Sandra Finley

2019-08-22 Gulf of St. Lawrence cod extinction ‘highly probable,’ says DFO, CBC, Paul Withers

 Resource depletion (water in USA), Rule of Law, Sustainability  No Responses »
Aug 222019
 

Rising grey seal population eating adult cod at unsustainable levels

Paul Withers

In this April 23, 2016, file photo, cod fill a box on a trawler off the coast of Hampton Beach, N.H. (Robert F. Bukaty/The Associated Press)

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has issued a stark warning linking the demise of codfish in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to a rapidly increasing seal population.

The warning is contained in the most recent stock assessment of Atlantic cod in the southern Gulf that was released earlier this month.

“At the current abundance of grey seals in this ecosystem, recovery of this cod population does not appear to be possible, and its extinction is highly probable,” the report says.

DFO fish biologist Doug Swain said the cod population is now about five per cent of levels in the 1980s, and the downward spiral is accelerating despite a moratorium on a directed cod fishery in the Gulf since 2009.

The problem is an “extremely high” and “unsustainable” death rate for cod five years or older.

How many cod are dying

Normally, about 18 per cent of adult cod each year would be expected to die from natural causes, like being eaten by a predator.

The DFO assessment estimates between 55 and 57 per cent of adults are dying each year.

Swain believes the fast-rising grey seal population is to blame.

“The evidence all points to grey seals as being the cause of their natural mortality. We’ve looked at many hypotheses and haven’t come up with any other ones that appear to be plausible.”

Why cod are vulnerable to seals

In the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, cod spend winter in the same place each year in deep water off northern Cape Breton.

While the population has dropped, they still gather in big enough groups to attract seals.

Satellite tagging and stomach analysis have shown they are being targeted by seals, said Swain.

Doug Swain, a DFO fish biologist, says the cod population is now about five per cent of levels in the 1980s, and the downward spiral is accelerating despite a moratorium on a directed cod fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since 2009. (CBC)

“We’ve observed that the grey seals continue to forage in the vicinity of these cod aggregations, that cod comprise a very high proportion of their diet in these times and places,” he said.

“The adult cod that are the ones that have the natural mortality are estimated to comprise about 40 per cent of their diet by weight.”

Swain said cod have abandoned shallow summer feeding grounds for less abundant deeper water to avoid grey seals.

Fish not eaten by grey seals have not moved.

A downward spiral worsens

Scientists use “spawning stock biomass” as a measure of the health of species.

It’s an estimate of the total weight of the fish capable of reproduction.

There have been sharp drops in the spawning stock since the last DFO assessment in 2015, which used data up to 2014.

Since then, the spawning stock decreased by more than half — by 3,000 tonnes between 2015 and 2016, and a further 12,000 tonnes between 2017 and 2018.

“That is very striking for a stock that is at very low abundance,” said Swain.

Today, the spawning stock is estimated at 13,900 tonnes — the lowest on record.

The assessment predicts a further 4,700-tonne decline by 2023.

When the stock dips below 1,000 tonnes, DFO considers it extinct, which could happen within a few decades.

Swain said the benchmark is somewhat arbitrary, but for a stock that was once 500,000 tonnes, cod are unlikely to persist when the threshold is reached.

At that level, they are vulnerable to harsh environmental conditions.

“The probability is very high the stock will decline to local extinction,” Swain said in an interview from DFO’s offices in Moncton, N.B.

Other threats loom

DFO allows commercial fishermen in the Gulf to take 300 tonnes of cod a year as unintended, or “by-catch,” from other groundfish fisheries.

Ground fishing for other species in the Gulf is now so low, it has negligible impact on the population trajectory.

Preliminary by-catch landings for 2017 and 2018 were 60 tonnes.

But that could change.

Fishing is expected to increase for booming populations of halibut and redfish in the deeper gulf waters where cod still persist, making it more likely cod will be taken as by-catch.

Climate change is expected to have negative effects, causing cod to lose energy faster in warmer water, especially in winter when they are not feeding.

Is it too late? Probably

The assessment says it would take a large reduction in grey seals to stop the decline, but even then there could be unintended results like a rebound of cod predators also eaten by grey seals.

“You know things can change,” said Swain.

“But right now in terms of the ecosystem, it’s most likely that things will change for the worse because you know even if grey seals were reduced … we’re entering a period of dramatic climate change.”

2019-08-12 Public far ahead of politics on climate emergency, National Observer, Seth Klein

 Climate  No Responses »
Aug 132019
 
By Seth Klein in Opinion
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer speaks to a crowd in British Columbia on July 28, 2019. Photo by CPC

Last month, as part of the research for a book I am writing on mobilizing Canada for the climate emergency, I commissioned an extensive national public opinion poll from Abacus Data. The full results of the poll can be found on the Abacus website here.

I share highlights and my analysis below. But big picture, the results are hopeful and indicate a high level of support for bold and ambitious climate action. Canadians support systemic solutions that go well beyond what our governments have so far been willing to undertake.

First, a little background on why I commissioned this poll. For years, far too much of the political oxygen and polling on climate change has been consumed by the carbon tax/pricing debate. While carbon pricing is an important tool, it alone is not going to get us where we need to go, and the topic has distracted us from the scale of action needed.

Additionally, too often polling questions individualize the challenge and solutions, rather than focusing on collective and governmental actions. Past polling has tended to over-test people’s willingness to change their personal behavior or to pay a carbon tax.

But people increasingly understand that these “solutions” are not sufficient. People rightly feel cynical when presented with voluntary solutions that don’t match the scale of the challenge, and that others around them are not undertaking. When climate polls do tackle policy changes, most have tended to test incremental options, rather than bold, system-change solutions. The questions we ask, and the solutions we propose, matter.

My forthcoming book will explore the gap between what the science says we must do to confront the climate emergency and what our politics currently seems prepared to entertain. The current challenge, as I see it, is that the climate solutions we need persistently encounter a political wall; the prevailing assumption within the leadership of our political parties appears to be that if our political leaders were to articulate (let alone undertake) what the climate science tells us is necessary, it would be political suicide. And so they don’t.

“My overall conclusion is this: our politicians have been underestimating the public. They have failed to take adequate action in the face of the #climate emergency, insisting the public is ‘not there yet,'” writes Seth Klein. #opinion

But is that prevailing assumption correct? That’s what this poll sought to test.

In framing the challenge, communications specialists often recommend against using an emergency or wartime frame. They contend that the public does not respond well to an alarmist or fear-based approach. Similarly, most official government climate plans, the product of careful focus-group testing, barely mention the climate crisis, but rather, focus on positive messaging.

The reality is that we do face an emergency, and we do need a wartime-scale response. And we in Canada have lessons to draw on. It has long been my view that recalling the speed and scale of our historic wartime mobilization can be a source of inspiration (not fear) in the face of the climate emergency.

In undertaking this poll, I sought to determine whether this framing would resonate among the Canadian public and whether there is an appetite for systems-level solutions.

Poll results and analysis

My main takeaway from this national opinion survey of 2,000 people is that the public is ahead of our politics. A large share of Canadians is already deeply worried about the climate crisis, and they are increasingly ready for bold and ambitious actions.

In the wake of the latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released last October, combined with recent weather events, we may well be witnessing a shift in public opinion.

Here are some of the highlights from the poll:

  • The Canadian public is increasingly worried about climate change. Three-quarters of respondents said they were worried, with 25 per cent saying they “think about climate change often and are getting really anxious about it,” and a further 49 per cent saying they “think about it sometimes and are getting increasingly worried.” In contrast, only 19 per cent say they don’t think about climate change often, and only seven per cent either don’t believe climate change is real or something for us to worry about.
  • Stunningly, 42 per cent believe climate change is now “an emergency,” while a further 20 per cent believe it will likely be an emergency within the next few years, for a combined total of 62 per cent. Even in Alberta, which registered the lowest level of support for this view, a combined total of 47% of people believe climate change is either an emergency or will likely be one in the next few years.
  • People are deeply anxious about what climate change means for the fate of our children and grandchildren. When asked if climate change represents a “major threat to the future of our children and grandchildren,” 81 per cent responded that it does (49 per cent strongly agree and a further 32 per cent agree). Even 67 per cent of Albertans agree with this statement.
  • For a majority of Canadians, climate change is no longer an abstract threat impacting people somewhere else or at some time in the future. They see it happening here and now. When asked: “To what extent have you or someone close to you experienced the effects of climate change (such as living with the consequences of changing weather patterns or severe weather events such as flooding, wild fires, droughts or intense heat waves)?” three-quarters of respondents said they or someone close to them had experienced the effects of climate change (13 per cent of respondents said “in a major way,” while 37 per cent said “to some extent,” and a further 23 per cent said “in a minor way.”) Only 21 per cent said they had not experienced climate change at all, while six per cent reported being unsure.
  • People are ready for a major transition. 44 per cent of respondents said “In the future, we should produce energy and electricity using 100 per cent clean and renewable sources, such as hydro, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal,” while a further 37 per cent support shifting in that direction but don’t believe getting to 100 per cent is possible. Even in Alberta these numbers clock in at 28 per cent and 47 per cent.
  • The wartime frame resonates with many. My book is exploring mobilization lessons from World War II, the last time we faced an existential threat and responded at the scale necessary. So, I wanted to test the resonance of that frame. The poll reveals that a large share of the Canadian public connects with this approach. When asked about the statement: “The climate emergency requires that our governments adopt a wartime-scale response, making major investments to retool our economy, and mobilizing everyone in society to transition off fossil fuels to renewable energy,” 58 per cent of respondents responded positively (21 per cent strongly agreed while a further 37 per cent agreed). Younger respondents (those between 18 and 44) were even more inclined to agree (with agreement levels closer to 65 per cent). This wartime frame found particularly high resonance in Quebec, with 68 per cent supporting this proposition.
  • People are ready for bold policies to move us off fossil fuels. The poll listed a series of six major policy moves, and asked people if they agreed or disagreed with these actions. The six policies, along with the results, are shown below:

These results are quite stunning. As of yet, no federal or provincial government in Canada has been prepared to move this ambitiously. Yet the results show that when one combines “strongly support,” “support” and “can accept,” we find the public’s willingness to get behind bold actions to reduce greenhouse gasses range from a low of 67 per cent to a high of 84 per cent.

Zeroing in on the policy of banning all new buildings and homes from using fossil fuels for heating by 2022 (just a few short years away), a full 78 per cent of Canadians are comfortable with this idea (55 per cent either support or strongly support, with a further 23 per cent willing to accept this policy). 74 per cent support or are willing to accept phasing-out the extraction and export of fossil fuels over the next 2-3 decades (50 per cent support, with a further 24 per cent willing to accept such a move). Indeed, even in Alberta, 27 per cent support or strongly support phasing-out the extraction and export of fossil fuels, with a further 21 per cent willing to accept this move.

The “can accept” folks are notable. My take is that these are people who are still unsure of how ambitious we can be, but with the right kind of leadership – the kind of bold leadership Canada saw in WWII – they could be brought along.

Also of note, 57 per cent of those polled believe the federal government is currently doing too little to combat climate change. And 75 per cent of people either support or strongly support the idea of “our governments making massive investments in new green infrastructure, such as renewable energy (solar panel fields, wind farms, geothermal energy, tidal energy), building retrofits, high-speed rail, mass public transit, and electric vehicle charging stations, as well as reforestation.”

  • The more a bold and transformative climate plan is seen as linked to an ambitious plan to tackle inequality, economic insecurity, poverty and job creation, the more likely people are to support it.

