the Humanities” makes the case for the importance of the liberal arts at all levels of education. But the University is cutting back requirements and funding for liberal arts education. There is a huge conflict-of-interest between corporatocracy and democracy.

Mixing Nussbaum’s words with my own: The arts and humanities are historically central to education because they are essential for creating competent democratic citizens. Education has lost its direction. Focused on economic growth that is falsely measured, Daphne Taras speaks of education as though its goal is to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable and empathetic citizens capable of informed discussion for effective problem-solving. The short-sighted focus on profitable skills is at the expense of the skills we need to criticize authority which is essential to holding that “authority” responsible. Imagination, critical to the ability to see the world through the eyes of “the other”, is suppressed instead of being developed. The focus on profitable skills thus reduces our sympathy with people who are marginalized and different. It damages our competence to deal with complex global problems. The loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope for a decent world. The corporate university is a big step backwards; it is smashing the main pillar that is necessary to democracy, a liberal arts education. It seems to be done in ignorance of history and because there is an inability of the academy to imagine and to create truly new visions for a better world. There is too much corporate-speak, propaganda. It makes one wonder whether the administrators have encountered and taken lessons from the literature of George Orwell.

People in Saskatchewan will resist efforts to reduce education to a tool of the faulty measurement called gross national product. We will work to reconnect education to the humanities in order to give students the capacity to be true democratic citizens of their countries and the world.

We care about the lessons being taught to our young people. “Integrity”, the word used by Dean Daphne Taras, is not a word to be tossed around lightly.

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon

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

APPENDED

http://investdb4.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/AppNoticeArticleHTMLTemplate?tf=GlobeInvestor/AppNotices/DisplayNotice.html&cf=GlobeInvestor/AppNotices/config-neutral.cfg&slug=Taras&date=20100630

Appointments Notices

University of Saskatchewan:
Daphne Taras, Dean, Edwards School of Business

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Daphne Taras

From The Globe and Mail

The University of Saskatchewan (U of S) is pleased to announce Daphne Taras as the new dean of the Edwards School of Business.

As the U of S continues to grow and diversify its programming, the Edwards School of Business will benefit from Daphne’s years of leadership experience. She began her academic career in 1994 and has held a number of positions at the University of Calgary, including a professorship in public policy and her current appointment as associate dean (research) at the Haskayne School of Business.

She has an honours BA and MA in political science from York and Duke universities, an MBA and PhD from Calgary, and holds an LLM in labour and employment law from Osgoode Hall.

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

what real leadership looks like

To get there, we need a different kind of PPM – a “people powered movement” that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.

2010-09-23 Opposition parties unite in bid to save long-form census

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

Sep 232010

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-unites-in-bid-to-save-census/article1721997/

Opposition unites in bid to save census

Jennifer Ditchburn

Ottawa— The Canadian Press

Published Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 5:12PM EDT; Last updated Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 5:23PM EDT

Opposition parties banded together to save the long-gun registry, now they’re trying to rescue the mandatory long-form census.

The Liberals submitted details to the House of Commons on Thursday of a private member’s bill that would specifically insert the mandatory long-form census into the Statistics Act.

The bill could see first reading in the Commons by Oct. 1, and the opposition hopes it can hurry it through second reading and on to committee hearings. The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP said Thursday they would support a bill to resurrect the mandatory long form.

Currently, the act only refers to the requirement to hold a census of the population – the short census – every five years. The Liberal bill would also remove the threat of jail time for those who refuse to fill out the long form, but keep the maximum $500 fine.

“It’s almost a sacred trust that we have with civil society that we will get them the information they need with which to plan, and whether that’s the Bank of Canada, or the public health officials, or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, people are counting on this information and it must be comparable data with previous censuses,” said Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, the bill’s sponsor.

“If, all of a sudden, the methodology changes, no matter how much tweaking they say they can do by trying to improve the voluntary census, there is no way you can have the quality of data.”

The Conservative government eliminated the mandatory long-form census in June, citing concerns among some Canadians that the process was intrusive and the threat of jail time unreasonable. They replaced it with a voluntary national survey, that would be distributed to more households.

The move set off a wide backlash from a variety of opponents, including religious groups, major charities, the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities, statisticians and academics. Several provinces and large municipalities also balked, saying the loss of data would skew policy-making.