In addition to people’s concerns about climate change, they are also very worried about inequality and affordability. So, when these social equity issues are tackled as part of a climate action plan, support for bold action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rises dramatically.

The poll listed five policy actions that could help with the transition, including extending income and employment supports to those more vulnerable during the transition, and increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help pay for the transition, and asked people if such policies would make them more or less supportive of bold and ambitious climate actions. Those five policy options and the responses are shown below.

As shown, if the government provided financial support to low and modest-income households to help them pay for the transition away from fossil fuels, 79 per cent of people became more supportive of bold climate action (41 per cent said “much more supportive”, while a further 38 per cent say they would be “somewhat more supportive”).

Similarly, if the government increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help pay for the transition, 78 per cent of respondents became more supportive of a bold climate plan (46 per cent much more supportive, and a further 32 per cent somewhat more supportive).

And if the government were to commit to a “good jobs guarantee” for current fossil fuel workers – a signal that the government was ready to actively help with a just transition plan for workers – 73 per cent became more supportive of ambitious climate action (34 per cent much more supportive, and 39 per cent somewhat more supportive).

While few people want to pay more income taxes themselves to pay for the transition – an understandable response given the affordability challenges many are feeling – they are open to helping to pay for the plan in other ways. The poll asked if people would consider purchasing “Green Victory Bonds” (modeled on the Victory Bonds of WWII), and 30 per cent said they would be either certain or likely to buy such bonds, with a further 35 per cent saying they would consider it.

  • Few Canadians have heard of the Green New Deal. But once they learn about it, they like it. Unsurprisingly, only 14 per cent of respondents were certain that they had heard of the Green New Deal (GND), and another 19 per cent thought they might have, while 67 per cent said they hadn’t heard of it.

And of those who said they were aware of it, only 17 per cent said they were very familiar with the GND. However, after being given a short description of the GND (see the definition below), 72 per cent responded that they support the key principles of a Green New Deal (34 per cent said they strongly support it, and a further 38 per cent said they somewhat support it).

  • Nearly half the public understands that Canada needs to be more open to climate refugees and migrants. When asked to respond to the statement: “As climate change progresses and more people are displaced by major weather events around the world, Canada has a responsibility to accept higher numbers of climate migrants and refugees?” 45 per cent agreed that Canada should accept more climate refugees and migrants (14 per cent strongly agreed and another 31 per cent agreed).

It’s worth noting that the remainder were not all opposed; only 36 per cent of respondents were opposed to this statement, while 19 per cent indicated they either don’t know or have no opinion. While only 45 per cent in support might be discouraging, I expected worse.

We are seeing a rise in anti-immigrant views, yet nearly half of us understand that climate change will likely make climate migration a major issue in years to come, and that Canada, in the grand scheme of things, will be geographically lucky, and should not respond by pulling up the draw bridge.

Also noteworthy: the strongest level of support for this proposition, at 56 per cent, was among the youngest respondents (those between 18 and 29).

  • Most people don’t see a future for their children in the fossil fuel sector. Survey respondents between the ages of 18 and 65 were asked, “If you have or plan to have children, would you want your child to be employed in the oil and gas industry?” Only 11 per cent said ‘yes’.

We also asked people if they currently work in the oil, gas, or coal industry, or in a job closely related to those sectors. Five per cent of respondents said they did, and of those, only 57 per cent said they would want their kids to work in that sector. It would seem that even many who work in the fossil fuel sector see the writing on the wall when it comes to their children’s futures.

  • There are notable regional differences, but support is solid across Canada. Overall, we see the highest level of support for bold action is in Quebec, while the lowest levels of support are in Alberta. Most of the country falls somewhere in between the two provinces. But as noted above, even in Alberta, support for strong policies and action is solid. Regional-level results are available in more detail on the Abacus site.
  • There are modest but notable differences based on age. The age cohorts between 18 and 44-years-old were generally more supportive of bold action, followed by people over 60. Those age 44-59 tended to have slightly lower levels of support. The fact that millennials (the largest age cohort in Canada) are most supportive of bold climate action bodes well for us all; they are just beginning to exercise their political muscle, and what they want and are prepared to hear from our politicians represents a harbinger of what will become increasingly possible in our politics.

My overall conclusion is this: our politicians have been underestimating the public. They have failed to take adequate action in the face of the climate emergency, insisting the public is “not there yet.” But increasingly, the public is ahead of our elected leaders.

A solid majority of Canadians are ready to move beyond incremental policies and to entertain truly transformative climate action. Even many of those “in the middle” still wrestling with these ideas are open to bold leadership. And that is precisely what we need. After all, faced with the existential threat of fascist domination, the political leaders we remember from WWII didn’t “meet the public where they are at.” Rather, they took them where they needed to go.

Abacus Data conducted this national survey of 2,000 people between July 16 and 19. A random sample of panelists were invited to complete the survey online from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.19 per cent, 19 times out of 20. The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. This piece also appears on the blog of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives–BC Office, where Seth Klein formerly served as director.

2017-04-04 Uniform Law Conference of Canada (ULCC), Submission to. Cyberviolence, Anti-SLAPP legislation and Defamation Law, Tragedy of the Commons (all related)

 Anti-SLAPP & SLAPP, Corporate & Individual manipulation of Justice system, X1C Related Cyber-bullying, Anti-SLAPP  No Responses »
Aug 042019
 

The cover letter was submitted, a SUMMARY.   It is followed by a document with the details .

 

COVER LETTER   (a Summary, actually submitted)

April 6, 2017

TO:   Marie Bordeleau Executive Director Uniform Law Conference of Canada

(613) 986-2945

Submitted via   http://www.ulcc.ca/en/contact

 

Dear Marie,

 

In follow-up to phone conversation:   I made a submission to the Law Reform Commission (LRC) of Saskatchewan, considered at their September 2016 meeting.  They referred: cyberviolence is on the ULCC agenda.  Hence my communication with you.

I understand from our first conversation that your intention is to:

  • Communicate with the BC Delegation to the ULCC Annual Meeting (Regina, mid-August).  I am hopeful that the BC delegation will want to represent the Documentation I will provide, at the Meeting.  I live on Vancouver Island and will answer questions or otherwise assist, if it would be helpful.
  • Further, the intention is to communicate the documentation to the Cyberviolence Working Group in the ULCC.

The Documentation begins with the Justice System as a tool of coercion and intimidation (SLAPP/anti SLAPP legislation).  From there into cyberbullying.  What you see is the threat of a Lawsuit (SLAPP) as an effective tool of the bully/tyrant.  It is used to silence, to take away the Charter Right to Free Speech, through the creation of fear.  It is used the same, whether in the real, or cyber world.

The three examples provided make that point.

The magic recipe that delivers for the plaintiff (cyberbully) in SLAPP is:

  • deficient defamation law +
  • the confidentiality (silencing) imposed in the mandatory “Dispute Resolution” part of the process +
  • the high costs of legal representation +
  • the conventional wisdom of lawyers to always recommend that defendants “settle” in defamation cases (pay the price demanded by the plaintiff – – “shut up and pay me money to stop my bullying and extreme harassment of you”).
  • the ability of the plaintiff to drop the claim if defendants won’t capitulate
  • the ability of the plaintiff to draw out the time spent in the “Dispute Resolution Process” (confidential – – never to become public knowledge)
  • the fact that Court awards to defendants in defamation cases are “a few thousand dollars”, far short of the costs of defending against a SLAPP suit.

I hope that the ULCC will help to establish:

  1. Effective legislation to thwart the use of the threat of the legal system to coerce, intimidate and silence criticism.

Note 1:  SLAPP is the original, commonly-used term.  But SLAPP is not the name under which Law Reform should be done.

The reason becomes apparent after reading the 3 examples of SLAPP.  The nomenclature needs to be broad enough to encompass SLAPP used by individuals, not only by corporate entities.

  1. Effective legislation to thwart Cyber violence.
  2. Effective legislation to address the deficiencies of defamation law.

As things stand today, I do not know where citizen-centred law reform in Canada will come from.  Law Reform capacity has been gutted, as far as I can see.  I suspect it would be helpful to you, to have input from citizens to help make the case.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

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

DETAILED DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT  (did not transmit)

RE:  Cyberviolence, Anti-SLAPP legislation and Defamation Law, Tragedy of the Commons (all related)

RE:  A re-statement of the role of the state, the role of policing and Justice in Canada.

The latter point is not addressed in the Appended.   Elaboration:

I understand that a person who murders is prosecuted by the state.   Why?  Because physical violence isn’t a personal thing like a contract.  It is a problem of the society; it is a state problem, a state responsibility.

If the use of lawsuits has an element of extortion, another form of violence, it is similarly a state problem and state responsibility to prosecute.

The role of the state is to protect citizens against violence.   As I understand things, citizens agree to abandon violence; we pay taxes for policing and the justice system in exchange for the ability to live in relative security, without fear.   Read the three examples in the Appended – – see what you think.

The Justice System is funded – – owned – – by citizens.   It is the responsibility of citizens.

If we are fortunate, in the face of ineffective systems, communities will find their own ways to meet local needs.  If we are ineffective, violence will increase for the simple reason that it’s affordable to hire someone to break the knee-caps of an aggressor; it is not affordable to use the justice system.

Perhaps not from your perspective, but from mine:  there appears to be a bias in the Justice system to favor the funding of corporate services at the expense of evolution to meet citizen needs.

Example 1:  a criterion for ranking law schools in Canada is the number of graduates hired by the top law firms.   The clients of the top law firms are corporations and businesses.   So if a Canadian law school wants to “rank”, it has to focus on corporate law.  As everyone knows, lawyers charge at rates affordable by the wealthy, making “justice” inaccessible to the “99%”.    But it’s the “99%” who own the whole system, funding universities and all the accessory entities.  We pay the bills, plus the community costs associated with ineffective systems.

Example 2:  the Law Reform Commission (SK) is well-intentioned.   It has ONE dedicated PART-TIME employee.   Part of LRC’s law reform will be for corporate law purposes.  Remove time for administrative matters,  there’s not much leftover.

If the Justice and Policing Systems, the Governments in Canada, will not dedicate resources to create access to a Justice System designed to serve every day citizens, violence will increase because people are not stupid.  Nor are they impotent.  They will take (must take?) matters into their own hands if the Justice System and Rule of Law is not available to them.  Violence begets violence in that system, simply because it is the available means of defence.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to Democracy.  It is being undermined through our failures to reform and evolve.   There are too many financial beneficiaries of the status quo.

It is a serious matter, as the appended documentation attests.   I will be thoroughly appreciative of radical efforts by the ULCC to address long-standing, talked-about dysfunctionality.   The Chief Justice of Canada has admonished the profession, for years now, calling for much-needed action.   The profession has not, and is not going to?  deliver the goods.

 

THE NEED FOR ANTI-SLAPP TYPE LEGISLATION IN ALL JURISDICTIONS

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is

intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Note 1:  SLAPP is the original, commonly-used term.  However, the use of SLAPP has evolved beyond the “Public Participation” aspect.  SLAPP is not the name under which Law Reform should be done.

Note 2:  Under-lined text is a clickable link.

 

The following documentation follows a path:

  1. EXAMPLES OF SLAPP SUITS Large corporations use the threat of a lawsuit to silence critics.

Which leads to

  1. ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION (Ontario, Quebec, USA)

Which transitions into today’s world of social media (cyber-bullying and SLAPP):

costly lawsuits are being used to silence people who are posting negative reviews. We need to make it cheaper, easier and quicker to get rid of these lawsuits so that people are talking about matters of interest to the public and are expressing their opinion or are saying something that’s true, which is what the anti-SLAPP legislation does.