Former chief statistician Munir Sheikh resigned in the wake of the decision, unable to support the government’s contention the survey would adequately substitute for the long-form census.

Both Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton were unequivocal Thursday in their support of a bill to revive the long-form. “Legislation, although it would take time to put in place, is something that absolutely we would support,” said Mr. Layton, who earlier called unsuccessfully for an emergency debate on the subject.

Industry Minister Tony Clement stood by the government’s decision during Question Period Thursday. “We are working in a fair and reasonable way to have a balance between the need for data and the idea that we should not coerce or force our citizens who may conscientiously object to giving very private information to government officials,” he said.

Ms. Bennett argues there is enough time to act before the next census, scheduled to begin in May 2011. The Liberals also believe there will be no obstacles to the bill as it makes its way through the parliamentary process.

Bills that involve the expenditure of public money must be introduced by the government, but Ms. Bennett notes that reinstating the long-form census would ultimately save money. She said Ottawa is spending at least an extra $30 million on the short census and voluntary survey to get it to more households and encourage responses.

More related to this story

2010-09-16 David Brooks, NY Times columnist on PBS describes the times as “pre-revolution”. Did I hear right?

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

Sep 162010

– The addition by the RCMP of “coup d’etat” to the list of four threats faced by Canadians is not independent of the situation in the U.S.

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

Food, Genetically Modified, Health, Take back the University 1 Response »

Sep 142010

For More Information on the Enviropig, see 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!

Back-up copy of University of Guelph webpage 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.

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

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!

University of Guelph

50 Stone Road East

Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
Canada

519-824-4120

2010-09-13 RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat to Canada, Ottawa Citizen. Never Never Land.

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Peace or Violence No Responses »

Sep 132010

CONTENTS

(1) COMMENTARY

(2) RCMP LIST COUP D’ETAT AS THREAT, OTTAWA CITIZEN, September 13, 2010

(3) SOME POLITICIANS UNDER FOREIGN SWAY, CSIS, June 23, 2010

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

(1) COMMENTARY

The RCMP have put the risk of a coup d’état on the list of four threats to Canada (item #2).

“Military historian Edward Luttwak says,

“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.” (wikipedia)

I’d say that coup d’états happen when the powers-that-be want more power and control than they already have. Or, they feel a threat to their power and agenda.

What would threaten them, in today’s world? . . . Why did the RCMP list coup état? . . . Answer one of the questions, you’ve answered both.

Growing dissatisfaction among growing numbers of “peasants” would be a threat to the powers-that-be. Sufficient dissatisfaction, large enough numbers, intention . . . but that would be called a “revolution”, not a coup d’état.

So let’s see. The RCMP say the threat of a coup d’état exists. Earlier, I and others have said that we have corporatocracy, not democracy in Canada. Which means that the coup d’état has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE (“the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”).

What does the RCMP statement mean then? Does it mean that there is a threat of EVEN MORE coup d’état-ing?

To answer that, put yourself into the shoes of the powers-that-be (the ones doing the coups). What do THEY see? . . . I see coup d’état . . . they see revolution. We are viewing the same world, but through a different set of eyes. A power struggle between us and them.

I was astounded to hear “coup d’etat” used in the media, from the RCMP. . . . But why the surprise? I have been saying that the success of the opposition to the tar sands, the success in protection of water, etc., threatens the corporate agenda. That “revolution” threatens the corporate agenda. When I stop to think, as a population moves toward revolution, yes, that is when coup d’états happen. The population wakes up to what has been happening, they stop being sheeple, the powers whose interests are threatened must resort to military/police (violence) to impose their will.

In this network we have documented the growing military/police state in Canada. What is that other than the signs of a coup d’état? But is that the coup d’état that the RCMP are thinking of?

So is there evidence of dissatisfaction and unrest, IN LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS to trigger pre-emptive (that’s what it would be), MORE coup état-ing by large corporations working with their quislings?

Another question: if the RCMP see potential coup d’état, where does that leave THEM?

We’re all in this together. I think we need to understand the situation and share it. Otherwise we, as Canadians, can’t solve it.

Back to Coup d’état / Revolution:
LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS? .. . . don’t need to address that one. “They” would see large enough numbers, enabled, empowered and connected by the ability to exchange information by email, the net, and cheap phone technology.

This is part of a short series of postings, one of which talks about the movie “Sounds like a Revolution” http://www.soundslikearevolution.com/ . I recommend the movie. It is very helpful to understanding today’s political affairs.