 

I use real-life, practical examples from Saskatchewan.  I have no doubt that citizens in other provinces and territories will be able to tune in, because my experiences are not unique.

The Attitude:   “But this is Saskatchewan.  It’s not an issue here.”  . . . ?

  1. SASKATCHEWAN – FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST USE OF SLAPP
  2. UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN USE OF SLAPP
  3. SASKATCHEWAN – INDIVIDUAL’S USE OF SLAPP (ARISING OUT OF CYBER-BULLYING OF YOUNG WOMAN)
  4. ISSUE: FREE SPEECH
  5. ISSUE: THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
  6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CYBER-BULLYING, SLAPP and DEFAMATION LAW. SHOULD THEY BE ADDRESSED TOGETHER?
    1. THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM WITH CYBER-VIOLENCE, then to
    2. CYBER-VIOLENCE WITH IMPUNITY, THE POLICE AND COURT

SYSTEM WON’T OR CAN’T DO ANYTHING, AS THINGS STAND.  There are currently no avenues for redress.

  1. ISSUE: THE LAW ON DEFAMATION
  2. WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION? (later)
  3. REMEDY: LEGISLATION   (later)

Now, the details.

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

 

  1. EXAMPLES OF SLAPP SUITS Large corporations use the threat of a lawsuit to silence critics.

Libel Suits are Meant to Slapp Free Speech   is an early documentation (1998) of the problem.

 . . .   Canada’s two huge logging companies, MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge have sued hundreds of citizens, communities and environmental groups for saying bad things about clearcutting.  Monsanto, maker of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH), sued several small Midwest dairies for advertising that their milk is BGH-free.  . . .     (BGH = bovine growth hormone)

Saskatchewanians may remember Monsanto’s lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser, or the dispatch of RCMP officers to the homes of organic farmers at the behest of Monsanto for the same purpose of intimidation.   Percy could not have defended himself without incurring gargantuan debt. Community-based benefits and fund-raising helped pay.

Monsanto’s use of the legal system to send a warning (“chill”) to farmers was thwarted, but only because Monsanto chose the wrong person to bring a lawsuit against, and because people rallied to pay the costs.

Corporations have millions to pay lawyers.  But Who pays?  For the corporation, legal bills are an operating expense.  They reduce taxable income.  Which means a smaller contribution to the costs of “public services” such as the justice system they are using for SLAPP purposes.  Meanwhile, huge amounts of citizen’s donated time and money go into fund-raising to defend the public interest against the SLAPP.   Citizens pay on both accounts.   Sheeple?  Discontent?

 

  1. ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION (Ontario, Quebec, USA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation Ontario

In Ontario, the decision in Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon (see [1996] O.J. No. 3855 Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) (QL) was also instructive on SLAPPs.  A motion brought by the corporate plaintiff Daishowa to impose conditions on the defendant Friends of the Lubicon Indian Band that they would not represent Daishowa’s action as a SLAPP was dismissed.

By 2010, the Ontario Attorney-General issued a major report which identified SLAPP as a major problem[11] but initially little or nothing was done.[12]

. . . In October 2015, Ontario passed the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015.[15]

. . . The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has called upon the Attorney General to go further, as Bill 83 does not correct fundamental flaws with Ontario’s defamation law which impose a one-sided burden of proof to force defendants to disprove falsity, malice, and damage within a very limited framework where “truth”, “privilege”, “fair comment”, and “responsible reporting” are their only recognised defences.[22]

Quebec

Québec’s then Justice Minister, Jacques Dupuis, proposed an anti-SLAPP bill on June 13, 2008. [23] The bill was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 3, 2009.

. . . .   The Quebec law is substantially different in structure than that of California[26] or other jurisdictions, however as Quebec’s Constitution generally subordinates itself to international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies.

(Aside: the Wikipedia information on SLAPP does not mention Monsanto, a Godfather of

SLAPP suits. An edit should be sent to Wikipedia.)

USA

From   Public Participation Project, Fighting for Free Speech   http://www.antislapp.org/slappdash–faqs–about–slapps/

It Might Get Harder for Someone to Silence You with a Lawsuit

By Michael Arria / AlterNet,  May 18, 2016

Currently 28 states have some kind of anti-SLAPP statutory protection. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which refers to litigation intended to silence critics by sticking them with the need for an exorbitant legal defense. Think of the Church of Scientology’s attempts to intimidate whistleblowers with threats of legal action. It’s also used by corporations, like McDonald’s suing environmental activists for distributing pamphlets that were critical of the company’s policies.

Lawmakers have been pushing for federal SLAPP legislation for years, but it finally looks as if a substantial bipartisan effort is underway. The ideal model for federal rules is California, the state with the most expansive anti-SLAPP protections. A recent Los Angeles Times editorial explains the existing system:

When someone is hit with a lawsuit that feels like a SLAPP, he or she can quickly file a motion to strike. The court then puts the original lawsuit on hold while determining whether the person was, in fact, being sued for exercising free-speech rights, petitioning the government or speaking in a public forum on ‘an issue of public interest.’ If so, the court will toss out the lawsuit unless the plaintiff can show that the claims are legitimate and likely to succeed at trial. To guard against abusive anti-SLAPP motions, the side that loses such a case has to pay the other side’s legal fees.

The federal proposal, H.R. 2304, is sponsored by Rep. Blake Farenthold, a Texas Republican. Farenthold’s political affiliation may confuse those who only associate anti-SLAPP efforts with corporate critics, but there’s potentially a libertarian, even conservative, appeal to such legislation. When asked about the importance of the bill, Farenthold explained:

If someone posts something negative, whether it’s true or their opinion, both of which are protected speech under the First Amendment, costly lawsuits are being used to silence people who are posting negative reviews. We need to make it cheaper, easier and quicker to get rid of these lawsuits so that people are talking about matters of interest to the public and are expressing their opinion or are saying something that’s true, which is what the anti-SLAPP legislation does.

 

  1. SASKATCHEWAN – FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCIENTIST USE OF SLAPP

2004-04-10    Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me.   Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.

(Note: CropLife Canada is the lobby machine for the chemical industry.   And it’s actually Dr. Wolf, not Mr. Wolf as I refer to him.)

EXCERPT:

MY RESPONSE TO LAWYER   (Woloshyn & Company, LLP)

Dear Stephen Nicholson:

I am in receipt of your registered letter, October 4th and email copy of same.

The email I sent to City Council contains information provided verbally by Mr. Wolf himself at the September 23rd meeting of the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC), in response to the written question handed to him (approximate wording), “Is this the same Tom Wolf as whose work appears in the communications of CropLife? If so, he is in a serious conflict-of-interest”.

In his response, Mr. Wolf said that he was seconded from Agriculture Canada to work at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).  Mr. Wolf specifically stated that he has been paid by CropLife and that he seeks funding from them. He specifically stated that he has written a manual for CropLife.  I gather that he provided the amount of one payment ($10,000.00) to the reporter from the Star Phoenix, as I interpret the newspaper article regarding the conflict-of-interest.

INSERT:   Copies of all the related documents are at   Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me. Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.    The newspaper article (Wolf told the reporter that he had been doing work for the industry for 8 years and that for one project, as an example, he received $10,000. He declined to say how much in total he had been paid by the industry over the 8 years.  I only came to know of his involvement with the industry (that the PMRA is supposed to regulate) because he jumped on me at an open meeting, said what I was saying was wrong when I knew I was right and supplied the info to prove it.   I didn’t know him; it seemed a funny reaction by him – – until a friend nosed around and found him in the industry publication. There’s also a copy of the letter from the lawyer threatening to sue me, notes re my trip to Ottawa, meeting with the head-haunchos of the PMRA to find out what in hell they’re doing, the written reply from them, and so on.)

Continuing with my letter to the lawyer:

If “Mr. Wolf does not personally receive payments from the chemical industry”, as stated in your letter, (INSERT: the letter that threatens to sue me) then he should not state that such is the case. Whether one calls the payor CropLife or the chemical industry, is a matter of semantics.

I question the intent of your statement “We further understand that you may be speaking to City Council this evening (etc.)”. Presumably you, in your experience as a lawyer would know better than I, that sensitive matters involving individuals will be dealt with in camera. That would be routine.

If intended for me, the statement “Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.”, I respond that you sent the communication to me. I am free to do with it as I wish, except to alter it.

In light of the preceding points and other statements in your letter, I view your letter to me as an intimidation tactic. Gangsters bully people through threat of broken bones. The chemical industry has an established history (I will be happy to provide specific examples should you desire them) of attempting to intimidate through the threat of harm to the person’s finances and well-being, utilizing the legal system as the weapon.

For the record:

I did not send my complaint to “various media outlets”. I did send it to the other affected parties you named – the City, SEAC and the Auditor General (who issued an extremely critical report on the PMRA in October 2003 and who therefore has an interest). I also sent it to my personal email network.

The matter reached the Star Phoenix because a City reporter saw the vaporooter item on the Sept 23rd meeting agenda for SEAC. He knew of my interest in the subject from an earlier meeting of SEAC which he had attended. It was quite natural for him to phone me.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

 

  1. UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN USE OF SLAPP

2011-10-15   My response to Letter from Lawyer, University threatens legal action.

This threat of legal action was also sent to Jordan Miller.

EXCERPT:

RE:  Your file reference 30000.455    USSWORD Infringing Use of Registered Marks   (USSWORD = University of Saskatchewan Senators WOrking to Revive Democracy)

A copy of your letter is posted at  2011–10–06   Letter from University’s Lawyer threatens legal action

“  . . .  cease and desist  . . . If you do not comply, we have instructions to pursue all available legal remedies.”

. . . .  Let me say, regarding your letter and prior to addressing the legal issue you raise:

the justice system is a well-known tool of intimidation and coercion used by large corporate interests and the Government with seemingly unlimited financial resources, compared to the ordinary, well-intentioned private citizen.

I am acquainted with the practice.   It is a disturbing trend, along with the use of the police (RCMP) to protect unregulated corporate interests (Encana pipeline incidents bring out the RCMP anti-terrorist squad when unregulated, very poisonous sour gas is causing still-births and miscarriages in women and in livestock.  People are trying to defend the health and lives of their family and environment.  They exhaust legal remedies, are left to their wits and then characterized as terrorists.)

It is my job as an elected Senator of the University of Saskatchewan to represent the voice of the owners of the University, the citizens of Saskatchewan.   The role of “the loyal opposition” in democratic institutions is to ask the hard questions, to hold officials accountable to citizens.

The University of Saskatchewan has been, and continues, using the legal system to silence and intimidate:

  1. The research project spreadsheet of approximately FIFTY cases of harassment at the University, shows
  • twenty cases going to the Court of Queen’s Bench
  • at least seven going to the Court of Appeal, and
  • others going to quasi-judiciary bodies.
  • at least three of the cases are “exit with a confidentiality agreement”, commonly known as a gag order bought with a pay-out. The pay-outs are known to be large, some VERY large.

As a Senator representing the community interest, I see reflected in the spreadsheet literally millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees, financial settlements to aggrieved victims, and salaries paid to administrators who are dealing with the disputes.  There are serious questions to be answered concerning conflict resolution at the U of S.

  1. An issue raised by USSWORD is the unacceptable conflicts-of-interest at the University. Nancy Hopkins is the Chair of the Board of Governors.  She has been on the

Cameco Board since 1992 and as at the end of December 2009 had $1.8 million in

Cameco shares.    She chairs the Search Committee for the next President of the

University;  persons with connections to the industry are in contention for the position.

The President, Peter MacKinnon responds in Senate by proclaiming that there IS no conflict-of-interest.   We all know what a wonderful person Ms Hopkins is.

A reading of the minutes of the Board of Governors indicates that Ms Hopkins does not recuse herself from deliberations related to the nuclear industry on campus.

When the Government of Saskatchewan channels $30 million (or is it $45M) to the

University ear-marked for research and development to benefit the nuclear industry, is Ms. Hopkins going to uphold University autonomy in its ability to allocate funds without political interference?  And is she concerned about the long-term sustainability of that program should that government funding be cut in future because they (and the nuclear industry) believe they are not getting the anticipated return on their “investment”?    No.

Does she benefit from the advancement of the nuclear research at U of S?   After Fukishima the world is exiting nuclear and Ms. Hopkins’ Cameco shares have taken a nose-dive.   Government (public) funding, through the University, of Cameco’s interests will be extremely beneficial to the investments of Nancy Hopkins – – but (repeat) the Administration of the University contends there is no conflict-of-interest.

USSWORD raises the issues;  the University seems unable to deal with them through respectful exchange.   They deny and then threaten “the full force of the law”.

The question is “WHY”? 

Link back to the spreadsheet of harassment cases.   You may or may not know:   Academic Women for Justice (INSERT: not based in Sask.) has lodged a complaint with the Minister responsible for Post-Secondary Education, Rob Norris.   They recommend that the University of Saskatchewan no longer be eligible for Canada Research Chair Funding because of the cases.   This is a matter of serious concern for the owners of the University and me as a representative.

But still the “WHY?”.  . . . Connect the dots.

(name)  became a renowned researcher in water.   She was awarded a Canada Research Chair at the University of Saskatchewan, bringing $16 million with her.  I came to know of (name) because she was the ONE scientist at the University who engaged with the community around Outlook over the question of adding high-volume water users and polluters of the South Sask River, in the form of intensive cattle operations.   (The South Sask River supplies 40% of the people in the province with the water that comes out of their taps. There are enormous demands on the River already.   The size of the promoted livestock operations is like adding the demands of another entire city.)

Then  big surprise:  (name) recently and abruptly left, a great loss to the University.   . .  WHY did she leave?  I know that in early summer she was extremely worried that the University was going to fire her which was incomprehensible given her publication and work record.  The University has celebrated and profiled her virtues.

Hmmm . . .  I recall a social conversation with (name).   I had been up to Wollaston Lake at a Keepers of the Water Conference.  Keepers of the Water (attendees of the Conference) are First Nations people from northern  Alaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  The elders are very concerned by the levels of cancer in their communities, unknown in the past.   Because of the disease levels (poisons going into the environment) they have joined hands across the North to protect their children.

(Name) told me her experience by which she was obviously disturbed:  she had been taking water samples in the North.  They had a Geiger counter with them as they went along the shore.  The counter was going crazy.   What bothered her most was that children were innocently playing on the shore when even adults should not have been in the area without protection, given the readings on the Geiger counter.

Wollaston Lake = Cameco.   The University of Saskatchewan = Cameco University.   The connections are well documented.  Please ask if you would like them.

I received a brown envelope.   The Administration of the University can confirm the content. . . . (name) asserted the need for laboratories at the University to be brought up to Canadian standards.  As I understand she is a professional and has worked under the world’s best.   In order for her work to be scientifically reliable she must be working in laboratories that meet standards.

Whose interests are served by sub-standard laboratories?   Whose interests are served if the scientist with the Geiger counter is forced out of the University?

END OF EXCERPT

 

The letter received by Jordan Miller and myself was a SLAPP suit, the University attempting to silence the legitimate exercise of calling to account.

“  . . .  cease and desist  . . . If you do not comply, we have instructions to pursue all available legal remedies.” 

(We were cited for TradeMark infringement.  We, University Senators, worked with a group of Senators.  We called ourselves  “University of Saskatchewan Senators WOrking to Revive Democracy”, or USSWORD for short.   “University of Saskatchewan” is trade-marked.  The set of related documents are at the posting,  2011-10-15   My response to Letter from Lawyer, University threatens legal action.)

 

  1. SASKATCHEWAN – INDIVIDUAL’S USE OF SLAPP (ARISING OUT OF CYBERBULLYING OF YOUNG WOMAN)

Anti-SLAPP legislation in some jurisdictions has been effective in reducing the use of SLAPP as a tool of coercion, insofar as it applies to Corporate entities versus the Public Interest.

But the world evolves and unfortunately, the SLAPP practice developed by large corporate interests has now been learned by individuals.   The last paragraph under 2. ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION alludes to it:   costly lawsuits are being used to silence people who are posting negative reviews.

The specific example I provide (Saskatchewan) is currently in the Justice system.  Because the ULCC meeting is in August (the outcome of litigation may still be unknown), because I cannot illustrate what is happening in the real world without it, I am using it (judiciously, I hope!).  You are not called upon to endorse anything.  You do not need to make a judgment – there is no need for it.   No names are offered, just the illustration of HOW it works (does not work).

For a year, a 26 year-old woman had been mercilessly harassed by a 42 year-old man through social media, after she stood up at a public meeting and offered a viewpoint different from his.  I received a complaint from the distressed young woman through a facebook group for which I bear some responsibility, in a volunteer capacity.  The complaint was of inappropriate use of Green Party social media.  I arranged for the complaint to be forwarded to the office of the Green Party in Ottawa for independent, 3rd party resolution.  (Only later did I learn about the previous year-long cyberbullying of the young woman.)

Because I forwarded the complaint, the man then set his sights on me and has not stopped in the three years since.   He has attacked others. He threatened me with, and then brought a lawsuit.   I think he expects that the costs and inadequacies of the Justice system will force me to abandon a defence against his charges against me.

The Mandatory Mediation took place in November 2016;  Document Disclosure has not been done.   As of March 2017, lawyer bills for me and a co-defendant are more than $25,000.   I expect the cost will be $30,000 before we reach the court room door.  Will the plaintiff withdraw his claim to prevent his actions from becoming public knowledge?  (everything is “confidential” as long as the case is confined to “dispute resolution” and does not proceed into a court room.)

More details under   8. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CYBER-BULLYING, SLAPP and DEFAMATION LAW. 

 

It is almost inconceivable that I, one person in a population the size of Saskatchewan’s, can serve up from personal experience the preceding 3 examples of egregious uses of the threat of a lawsuit (SLAPP) for intimidation and silencing purposes:

  • The full-time Government scientist being paid as much as $10,000 per contract by the industry his Department is supposed to regulate, on-going for 8 years, when I said “This is a serious conflict-of-interest” – – the scientist paid a lawyer to threaten me with a lawsuit (silence me).
  • The University of Saskatchewan paid a lawyer to threaten me with a lawsuit when I participated, as an elected member of University Senate, in bringing to attention the conflict-of-interest and actions that contravened Laws set out in The University Act.
  • A cyberbully brings a lawsuit for defamation against myself, later another lawsuit for defamation against a man. Independent of, and unknown to each other, we both have serious concerns about the on-line activities of the cyberbully.

 

The motivation for bringing the lawsuits is no different from that of the Government scientist or the University.  Chill.  Silence.  There are no Charter Rights.

I grew up in rural Saskatchewan which is conservative, but community-minded in spirit.    What is my fault?

Now to  The Larger Issues . . .

 

  1. ISSUE: FREE SPEECH

Civil litigation is for the wealthy and a few people like myself who believe that Charter Rights have to be defended at all costs.  We must stand in solidarity with others who have defended the right to free speech at huge personal cost. Sometimes it is with their lives and the lives of their family members on the line.

Reference publication of the “Satanic Verses” in 1989 by Salman Rushdie.  The Ayatollah

Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie.   “Joseph Anton: A Memoir”, written by Rushdie, documents the refusal of himself, a handful of publishers and a few others to bow.

Their sole motivation: they understood that free speech must be an inviolable right.   With responsibilities, yes, but not to be abandoned out of fear.

It takes a deeper understanding, the ability to see that if we individually bow to violence, we collectively condemn our children to a more violent future.   You don’t save them by avoiding or failing to deal with the issue.  Quite the opposite.

My resolve to stay the course against a cyberbully was cemented by the realization that it is an issue of free speech.  The Justice System is poorly equipped to defend the Charter Right.

 

  1. ISSUE: THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

As explained in letter to lawyer:

. . .   However,  in my opinion an agreement to settle with the plaintiff (even if it was possible) would be a short-term fix, and it would be a larger betrayal.

The betrayal can be understood in the framework of “The Tragedy of the Commons”.   (The internet – – the air waves – – are part of “The Commons”.)   No one of us individually is responsible, and therefore no one is responsible.

A short read may be helpful:    Battles to protect the Commons.

When there are incursions onto the Commons, people have to come together to defend it.  If not, the Commons is lost and the whole community suffers  – – a lot.

OTHER people work hard, all the time, in defence of the Commons.  Without them, for example, the quality of water coming out of your tap would be less.   Many more people would side-step the issue through the purchase of bottled water, if they can afford it.

Another:  there have been monumental efforts by people in Canada and the U.S. to stop tiered (preferential) access to the Internet that large corporate interests seek.

In the context of a court case:

Some of you have daughters, sisters, nieces, or are young women yourselves.   The case against me exists because I forwarded a complaint – – this older man was using the internet against a young woman, in ways you would not tolerate.

Click on:    2016–07–29   ‘What law am I breaking?’  How a Facebook troll came undone

This 2016 story is of young women who had the courage to fight against such cyber-bullies, and win.  It’s a win for everyone who has a presence on the internet.   AND for everyone who has a daughter, sister or niece.

One woman, Brierley Newton, stood in defence of the Commons.  She is not asking us for our gratitude.  But she should expect that we will at least stand in solidarity when the ball lands in our court.

Standing down from this man would be a betrayal by me.   We need to ADD to the success of these young women, not subtract from it.

You might think of the case of Amanda Todd (a Canadian teen who committed suicide as a consequence of on-line predation).  This is not as extreme, but it is related.  (Today comes the news:  Court to extradite Amanda Todd cyberbullying suspect;  Aydin Coban will finish criminal trial in Netherlands being tried in Canada.)

To what extremes will/would the man go?   So far, he knows that the Police and the Justice system will not touch him.

If I capitulate, not only would his belief be reinforced, but he will potentially make money (a “global settlement” as it is called) doing what he does.   He would flaunt a win, which would further empower him AND others.   The above article, How a Troll came

Undone, describes the extent of the problem, as does the UN Report on CyberViolence.

We leave a more violent world behind us, if we do not accept our responsibility.

The tragedy and comedy of human existence:   we are often unwitting participants in our own demise  (a settlement with the cyberbully, pay him to stop, abandon the Charter Right to free speech, accept tyranny.)

 

  1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLAPP AND CYBER-BULLYING. SHOULD THEY BE ADDRESSED TOGETHER? (later)   (did not do)

9.  THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM WITH CYBER-VIOLENCE

UN report on cyberviolence highlights rampant issue online.

The UN Report was discussed on CBC Radio, The Current, which is addressed in Cyberbullying, an issue of free speech. Salman Rushdie, a guiding light.  

There is Amanda Todd.

A recent case from Alberta: white racists’ (supremacists’) vicious online attacks on a First Nations female professor.

Canadian lawyer, journalist and author Paula Todd (not related to Amanda Todd) published “Extreme Mean, Trolls, Bullies and Predators Online” in 2014. Described as a “meticulous and dramatic investigation …… serves as a demand for action”.