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

(2) RCMP LIST COUP D’ETAT AS THREAT, OTTAWA CITIZEN, September 13, 2010

Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, etc.

RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat

Considered operational priority. First time such language in planning report, signals emphasis on national security

By IAN MACLEOD, Postmedia News; Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2010

RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d’etat.

The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP’s plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.

The document then cites four specific security concerns:

– ¦Espionage and sabotage.

– ¦Foreign-influenced criminal activities detrimental to the interests of Canada.

– ¦Terrorism.

– ¦ “Activities aimed at over-throwing, by violence, the Government of Canada.”

RCMP officials were not immediately available Friday to explain the reference, but such language has not appeared in previous RCMP reports.

Over the past year, the Mounties have signalled a renewed emphasis on national security issues that have been pushed aside by law enforcement’s preoccupation with global terrorism since 9/11.

In a major speech last fall, for example, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said while transnational terrorism and “homegrown” radicalization remain big threats, so too are economic espionage by foreign states, transnational organized crime, proliferation issues, illegal migration and other border-security issues.

While hyperbolic, the mention of a coup threat appears to reflect the force’s return to a broader operational approach to guarding national security.

It’s also not the first talk of a government overthrow.

The 1999 book Agent of Influence alleged the U.S. CIA plotted a de facto coup of Lester B. Pearson’s government in the early 1960s.

Canadian author Ian Adams claimed that after the 1963 assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy, CIA counter-intelligence branch head James Jesus Angleton became convinced Pearson was an agent for Russian intelligence and supposedly had information from a Soviet defector backing him up.

“The CIA took great personal offence at Pearson’s independent stands in foreign policy, his grain trades with the Soviet Union, his antiwar positions on Vietnam, and especially his friendly stance on Cuba,” wrote Adams.

To get at Pearson, the CIA set its sights first on Canadian diplomat James Watkins, Canada’s ambassador to Russia in the mid-1950s and a friend of the prime minister.

After 27 days of interrogation by the Mounties, the 62-year-old Watkins’s troubled heart gave out and he died, apparently without supplying the confession the spymasters hoped could bring down the government.

(3) SOME POLITICIANS UNDER FOREIGN SWAY, CSIS, June 23, 2010

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/22/spying-csis.html

Some politicians under foreign sway: CSIS

Last Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 |

CBC News

Richard Fadden, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in an exclusive interview with the CBC. (CBC)

Canada’s spy agency suspects that cabinet ministers in two provinces are under the control of foreign governments, CBC News has learned.

Several members of B.C. municipal governments are also under suspicion, Richard Fadden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told CBC News in an exclusive interview.

“We’re in fact a bit worried in a couple of provinces that we have an indication that there’s some political figures who have developed quite an attachment to foreign countries,” Fadden said.

“The individual becomes in a position to make decisions that affect the country or the province or a municipality. All of a sudden, decisions aren’t taken on the basis of the public good but on the basis of another country’s preoccupations.”

He said the politicians and public servants see it as a long-standing relationship and have no idea they are being used.

“There are several municipal politicians in British Columbia and in at least two provinces there are ministers of the Crown who we think are under at least the general influence of a foreign government.”

Fadden said the agency is in the process of discussing with the Privy Council Office the best way to inform those provinces there may be a problem.

“We’ll do the same with the public servants. I’m making this comment because I think it’s a real danger that people be totally oblivious to this kind of issue.”

Fadden warned that foreign regimes — through universities and social clubs — will develop a relationship with people who have a connection to the homeland.

“You invite somebody back to the homeland. You pay [for] their trips and all of a sudden you discover that when an event is occurring that is of particular interest to country “X,” you call up and you ask the person to take a particular view,” Fadden said.

At least five countries are surreptitiously recruiting future political prospects in universities, he said. Middle East countries are also involved.

But China is the most aggressive, funding university clubs that are managed by people operating out of the embassy or consulates, Fadden said in a recent speech to Canadian police chiefs and security experts in Toronto.

Chinese authorities also organize demonstrations against the Canadian government in respect to some of Canada’s policies concerning China, Fadden said.

“A number of countries take the view that if they can develop influence with people relatively early in their careers, they’ll follow them through,” Fadden said. “Before you know it, a country is providing them with money, there’s some sort of covert guidance.”