In the search for help to deal with a cyberbully I found the last chapter of Paula Todd’s book Extreme Mean to be a good statement of the challenge that society has to address, with the rapidly-developed internet technology and its empowerment of destructive forces.

 

10.   CYBER-VIOLENCE WITH IMPUNITY, THE POLICE AND COURT SYSTEM WON’T OR CAN’T DO ANYTHING, AS THINGS STAND.

There are currently no avenues for redress.

There is plentiful documentation of the problem.

Why not just go to the Police and the Court system?

Experience in Saskatoon:

A number of people have taken serious complaints against the same person to the Police, as early as January 2014.

As of March 2017 – Police could not or have not taken effective action.

Some examples, but not an exhaustive list of the complainants:

January 7, 2014   (names withheld)

I learned the hard way that harassment through social media is not taken seriously by local police . . ..  I went to the police with all of the harassment that ( – – ) has thrown at me, and they said there’s no way to prove it was really (him) who said and did these things. . . . 

– – – – –

Lastly, I’m not looking to endanger (him), despite how hard he has come after me–that would just lower me to his level.  I won’t spread his last name around–I’ve known it for months now, and the only action I’ve taken with it was to implore (his) father to talk some sense into (him), and get him to remove the websites harassing me.  I haven’t put it on my website, nor do I plan to.  It didn’t work to reach out to his father, so as I see it, I’m out of ammo. 

7 Jan 2014 To (name withheld) from Sandra Finley

Re the conversation with (local radio talk-show host’s) producer.   

We discussed the matter of the Police.  ( – – -)  felt the same as what you articulated.  In the end, the Police will not deal with the complaint. 

(radio talk show host) had attempted to shut down the cyber-bullying, prior to my involvement.)

17 July 2014 From (a different woman) to Sandra Finley

Subject: Bullying/cyberbullying by ( – – )

Here is the email I sent to Sgt. (name) yesterday.  You can see that (- – ) has not stopped and now is beginning to harass me through work.   . . .

January 10, 2014 from the young woman, after more than a year of cyberbullying and fear:

(This particular young woman, not the only target of the perpetrator, was forced off social media.   In February 2014, after battling the cyberbully since December 2012, for her safety and sanity she was essentially forced to leave Saskatoon.  She moved to another province.  March 2017 – – the perpetrator continues to deliver his destructive wares with impunity.   The cyberbully has added actual lawsuits (versus the Threat of), two of them now, claiming defamation.)

I guess I’m just a bit war-weary, Sandra.  . . . this experience with him has cost me a lot.  I miss seeing and hearing about my friends on Facebook.  I tire of thinking so often about this madman that has turned my life upside-down, but at times I’m almost consumed with it, because that means I get my life back.  I wonder how calm and collected people like  . . .  would be if it were they that had their photos spread all over the internet simply for opposing a wannabe tyrant.  Memories of the most vulnerable and fragile times (my struggles with depression) brought vividly up, in an attempt to get people not to hire me.  Day after day, these sites remain up, and it’s really affecting me.   I have reported the sites, and received e-mails explaining until there is legal precedent proving the blog’s inaccuracies (!) wordpress will not remove them.  All of which makes me wonder why I am even bothering playing by the rules (ie, not posting the TRUE info we have on – – –  ), when – – –  plays only down and dirty? 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

February 4, 2014

I am 28.  . . . 

I appreciate your kindness and for defending me.  I think I’m going to have to take a more decided step back from this whole affair.  While I am no longer as afraid for my person (though there are more websites bearing my face, all threatening my financial ruin), I have been left quite adrift from much of this.  I suppose you could call it disillusionment (or maybe it’s just old fashioned depression)  

I’m sorry this message is such a downer.  I’m just not in a terribly bright place right now.  Maybe tomorrow will be better.

 

There is, in addition, the APPENDED   CYBERBULLY INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS CONTRACTS, BLOG HOSTING SERVICE AND DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR

It is documentation or evidence.   . . .   (not included.  Please ask if you’d like the observations of how it works.)

2019-07-27 Outrage is a more effective unifier than forgiveness. Marilynne Robinson, “What Are We Doing Here?”

 Change, Culture and Ethics, Empowerment  No Responses »
Jul 272019
 

I am unsure.  I think this is from a magazine in a waiting room  – – apologies to the source,  I lost you.

When time permits,  I’d like to look further into the two authors quoted:

 

OUTRAGE, ironically, is a more effective UNIFIER than forgiveness.

“People enjoy sharing in consensus, especially when it allows us to indulge a guilty pleasure.”  Pulitzer-prize winning author Marilynne Robinson writes in her 2018 book of essays called  “What Are We Doing Here?“

(About Robinson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilynne_Robinson)

“Catharsis can feel so good, and so can the strong sense of identity that comes with knowing who is with you and who is against  you – – whether this is true or not.”

And there might be personal benefits.  “Acts of Forgiveness by  . . .  (author Ted Karpf)

https://www.amazon.com/Acts-Forgiveness-Faith-Journeys-Priest/dp/1476679592

 

2019-05-25 Input to Govt, Bill C-69 will exempt Small Modular Reactors and other nuclear/uranium reactors from impact assessment.

 Corruption, Nuclear  No Responses »
Jul 202019
 

May 25, 2019

 

FROM:  Sandra Finley

TO:  Govt of Canada,  Impact Assessment Regulations,  Consultation on the proposed Project List

Bill C-69 will exempt Small Modular Reactors and other nuclear/uranium reactors from impact assessment.

 

The elephant in the room is CORRUPTION.   You have to deal with it.

 

It did not make sense that the Liberal Govt would throw weight behind nuclear energy as a response to climate change (2018).    If you know the cross-Canada history in the last decade of the nuclear/uranium industry, no political party would champion nuclear.

When things don’t make sense, try “follow the money”.  Cameco, nuclear/uranium)

From 2013 to 2014 Key Executive Compensation rose by 43% (from $10 million to $15 million), at a time when their share value had been in uninterrupted decline since February, 2011.   . . .

Today’s (2018) share value is down by 80% over its June 2007 high.

And the CRA is after it:  through off-shoring  The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

 

WHY?  would  Bill C-69 want to exempt Small Modular Reactors and other nuclear/uranium reactors from impact assessment?  

 

It’s explained in an email I sent to Minister McKenna, posted on my blog (http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20712  ).   Please go to the posting for the first part of the email.

 

SECOND HALF OF THE EMAIL (the corruption):    

When a population fights a reactor because it will enslave them to very expensive electricity, at the cost of investing in alternatives, and

then turns around to fight the transportation of (the industry’s estimate in 2009, more now) 20,000 truckloads of accumulated high level radioactive waste, you may, as I did, come to view the nuclear industry as a Ponzi scheme.  Someone gets left holding the bag, at the end.   “Someone” is the good old, not-yet-angry-enough citizen.

It’s pretty simple:   a business needs a revenue stream to cover its costs.  The industry has old reactors in Ontario;  billions of dollars are being spent to extend their lives.   Costs go onto electricity bills.

The last “new” reactor began construction in July 1985,  more than three decades ago.

No new reactors means no new revenue streams to replace the old ones.

BUT,  simultaneously, the industry has (by its own estimates in 2009, more now) upwards of $24 billion for the cost of building a Repository for its accumulated waste.  That estimate does not include the cost of transporting all the waste to the site. (Some years ago, the industry was required to start putting money into a fund to address those eventual costs.  It has so far collected a small portion of the necessary money.)

There’s the Ponzi:

Without new reactors they don’t have a replacement revenue stream.  So, dwindling cash in-flow.  Large out-flows.  How are they going to pay the cost of accumulated waste disposal, an estimated $30 billion dollars?   What are the existing debt-loads?  There are contaminated sites to be cleaned up, at large expense.  There isn’t one insurance company willing to sell insurance to them.    A new reactor requires capital investment.  But investors don’t line up when the potential for returns looks lousy.

No new reactors?  . . . in a Ponzi, the last guy to buy in (Ontario?) ends up footing the bill.   Most of the other provinces have said. “It’s not going to be us.”

UNLESS  . . .  unless the industry has access to the public purse to foot the bills, they’re hooped.  Seems to me.

The Liberals appear to be gambling that they can use spin doctors and count on ignorant voters.  I don’t think we are that gullible.

(The first part of the letter to Minister McKenna (at (http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20712  ) has

  • the record, by province, of “It’s not going to be us.”  And
  • sources for the following “Big push” by the Govt )

So WHY the big push, by the Trudeau Government, to commit Canada to nuclear reactors and to have other countries adopt them as a (false) answer to climate change?   . . .   follow the money.

When I read the words of Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr’s parliamentary secretary,

we have ensured that nuclear energy will have its place,

I went to Cameco’s website.  (If you don’t know Cameco, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameco.)

Who are the current Executive and Board members?    https://www.cameco.com/about/board-of-directors 

 No longer:  Nancy Hopkins, Saskatoon corporate lawyer (with McKercher, the “Liberal” law firm)  who had been on the Cameco Board since 1992, had Cameco shares and options worth $1,001,871 in 2008;  $1,843,273 in 2009.

The fight over the North Sask River reactor was in 2009.  As mentioned, the reactor was defeated.  Not good news for Cameco’s share value.

The Fukishima nuclear reactor disaster was in March 2011, seven years ago.  Cameco shares fell, but had been falling.  The high was in mid-June, 2007,  $59.46 per share.  The next high, mid-Feb 2011, $41.34.   Down to $18.41 by the end of 2011;  no recovery – – trading around $12.00  in mid-March, 2018.   Today’s share value is down by 80% over its June 2007 high.

If Nancy did not unload her shares, the value of her portfolio investment in Cameco has plummeted.  The same is true for other Executive members of Cameco.  But investment in Cameco shares is only part of the money.

What does the compensation look like for Cameco Executives?  What’s at stake for them, or for the aspiring executives to succeed them, if the industry can’t bring new reactors on-stream?  It will be compensation + perks + share value + intangibles of being on the Board (influence, connections).

 

(Ref, chart from:  http://quote.morningstar.ca/Quicktakes/Insiders/ExecutiveCompensation.aspx?t=CCJ) 

 

Key Executive Compensation

     2012

10,234,004

     2013

10,497,424

     2014

15,062,235

      2015

14,617,837

      2016

14,446,905

 

Timothy S. Gitzel/President and Chief Executive Officer 4,772,534 4,720,325 5,099,097 5,917,347 5,924,134

 

Grant E. Isaac/Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer 1,818,511 1,760,075 2,791,418 2,076,531 2,558,113

 

Robert Steane/Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer 2,396,780 2,223,135 2,591,850 3,370,965 2,624,740

 

Alice Wong/Senior Vice-President and Chief Corporate Officer 1,246,179 1,172,529 2,198,320 1,552,552 1,679,768

 

Sean Quinn/Senior Vice-President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary – 621,360 2,381,550 1,700,442 1,660,150

 

These people are in the 1%, having been given access to a public resource, once owned by a Crown Corporation.   From 2013 to 2014 Key Executive Compensation rose by 43% (from $10 million to $15 million), at a time when their share value had been in uninterrupted decline since February, 2011.   And just after the CRA – – –

Grant Isaac was into his fourth year with Cameco (Chief Financial Officer), Nancy Hopkins, corporate lawyer, her 21st year on the Board, when the CRA went after Cameco, over offshore shell companies:

The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

2013-05-01   Cameco’s $800-million tax battle, Globe & Mail  

(Update:  2017-08-17 Cameco wins PROCEDURAL victory in offshore ‘transfer pricing’ tax battle, (not the end of the case)  Financial Post)

 

Citizens were pretty pissed.  We pay taxes, they don’t.  That’s not all.  Intolerable conflicts-of-interest:

Nancy served as a Director on the Board of Governors of the University of Saskatchewan from 2005-2013, serving as the Chair of the Board in the last three years. Nancy also sat on the Board of Cameco Corporation (CCO on the TSX; CCJ on the NYSE) for 24 years, and, in that time, chaired the Compensation Committee, the Audit Committee, and the Governance Committee. (https://www.mcdougallgauley.com/people/nancy-hopkins/)

During Nancy’s time as Chair of the University Board of Governors, the Provincial Government of Brad Wall transferred (2011) between $30 and $47 million to the University EAR-MARKED for the nuclear industry.  (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-spending-30m-on-nuclear-research-centre-1.987996 ).  Nancy did not protect University autonomy by insisting that public funding of the University has to be “no strings attached”.  Further:

Grant Isaac was Dean of the Edwards School of Business at the U of S.   In July, 2009, Cameco Corp hired him; in 2011 he became Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer.   In January 2013, Grant was appointed by the Government to the Board of Governors of the University.