Fadden said he is concerned that too much of the agency’s resources are focused on fighting terrorism and not counter-espionage. That concentration leaves more chances to steal Canada’s sensitive technology and trade secrets, worth billions of dollars a year.

“The difficulty I have, as does everybody, is you have to balance where you allocate resources, but it most definitely is as serious problem, and if I had to guess, I’d say it was going to get worse,” Fadden said.

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

2010-09-13 Petro-state: there is no opposition. Premier Brad Wall on “value added” for uranium. NDP Opposition Leader Lingenfelter on nuke in Saskatchewan. (The nuclear power is for tar sands development.)

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Nuclear, Radioactive waste No Responses »

Sep 132010

CONTENTS

(1) 2008-01-27 NDP Opposition Leader Lingenfelter on nuke agenda in Saskatchewan (when he was a Vice-President of Nexen Oil and Gas)(excerpt). Nexen has tar sands holdings along the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. The tar sands industry needs huge amounts of electricity to heat up the underground deposits to the point where they will flow, so the tar can be brought to the surface. Tar sands development is the driver behind the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan/Alberta.

A characteristic of a “petro-state”: there is no effective opposition to the Government’s agenda. The Government is in power because of “petro-dollars”. Citizen participation in voting is ineffective.

(2) 2010-09-13 Premier Brad Wall on “value added” for uranium. In spite of the expressed wishes of the people of Saskatchewan through public consultations in summer 2009.

(3) Full text of articles related to Lingenfelter’s position on nuclear.

NOTE: The quote from Lingenfelter is on the “Mines and Communities” blog. There is a list of very good articles on nuke in Canada on their blog: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=8411

– – – – – – – — – – –

(1) NDP OPPOSITION LEADER LINGENFELTER:

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=8411

Canada Uranium update

Published Date: 01-02-2008

‘” . . . . . Some, like former NDP deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, say Saskatchewan’s wide open spaces make it ideal for every step of the cycle, including power generation and waste storage. While conventional reactors are widely seen as producing too much power for the province’s needs, Lingenfelter argues Saskatchewan could become a power hub and supply energy to the rest of Canada and the United States.

“The first thing that has to happen is the government in the province has to say to the world that they’re interested, which hasn’t happened to this point,” says Lingenfelter, who is now (was then) an executive with the Calgary-based oil company Nexen.

“I think it takes more than governments saying, ‘Yeah, we are sort of in favour of it, but we will see how it goes.”‘

(2) PREMIER BRAD WALL ON NUCLEAR:

His Government is doing “value added” for uranium.

(Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, was interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonti, Monday Sept 13^th on “The Current”.

( http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/09/september-13-2010.html Click on “Part 1, Boom Town”.)

TRANSCRIPTION

Wall: “ . . . to value-add to uranium . . . want to build, to diversify the resource strength we have (coal .. clean coal . . ) We have a lot of uranium, one-third of the world’s supply, so it makes sense we would add value to that.”

– – – – – – – – — – – –

Saskatchewan Greens participated in generating an information flow and in the public meetings in Saskatchewan, summer 2009, regarding the Government’s uranium/nuclear agenda.

Dan Perrins conducted the public consultations and reported back to the Government: the public does not want the uranium/nuke agenda.

We went through a huge fight; the people of Sask clearly said “no nuclear”. And definitely not high-level radioactive waste imported from other provinces: we want legislation, similar to Manitoba and Quebec, that bans the cross-Canada transportation of radioactive waste.

= = = = = = = =

3. FULL TEXT OF ARTICLES IN WHICH LINGENFELTER IS QUOTED:

New government considers options for Saskatchewan’s nuclear future

Tim Cook, THE CANADIAN PRESS

27th January 2008

REGINA – It was an analogy that developed in the 1970s as nuclear power plants were being developed around the world: Saskatchewan and its vast supply of unmined uranium would be to nuclear power what Saudi Arabia was to oil.

Over the last three decades the prediction has been realized and the province, better known for wide open spaces and wheat, has grown into the world’s largest producer of the radioactive element.

But mining the raw material is as far as Saskatchewan has progressed in the nuclear cycle. Plans to develop a uranium refinery, build a nuclear reactor and even store nuclear waste have been shelved over the years in the face of stiff public opposition and concerns about feasibility.

Signs of change, however, are starting to emerge with a newly elected provincial government intent on moving the industry forward. The right-leaning Saskatchewan Party is not as fettered by internal conflict over the issue as its left-leaning NDP predecessor, and everything short of the nuclear waste storage idea appears to be back on the table.

“Who knows what opportunities lie ahead in this area for the province?” Premier Brad Wall said recently. “I believe we can lead in this area, certainly in research and development.”

Saskatchewan first looked at developing the uranium industry in the 1940s and ’50s under then premier Tommy Douglas as a means of diversifying its agricultural economy. In the 1970s the mining industry expanded rapidly thanks to several big finds in the north.

The province enjoyed a comfortable relationship with the industry until people began to question where the uranium was ending up, said Bill Waiser, a historian at the University of Saskatchewan.

“They were beginning to question the morality of it,” Waiser says. “There are ecological concerns about it and ‘Are we facilitating the arms race unintentionally?”‘

Former NDP premier Allan Blakeney, who oversaw the widespread expansion in the 1970s, recalls pitching uranium mining in Saskatchewan as something the province had to do for the sake of the rest of the world.

“As the world was developing and as the Third World was developing, there was going to be a need for significant new sources of power. One of those was uranium, and we had a moral duty to contribute,” Blakeney says now.

“We have got virtually every power source in the world and there is one million of us, and we’re saying, ‘Oh, those people over there shouldn’t be generating their power over there using uranium.’ This is not a very good piece of moral ground to stand on.”

Still public opposition prevented the industry from developing further than punching holes in the ground and bringing the ore to the surface.

In 1980 a proposal to build a uranium refinery in Warman, north of Saskatoon, was killed because of the impact it might have on the largely Mennonite community.

In the early 1990s both the Progressive Conservative government and the NDP government were in talks with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to build a Candu 3 reactor in the province, but the idea was shelved because of cost and lack of need.

In the mid-1990s the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, an organization representing several northern First Nations, briefly studied the idea of storing nuclear waste on its land but backed down after widespread protests.

“It caused a lot of controversy and a lot of difficult feelings,” Vern Bachiu, general manager with the tribal council’s development corporation, recalls today.

With a new government in power and a premier who talks about nuclear opportunities every chance he gets, people on both sides of the debate are watching the situation closely.

While the previous NDP government had expressed interest in refining uranium in the province, Steve McLellan, CEO of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, figures the business-friendly Saskatchewan Party will take a “hard look” at attracting a company to do it.

“We, particularly, are quite optimistic,” McLellan says. “Anything that adds value to things that are mined here is great for business.”

Some, like former NDP deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter, say Saskatchewan’s wide open spaces make it ideal for every step of the cycle, including power generation and waste storage. While conventional reactors are widely seen as producing too much power for the province’s needs, Lingenfelter argues Saskatchewan could become a power hub and supply energy to the rest of Canada and the United States.

“The first thing that has to happen is the government in the province has to say to the world that they’re interested, which hasn’t happened to this point,” says Lingenfelter, who is now an executive with the Calgary-based oil company Nexen.

“I think it takes more than governments saying, ‘Yeah, we are sort of in favour of it, but we will see how it goes.”‘

Wall has expressed interest in research being done around small-scale nuclear reactors that would produce power at a level more suitable to the province’s needs. He’s also talked about the idea of developing a research reactor such as the one in Chalk River, Ont., which produces medical isotopes.

Ann Coxworth, with the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, acknowledges that the current political situation in the province does not favour the anti-nuclear movement.

“I think we have quite a struggle ahead of us, so there is a lot of work to be done,” she says. “The forces that want to go down that nuclear path are pretty powerful right now.”

Coxworth is worried that those who oppose nuclear energy may have been lulled into a sense of complacency over the last few years.

“When these issues were being quite actively discussed – say in the 1970s – the public got quite well informed about the issues,” she says.

= = = = = = = =

http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=8411

MAC: Mines and Communities

Canada Uranium update

Published Date: 01-02-2008

“The first thing that has to happen is the government in the province has to say to the world that they’re interested, which hasn’t happened to this point,” says Lingenfelter, who is now an executive with the Calgary-based oil company Nexen.

“I think it takes more than governments saying, ‘Yeah, we are sort of in favour of it, but we will see how it goes.”‘

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

Sask. should look at nuclear power: Lingenfelter

Last Updated Nov 9 2005 08:21 AM CST

CBC News

A former NDP cabinet minister is trying to refuel the nuclear debate in Saskatchewan.