(I met with Grant when he was still Dean of the Business School, to understand whether what is taught in Economics classes is still the same as it was when I was a student there, (1967-71).   Grossly deficient economic indicators, GDP, the ability of corporations to offload costs to the public to pay, etc..   The answer was “yes”.   Grant put it this way:   “If there was a way to change it, it would have been done by now.”   So, no problem teaching junk to students.   That was in 2008 when the faculty was still on strike (http://www.cupe1975.ca/index_archive_071106.html ).  Grant went to Cameco in summer 2009.  Would he have been selected if he had been active in seeking changes to a flawed economic system that is taking the planet to the brink?

(INSERT, UPDATE:  OTHER universities ARE doing something:   2018-03-21     Hallelujah! GDAE Textbooks for Economics Courses (Tufts University))

There are no laws in Saskatchewan to prohibit corporate (or union) donations to political parties.

 

In  2009, the President of the University, Peter McKinnon, was hosted at Cameco’s fly-in fishing lodge,  Yalowega Lake, in northern Saskatchewan.   The Lodge has its own gourmet chef.   https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/follow-the-yellowcake-road.

McKinnon (who was dean of the Law School, before becoming President of the U) attacked those who challenged Nancy Hopkins’ conflict-of-interest (heavily invested in Cameco, Chair of the U Board of Governors, involved in decisions re allocation of university priorities and Government funding for the nuclear industry).  He angrily declared that there was no conflict-of-interest.

So,  WHO ELSE is on the Board?  And does it have any bearing on my question:

WHY the big push, by the Trudeau Government, to commit Canada to nuclear reactors?  It doesn’t make sense – – the level of resistance right across the country is high, and known.   The last “new” reactor began construction 30+ years ago.   To go into international negotiations and try to foist nuclear energy on other countries, when your own citizens won’t tolerate it, only undermines the integrity of Canadian business.    What’s up?

 

Anne McLellan?   She was brought onto the Cameco Board in 2006.  You may recall Anne – – for years, the only federal Liberal elected in the West (Edmonton).   Served 4 terms.  She was Federal Minister of Justice, of Health, of Natural Resources, Deputy Prime Minister, , ,  under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien.

A Liberal of influence.  Was awarded an Order of Canada.   After politics she went on corporate boards.   She earns more than a million dollars a year from her board work.  I assume there’s a reason why she was called to the Board of Cameco.

 

On February 11, 2016, as Natural Resources Minister, Carr purchased seven tickets to a NHL game featuring the Winnipeg Jets versus the Boston Bruins. His guests included the energy ministers . . . .

Carr represents the riding of Winnipeg South Centre,   https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Jim-Carr(89059).

Kim Rudd, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Jim Carr, from Cobourg, represents the Ontario riding of  Northumberland—Peterborough South. 

Her speech to the Canadian Nuclear Association on February 22, 2018:

. . .meeting again in Copenhagen in May and we have ensured that nuclear energy will have its place in a broad, high-level discussion on a global transition to a low-carbon economy,”

Jerri Rudd,  “spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada”,  “Nuclear energy is an important part of Canada’s current clean energy basket and will continue to play a key role in achieving the country’s low-carbon future.”

who is she?  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerri_Southcott    

 

Anyhow, there you go.   When I followed the money, on the thing that didn’t make sense to me – – if I know the list of provinces that have fought against nuclear and won – – the extent of the dedicated “no to nuclear“  (for good sound economic reasons – – as a tax-payer and consumer, I’m getting screwed), surely the Liberal Party knows the same.   I conclude it is not the interests of Canadians that are being served.   Yet again.   Corruption trumps.

For your consideration, Minister McKenna.

For your sake, for the sake of  Tax-payers’ wallets, for the sake of democracy and integrity, I wish it was otherwise.

Best regards,  Sandra Finley

= = = = = =

 

Bill C-69 will exempt Small Modular Reactors and other nuclear/uranium reactors from impact assessment.   For whose benefit?

 

The elephant in the room is CORRUPTION.   You have to deal with it. 

 

= = = = = =

ALSO A PART OF “CORRUPTION”.  

Real-life examples of the propaganda you will receive from the industry.    From a presentation by the industry to the American National Academy of Science (NAS), in Saskatoon. The state of Virginia was under petition to lift its 30-year moratorium on uranium/nuclear.  The NAS came to Saskatchewan to collect information on first-hand experience with uranium/nuclear.

 

I sent the documentation of the propaganda, in support of what Grand Chief Patrick Madahbee was saying.

2018-04-23 Nuclear: In support of Grand Chief Patrick Madahbee, email to CBC (The Current).    http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20981

= = = = = =

Corruption is a serious issue in Canada.   There are million-dollar salaries and perks to keep in place.  Some MP’s are very well rewarded upon retirement, for Good Service to Industry.  Bill C-69, no Impact Assessment for nuclear?  Ya gotta be kidding.
Submitted, with hope of a vote for the Public Interest.
Sandra Finley
(contact info)

Rule of Law essential to democracy. With corporatocracy, rules get changed, we have Rule by the Wrong Laws. SLAPP suits by corporates & by individuals.

 Anti-SLAPP & SLAPP, Corporate & Individual manipulation of Justice system, Corruption  No Responses »
Jul 202019
 

Proposal?   (Incomplete)    Two pasted together.

WHAT:  A series of 15 minute videos, themed around Justice system, Rule of Law.

GENERAL MOTIVATION:  We don’t have the Rule of Law.   It isn’t well understood.

IMMEDIATE MOTIVATION:   NAFTA Re-negotiation.  INTERNATIONAL LAWS (TRADE DEALS) TO OVER-RIDE NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL LAWS.   Can the series be done with this at beginning?

 

Most people get it:   our governments are being run by Corporate Interests.   We have Corporatocracy, not democracy.

What does that mean for The Rule of Law?

I used to say The Rule of Law is essential to democracy.   If we don’t have the Rule of Law, we don’t have democracy.

What’s the problem with that statement?  . . . Look around.  Observe.  Oh!   You can have the Rule of Law, but the Laws get changed so they benefit the Corporations, not us!   We have Rule by the Wrong Laws.

Broad Steps in the Rule of Law:

  1. We elect the legislators, the people we want to write our laws for us.
  2. A group of legislators who are the majority, tell civil servants what laws to write.
  3. Civil servants write the Law.
  4. Legislators pass the Law.
  5. The people affected by the Law are told what the Law is.
  6. Police send citizens who don’t follow the Law to the Courts.
  7. Courts decide how the fines, jail, or community service will be applied to the person who “breaks the Law”.
  8. Within the Justice system we then have various bodies for managing the application of these sanctions to the “offenders”.

 

CORPORATOCRACY, EFFECTS ON THE RULE OF LAW, STEP-BY-STEP          

The  Justice systems in Canada, as we know it today, come from colonial powers, British and French.

The Laws of a nation are part and parcel of its political and economic interests.

A move from more democratic government to corporatocracy is a change in the power of economic interests.

It should surprise no one that along with that change there has been, and continues to be, changes to the Rule of Law.  The corporatocracy, the new centre of power, will have a Rule of Law that is subject to its values, which are different from democratic values.

It’s quite fascinating.  Trade Deals.

We elect the legislators, the people we want to write our laws for us.

A group of legislators who are the majority, tell civil servants what laws to write.

Civil servants write the Law.

Legislators pass the Law.

The people affected by the Law are told what the Law is.

Police send citizens who don’t follow the Law to the Courts.

Courts decide how the fines, jail, or community service will be applied to the person who “breaks the Law”.

Within the Justice system we then have various bodies for managing the application of these sanctions to the “offenders”.

= == = ==

JUNE 27, 2017

WHAT:  A series of 15 minute videos, themed around Justice system, Rule of Law.

GENERAL MOTIVATION:  We don’t have the Rule of Law.   It isn’t well understood.

IMMEDIATE MOTIVATION:  

“The system” for dealing with (Ashu Solo) – a charge of defamation brought against me, is indefensible.

And it’s the 3rd time (4th time, if the Lockheed Martin trial is included) that the threat of the legal system has been used as a tool of intimidation and coercion against me.

Translation (general):  the Charter Right to Freedom of Speech is as mythical as other elements of our Justice System.

Heightened awareness of the dedication with which people have defended the Charter Right to Freedom of Speech, in the face of death threats to them, their families, and work colleagues comes through Salman Rushdie’s Joseph Anton: Memoir.  The Ayotollah issued a fatwa against him, calling on Muslims to kill Rushdie, because he authored the book called The Satanic Verses.  Rushdie and some publishers stood ground, refusing to relinquish the Charter Right, because of its importance to human freedom and democracy.

The three instances, my personal experience, where the threat of the justice system as a tool to intimidate and coerce, was used to try and take away my Charter Right to Freedom of Speech:

  • Full-time Government scientist, employed by the department responsible for the regulation of the industry, simultaneously being paid under contract for years, by the industry: I was quoted in the newspaper as saying he was in a conflict-of-interest.  He hired a lawyer to threaten that he will bring charges against me (defamation) if I say such-and-such.  I replied in no uncertain terms that this was a mafia tactic, a common tool of the industry he works for.
  • When I was an elected member of University of Saskatchewan Senate, the University paid one of its lawyers to threaten me with legal action. Working with other Senators I had been challenging serious conflicts-of-interest at the University.   I replied to the threat, again in no uncertain terms, that I viewed the letter as a mafia tactic – – silence me, not with the threat of broken bones, but with the threat of being broken financially, using the tool of the justice system.
  • A charge of defamation was brought against me and co-defendants by a man who is in his mid-forties. He had been cyberbullying a woman who was under 30 years of age.  I forwarded a complaint from the young woman, for 3rd party, independent resolution.  The man then began a vendetta against me.  I have not backed down.   Eventually the man brought defamation charges against me and two co-defendants.   Today, 2 ½ years from the outset of legal action, the case is still in “pre-trial”, my legal bills are $30,000,  I have learned a lot about the ACTUAL use of the justice system as a tool of intimidation and coercion.

 

The commonality in the three examples, the Government scientist, the University, and the middle-aged man, is use of the charge of defamation, to create fear, and thereby silence people who offer opposing views.   The Government scientist, the University, and the middle-aged man, all tried to take away my Charter Right to Freedom of Speech.   In another instance, Statistics Canada and the Federal Justice Dept taught me about the mythical nature of our Charter Right to Privacy of personal information.  I will address that separately.