Dwain Lingenfelter, who was once considered a possible successor to former Premier Roy Romanow before leaving government, has been talking about the merits of nuclear power lately. It’s a message he brought to business leaders in Saskatoon yesterday.

Lingenfelter’s idea is to build a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan for Alberta’s massive oil sands. “The opportunity is big. The only question is can we reach out and grab it?” Lingenfelter said in a speech to the North Saskatoon Business Association Tuesday.

The Saskatchewan NDP is officially opposed to nuclear power and it’s rare someone from the party takes such a pro-nuclear stance.

But Lingenfelter, who went to work for a Calgary oil company after leaving the NDP government, insists this is not about politics. “It’s got to do with what’s best for the economy and the environment at this moment,” he said.

ICUCEC-Lingenfelter CBC report file:///Users/johnyates/Desktop/icucecOLD/art-lingenfelter…

2 of 2 2/14/08 11:05 PM

Although the current government favours uranium mining, it doesn’t want nuclear waste or a power plant. Lingenfelter said that’s hypocritical ! if the province will not move forward, he suggests, uranium mining should stop.

On that point, one anti-nuclear lobby group couldn’t agree more. “For both economics and social economics it’s better not to mine,” said Michael Poellet, who speaks for Saskatoon’s Inter Church Uranium Committee.

Lingenfelter said it’s important for people to speak up about the future of nuclear power in Saskatchewan, whether they support it, or not.

2010-09-09 I was in court today. The Prosecutor and my lawyer gave legal argument. The Prosecutor did not argue to override my Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

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

Sep 092010

The Prosecutor and my lawyer presented their arguments to the Court.

The email from Tony Clement’s office indicates that they are introducing legislation this fall to change the Statistics Act to make the census long form voluntary but also mandatory. (Don’t ask!!)

I don’t think that will change the course of my trial; it has become a Charter of Rights question, proceeding solely on the question of whether the long form is constitutional.

It is no longer about whether or not I am guilty as charged (failure to fill in a census form). Or so I see it.

My cousin asked how things went in court:

The short answer: Well – – it ain’t over yet and maybe not for a long while yet.

The judge’s decision is due December 15th (UPDATE: got moved to January 13th, 2011). But that might only be step 1 ?

As I understand, Judge Whelan and Steve (lawyer) are treating it like a test case that will be appealed, whatever the ruling is. So the Judge is taking her time, being careful. The decision may affect her legal reputation.

In Court it was kind of hard to figure out what was going on:

The prosecutor did not argue that my charter right to privacy of personal information should be extinguished because the census long form is a greater value to all of Canada than my individual right to privacy (he didn’t argue what I call the “section 1 override clause”). His failure to make that argument was a surprise to my lawyer and to me; most likely also to the Judge. Especially because in the laying out of evidence (in January) the prosecutor and StatsCan witness went to great lengths to cover all the benefits of the work done by StatsCan for Canadians – preparing the ground that would permit them to make the argument.

A little speculation from a person who works in legal circles: the prosecutor may have been operating under direction from further up the command chain. By dropping the section 1 override argument, if the Judge’s ruling is appealed, the appeal will be solely on the basis of whether the census long form is unconstitutional because it infringes on the charter right to privacy of a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to … protect from dissemination to the state.

Politically, in the wake of the vocal opposition to making the long form voluntary, it would be an astute move to have a clear and pointed court ruling on the census long form. “The Courts made me do it.”

Aside from all that, it went well, I thought. The lawyer is excellent – – he knows privacy rights and the related law very well. And has the gift of clarity and succinctness. Which is helpful to the Judge. (Not like having me in Court representing myself, as in the beginning!!)

I do not allow myself to speculate as to when the legal proceedings will be wrapped up. If I am found guilty the case will be appealed. If I am found innocent, the speculation is that the decision will be appealed. There is a substantial charter-of-rights issue. The thinking goes: the decision of a Provincial Court Judge doesn’t have sufficient weight. The Justice system would want a superior Court ruling on the question. – – As I say, it’s not about my guilt or innocence.

Thank goodness I stated the expectation to the Judge, at the outset, that my legal costs will be reimbursed. I told her that it is not me, but the Government, that is operating outside the law. Her ruling on reimbursement of costs will come out with her decision on the legal issue.

Who knows when it might all be over?

Older Entries Newer Entries