The justice system is in bad need of overhaul.  The issue has been raised many times over many years.  The people within the system have demonstrated that they are not the ones who should be tasked with re-design.   They have too much vested in the existing abomination.  I don’t use the word abomination lightly, it is based on my most recent experience of the system.

The activism work through my own network has been full-time for 15 years.  What I see is that things are not getting better.   We are losing ground when it comes to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Canadians.

I have a choice:   I can now dump another $30,000 into the pockets of lawyers, continue the banging of my head against the wall, or I can do a video series, have some fun and do some good.

 

 

RULE OF LAW

INTRO  

WHAT DOES RULE OF LAW MEAN?  

  • WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?

RULE OF LAW, YES – – BUT WHAT LAWS ARE BEING WRITTEN?   GOOD LAWS, BAD LAWS

  • LAWS PASSED IN PRE-WAR GERMANY BY A DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED POLITICAL PARTY. HOW OR WHY DID THAT HAPPEN?
  • IN CANADA TODAY, LAWS FOR “FREE TRADE”, AN EXAMPLE

 

EXPLODE THE MYTHS

  • George Bush nor Dick Cheney were arrested when they came to Canada
  • Montebello, police officers trained, disguised and deployed – provocateurs to turn a peaceful protest violent
  • Anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP on behalf of Encana at Dawson Creek, Tom’s Lake
  • RCMP visit organic farmers at behest of Monsanto
  • From the U.S., with impact around the world, the Wall Street Fraudsters, the Banksters, have not been brought to justice.
  • SLAPP suits, a tool of intimidation. From Government to Corporations to citizens.
  • G-20 Summit in Toronto

LAWS WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT ARE PROPAGANDA

IS IT A PROBLEM IF WE DON’T HAVE THE RULE OF LAW?  (THE GOOD KIND!)

  • VIOLENCE INCREASES
  • CORRUPTION FLOURISHES
  • TURN THAT ON ITS HEAD: WHAT CAUSES CORRUPTION IN GOVERNANCE?   

WHAT DID THE GREEKS AND OTHERS AFTER THEM, WRITE ABOUT THE LIFE-CYCLE OF GOVERNANCE?  IS ANYTHING TO BE LEARNED AND APPLIED FROM THEM?

FOUR TIMES I RECEIVED THREAT TO TAKE ME TO COURT.   USE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO INTIMIDATE, COERCE AND SILENCE.

  • CHARTER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
  • CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
  • CHARTER RIGHTS AS MYTH. HOW PROSECUTORS GET AROUND THEM.

 

 

RETURN TO MYTHS,  DEMOCRACY:  YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING ON YOUR BEHALF

  • WHAT LEGAL PROTECTION DO CANADIANS HAVE AGAINST MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
  • HOW DID THE UK AND SWEDEN GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT’S OKAY TO HOLD A POLITICAL PRISONER FOR FIVE YEARS? (FOOTAGE, GUNNING DOWN OF CIVILIANS, INCLUDING TWO REUTERS JOURNALISTS)  
  • WHAT DO CANADIANS KNOW ABOUT WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT DOES, THAT IS PROHIBITED IN A DEMOCRACY? (Montebello, what else?)

UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW.  

  • THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC HIT MEN. NEW CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN (2016).  ALL OUTSIDE THE RULE OF LAW.
  • GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH CROOKS

 

COSTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

 

SO WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT ALL THIS?    ACTIONS.

  • THE STORY OF THE CHILDREN
  • MICHAEL MOORE’S FILM “WHERE TO INVADE NEXT”, PRISONS IN NORWAY.

[Computer, search Moore   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=18816]

 

 

 

INTRO  

My name is Sandra Finley.  I am in competition for the most letters threatening to take me to Court.  What I, and others like me, do is to say what needs to be said.

In two cases, I fired back to lawyers, telling them that the mafia uses the threat of broken bones to intimidate and coerce people with fear.  It is well-known that corporations and institutions use the threat of the Justice system (will break a person financially) to create fear.  The intention is the same;  the tool is different.  It has nothing to do with Justice.

My response in those two cases brought an end to the threats.

In the other two cases, I stood my ground, the plaintiffs stood their ground,  with the consequence that I have 7 or 8 years of experience with the Justice system.

Four different times, the experience of just one citizen.

And Why would I even bring up my experience?  I shudder at what others have experienced in other parts of the system.   Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has repeatedly, over years, admonished the legal profession about the need for change.   It’s not apparent that it’s happening.

(Aram’s points re Law.)

The Justice system is for keeping peace in the society, a tool for dispute resolution.  Because you and I pay the taxes to create and run the system, it belongs to us.   If it is not serving us, if the problems are chronic, if the people inside the system are having a tough time making it work FOR US,  well then,  it’s time to do something about that.

The remedies will come from outside the system, not from within it.  That’s clear.   And it’s true of every profession.  The remedies for the financial sector are not going to come from inside the banks and investment industries.  The remedies for our food supply are not going to come from inside the food industry.   The remedies for health, true prevention of disease and developmental problems, are not going to come from inside the medical and pharmaceutical professions.  The remedies for our universities are not going to come from inside the universities.

I think we have a competent Minister of Justice who is dedicated to the public good.  I know, as with any human being, that if she gets rest and sleep, has time for nutritious food, isn’t feeling guilty about neglecting her family because of the demands of her job,  has time for reflection, beauty and nature,  that she will be stronger.  She will excel even more.   To me, because bandaids have been used for so long, the problems are now so many and so entrenched that citizens need to pitch in.  It is not fair to expect one Minister of Justice to be responsible for the running, let alone the re-design of this behemoth called the Justice system.  The Minister is elected, vulnerable to becoming un-elected.  She is expected to become fully operational, responsible for the Justice system over night.  The first thing she is met with is volumes of briefing books, wielded by deputy ministers and staff who have been doing the job for a long time.  They are the experts and they know the files.  Some of them have come into strategic jobs in the bureaucracy through a revolving door with the corporates.  There’s the lobbyists and advisors on top of all that.

This video series is the contribution of my experience.  I hope it will be helpful.

There are many vested interests in seeing that our Justice system stays the same, just as there are vested interests in seeing that our political-economic and financial systems stay the same.

In order for “enlightenment” to prevail in our efforts to change the Justice system, the task cannot be left to those who have been incubated within the existing system.

The work has to be protected from the lobbyists, the crossing of palms with silver, if it is to serve the public interest, as the Law must do.

Videos, podcasts, and blog postings can be one-way communications.   That won’t work for what we need to accomplish.

Maybe these videos will be an addition to efforts that are underway.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada was founded in 1918 to harmonize the … legislation based on identified deficiencies, defects or gaps in existing law, …

The ULCC 2017 Annual Meeting is in Regina, SK.   I approached them but unsuccessfully.

 

WHAT DOES RULE OF LAW MEAN?   WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?

George Bush and Dick Cheney started coming to Canada in celebrity status following the end of their terms.

That was a big test of the Rule of Law.   Canada failed the test.  Why?

If you are a citizen in a democracy, your basic education will have equipped you to shout out the answer, immediately.

Did you?   (Geez!  I wish this was a two-way exchange.)

[Go to computer screen, to  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16856.  Significance of the Rule of Law.   There is more than the following excerpt.  And the points are important.  The Rule of Law is undermined if it isn’t applied equally.]

“All persons, regardless of wealth, social status, or the political power wielded by them, are to be treated the same before the law.

“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

“The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government as well as the governed.  Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”

 

EXPLODE THE MYTHS

To avoid confusion between you and me, I should tell you:

When someone says

  • Canada,
  • Democracy,
  • Rule of Law
  • (which is essential to Democracy).

I automatically tag on some words in my head:

  • Myth
  • Canada,
  • Democracy,
  • Rule of Law
  • (which means Democracy is hanging by a thread).

 

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

 

  • George Bush nor Dick Cheney were arrested when they came to Canada

Bush and Cheney were exempted, they were not treated equally, in spite of efforts by Canadians to insist on the Rule of Law.   They either had to be turned back at the border, or arrested if they entered Canada.  [Computer – –  ]

Bush was scheduled to speak in Geneva.  When Swiss citizens went to their authorities about the Rule of Law, Bush consulted with his lawyers, was advised that yes, he would be at risk of being arrested.   He cancelled his speaking engagement.   He didn’t leave the relative safety of the U.S.   I say relative because (Vermont)

[Go to top of blog page, to the “Arrest Geo Bush” button, to the chronology of International efforts to arrest Bush and colleagues]

 

  • Here’s another one.   Police officers trained, disguised and deployed – provocateurs

[Enter “Montebello” in Search.]

 

  • Anti-terrorist squad of the RCMP on behalf of Encana at Dawson Creek, Tom’s Lake
  • RCMP visit organic farmers at behest of Monsanto
  • From the U.S., with impact around the world, the Wall Street Fraudsters, the Banksters.  If the Rule of Law is real, not a myth, then the perpetrators would be in jail.  The Rule of Law means that everyone is treated equally before the Law, and NO ONE has the authority to grant exemption to another person.  No matter who they are.

The documentary film, Inside Job, narrated by Matt Damon does a nice job of laying out the frauds, and the failure to bring the perpetrators to trial.   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=825

These people are now in Canada, too.  [name the banks])   Larry Summers  . . .

 

  • SLAPP suits, a tool of intimidation. From Government to Corporations to citizens.

 

before going into my experience with the use of the justice system as a more sophisticated tool than thuggery, to intimidate and coerce,

 

 

2019-07-02 If Life Wins There Will Be No Losers

 Change, Sustainability  No Responses »
Jul 022019
 
To learn that the most practical thing in life is to be idealistic is an enormous gift. –Godfrey Reggio

 

If Life Wins There Will Be No Losers

–by Ruth Gordon, syndicated from opendemocracy.net, Jul 02, 2019

You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

In recent years there’s been a global awakening to the momentous choice humanity now faces: do we cling to the old system and choose extinction, or create a new system that grants us a future worth living?

Movements such as Standing Rock, Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future are giving voice to the widespread longing for a tenable alternative to capitalism – our urgent need for new, regenerative ways of living: systems of life that use clean renewable energy, restore ecosystems, and re-position human beings as nurturers of social networks that enable us to be caretakers for the Earth.

In Fridays for Future, the weekly youth strikes kick-started by Greta Thunberg’s solo action of protest, a new generation are questioning the apathy of the societies they’ve been born into, marching under the slogan “System Change, Not Climate Change.” They are loudly demanding that we wake up, pull ourselves back from the brink of catastrophe, and put our energies into co-creating a system of life that can avert climate disaster.

The success of Extinction Rebellion, “a revolution of love, deep ecology and radical transformation,” is partly due to the ways in which their vision of building such a regenerative culture guides their methods of organization. It was the integrity of their commitment to nonviolence and the functioning support systems that emerged among members that made it so difficult for the police to make arrests during the recent ten days of protest in the UK.

Those who thronged the streets were nourished by the actions they took part in, which were creative and joyful. This led to results, with the UK Parliament declaring a climate emergency. It remains to be seen whether this will really influence decision-making in the UK, but it’s further proof that nonviolent action sustained by networks of real solidarity can create change.

Standing Rock set a precedent for this form of holistic activism. It was one of the most diverse mass political gatherings in history, hosting such historic scenes as US army veterans asking forgiveness from Native American elders. Its unique power to gather together Indigenous peoples, environmentalists, spiritual seekers and ordinary Americans was a tribute to the depth of intention at its core – people took a stand for life itself, for the water, for the sanctity of the Earth. It showed how a global cry of outrage can be transformed into a healing convergence for life.

Although President Trump’s executive order to go ahead with the pipeline was eventually passed and the camp violently evicted, the story did not end there. Resistance continues at Standing Rock, and its example has inspired many other water protectors to stand up in movements around the world. But how can we create a worldwide and permanent shift to regeneration in every sphere of life?

What could a regenerative culture look like?

In 2017, when members of the Tamera Peace Research and Education Center in Portugal heard about the resistance at Standing Rock, they accompanied the protest with prayer and reached out to its leaders in solidarity. This exchange led to the initiation of the annual “Defend the Sacred” gatherings, which foster a network of exchange and support among activists, ecologists, technologists and Indigenous leaders who share the vision of creating a regenerative cultural model as a response to the global crisis.

Tamera is an attempt by Europeans to restore community as the foundation of life, with the vision of seeding a network of such decentralized autonomous centers (known as Healing Biotopes) right across the world. Creating solidarity between diverse movements and projects requires deep investigation of the human trauma that so often creates conflict and derails attempts at unification. This is why Defend the Sacred gatherings focus on healing trauma through consciousness work, community building, truth, and transparency. The goal is to create bonds of trust among people that are so strong that external forces will no longer be able to break them.

The leaders of the gatherings know that we can’t create a regenerative culture solely by trying to ‘smash capitalism.’ Instead, we need to understand and heal the underlying disease that generates all such systems of oppression. This disease can be described as the Western sickness of separation from life, or “wetiko,” as it was named by the North American Algonquin people. Martin Winiecki (the gatherings’ co-convenor) describes it like this:

“‘Wetiko,’ literally ‘cannibalism,’ was the word used by the Indigenous peoples to describe the disease of white invaders. It translates as the alienated human soul, no longer connected to an inner life force and so feeding on the energy of other beings.”

Wetiko is the psychic mechanism that keeps us trapped in the illusion that we exist separately from everything else. Within the isolated selfish ego, the pursuit of maximum personal gain appears to be the goal and meaning of life. Coupled with the chronic inability to feel compassion for the lives of other beings, violence, exploitation and oppression are not only justified, but appear logical and rational. If we resist only the external effects of wetiko, maybe we can win a victory here or there, but we can’t overcome the system as a whole because this ‘opponent’ also sits within ourselves. It is from within that we constantly feed and support this monstrous system.

An important part of healing wetiko relates to healing our interracial wounds. It’s significant that Defend the Sacred was initiated in Portugal – the place from where so many perpetrators of genocide and slavery in the Americas and Africa set out. A new path towards a nonviolent future will emerge from creating spaces where we can acknowledge our violent past and gain insight about what we have done as a collective. Such spaces offer the possibility of finally stepping out of the futile pattern of oppression, guilt and blame.

Tangible visions of the future.

In a recent co-written book, Defend the Sacred: If Life Wins, There Will Be No Losers, participants in the gatherings offer a mosaic of short essays that present their shared vision, along with many different ways to put it into practice. These include ending fossil fuel dependence, healing natural water cycles in cooperation with ecosystems and animals, transforming economic structures from systems of extraction to systems of giving, re-centering the voice of the feminine, creating a planetary network of solidarity and compassion, and anchoring everything in spiritual connection with the Earth as a living organism.

Supporting the transition away from fossil fuels, some members of the group are developing decentralized alternative technologies based on solar energy, while others are creating open source blueprints that enable people without specialist knowledge to construct simple plastic recycling machines all over the world.

Continuing the work of Standing Rock, the last two gatherings focused on thwarting oil drilling threats in Portugal, and each included an aerial art action in which participants used their bodies to form giant images alongside messages to “Stop the Drilling.” These actions strengthened the growing resistance in Portugal to fossil fuel extraction, which won a significant victory in October 2018 when the oil companies involved announced that they were voluntarily withdrawing all plans to extract oil in the country.

The group is also working on an approach to climate change that goes beyond the mechanical question of carbon reduction or balancing inputs and outputs, to one that views the Earth as a living whole whose ‘organs’ all need to be intact for life to flourish. A key part of this approach is the widespread restoration of ecosystems through creating Water Retention Landscapes (a method of sculpting the land to help it absorb and retain rainwater where it naturally falls). Such landscapes heal natural water cycles, which in turn can rebalance the climate and protect forests from the increasing risk of wildfires.

Another central aspect of the group’s work is to create social systems that both support the revival of feminine power and reestablish a basis of mutual support between the masculine and the feminine. Since overcoming patriarchy cannot be achieved by simply demanding change, this means creating forms of human co-existence that do not replicate patriarchal structures, but, as Monique Wilson puts it (another contributor to the book and coordinator of One Billion Rising), instead allow women to rediscover solidarity and “remember their abilities to heal, to teach, to create and to lead.”

Imagine what would happen if all the separate movements for climate justice, racial justice, ending sexual violence and developing new forms of economy could unite around a shared spiritual center, just as they did at Standing Rock. Imagine if, drawn together by their love of life and their commitment to protecting our home, the Earth, they could come together to articulate a shared vision for a future that is more compelling to people than remaining in the current broken system. This is what our planet needs now.

To join this year’s Defend the Sacred gathering from August 16–19, please click here.

For more information on our new book, Defend the Sacred: If Life Wins, There Will Be No Losers, please click here.

This article originally appeared in the Transformation section of OpenDemocracy. It is republished here with permission. Ruth Gordon, originally from England, is a student at Tamera, a peace research and education center in Portugal, and a musician.

 

2017-04-30 The Anthrax Vaccine and Gulf War Illness

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Jun 172019
 
by Rishma Parpia and Barbara Loe Fisher
Health, Immune & Brain Disorders
The Anthrax Vaccine and Gulf War Illness
Story Highlights
  • In anticipation of biological warfare, military personnel were given the anthrax vaccine during the 1990s Gulf War.
  • After their service, Gulf War veterans suffered a wide range of debilitating symptoms that became known as the Gulf War illness or “Gulf War Syndrome.”
  • There were numerous concerns regarding the safety of the anthrax vaccine, which is considered by many to have been a major cause of Gulf War illness.

In the early nineties, the United States speculated that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had the capability of using biological weapons against military coalition forces in the Gulf War.1 In response to this potential threat, military personnel from the U.S. and other countries were given several  non-traditional vaccines, including anthrax vaccine, in addition to yellow fever, typhoid, hepatitis B, pertussis and other vaccinations routinely given to soldiers.2

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) officials considered anthrax to be a likely organism that could be weaponized and a licensed anthrax vaccine had been stockpiled for emergency use since 1987.3 Military personnel from the United Kingdom also were given vaccines for anthrax, the plague and pertussis and Canadian military personnel received similar combinations.

U.S forces received experimental drugs, such as pyridostigmine bromide, and a different battery of vaccines, including anthrax vaccine and botulinum toxoid vaccine.1 No previous deployment in U.S. history had involved vaccination of large numbers of soldiers against biological agents.1

Gulf War Illness

Shortly after their service in the Gulf War in 1990-1991, returning American soldiers and civilian workers reported that they were suffering from debilitating symptoms such as severe fatigue, joint and nerve pain, headaches, memory loss, gastrointestinal issues, insomnia and respiratory and neurological disorders.4 This cluster of acute and chronic multi-symptom illness affecting veterans of the Gulf War became known as the Gulf War illness or “Gulf War Syndrome.”4

A 2014 report by the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs concluded that Gulf War illness has been consistently reported in all studies of the health of Gulf War veterans. The syndrome has been documented to affect about 25-30 percent of Gulf War veterans, which is approximately 175,000 to 250,000 of the 700,000 U.S. troops deployed in the war.5 According to the report:

Studies published since 2008 continue to document poorer general health status and greater disability among Gulf War veterans than in contemporary veterans who did not deploy to the Gulf. Despite the extensive number of studies conducted with Gulf War veterans in the 23 years since Desert Storm, medical surveillance in this population remains seriously inadequate.5

The initial argument by government health officials seeking to explain the pattern of symptoms associated with Gulf War illness was that the symptoms were a result of stress psychological trauma suffered by the troops. However, more convincing evidence pointed to a combination of pharmaceutical, chemical and environmental exposures5 and the safety of the anthrax vaccine was prominently questioned because of continuing reports of a high number of serious reactions among those given the six dose series of anthrax shots. A GAO report in 2002 found that 85 percent of the troops given the mandatory anthrax shot reported reactions and that 16 percent had either left the military or changed their status in part because of the mandatory anthrax vaccination program.6

Off-Label Use of Anthrax Vaccine by U.S. Soldiers

Anthrax is a serious bacterial infection but is not contagious. It is usually contracted through direct exposure to an infected animal or animal waste products in contaminated soil when the bacteria enter the bloodstream of a person through a skin wound or by swallowing or inhaling anthrax spores. If left untreated with antibiotics, lethal toxins from the anthrax bacteria multiply in the body and can kill up to 20 percent of those infected.7

At the time of the Gulf War, BioPort Corporation, now Emergent Biosolutions, was the exclusive manufacturer of anthrax vaccine (BioThrax) supplied to soldiers8 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had licensed BioThrax vaccine as effective based on evidence against cutaneous anthrax (acquired through the skin).9 However, there was no evidence for effectiveness against aerosol (inhaled) exposure, which is the weaponized form of anthrax that military personnel would be exposed to in a bioterrorism attack, and so the FDA had not licensed BioThrax as effective against inhalation anthrax.3

Therefore, when the DoD ordered that anthrax vaccine be given to soldiers heading to the Gulf War, as well as other military personnel during the 1990’s and early 2000s, it was an “off-label” (experimental) use of the vaccine.10 It violated the licensed use authorized by the FDA and published in the approved vaccine manufacturer’s package insert.3

This licensing issue was specifically highlighted in 1995 in a letter written to the vaccine’s first manufacturer, the Michigan Department of Health,11 from the director of the army’s Medical Chemical and Biological Defense Research Program stating that…

This vaccine is not licensed for aerosol exposure expected in a biological warfare environment.”3 Moreover, another report released by the Department of Defense’s anthrax project manager noted that, “protecting service members from aerosol exposure to anthrax can only legally be done if the FDA licenses the vaccine for that specific schedule and indication.3

Although individual physicians may legally use licensed vaccines for off-label uses in some circumstances, the physician is responsible for assessing presumed “off-label” benefits against potential risks for each individual given the vaccine.3 However, with mandatory vaccination programs, the risk-benefit decisions that should typically be made by the physician is eliminated. Therefore, under U.S. law mandatory vaccination programs  are not supposed to use experimental (investigational) vaccines but only those vaccines that have been licensed by the FDA for approved indications.3

Questions About Squalene in the Anthrax Vaccine

There were several reports in the 1990s that some experimental anthrax vaccines given to American soldiers during the Gulf War contained squalene—an oil based adjuvant that hyper-stimulates an immune response.  Squalene adjuvants were not licensed for use in the U.S. at that time, and there was evidence that  squalene-containing vaccines used in other parts of the world had been linked to severe brain and immune system dysfunction.12 Although the FDA states that aluminum hydroxide was the adjuvant used in the anthrax vaccine and not squalene, the FDA has confirmed that lab tests may reveal the presence of squalene.13

Interestingly, a study published in Experimental and Molecular Pathology in 2002 demonstrated that that the production of anti-squalene antibodies in patients with Gulf War illness is linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of anthrax vaccine.14

A document on the FDA’s website notes:

Because of the difficulty of removing squalene-containing fingerprint oils from laboratory glassware, it is hard to know whether the squalene is truly present in some lots of the vaccine or is introduced by the testing process itself. DOD, FDA, and several civilian advisory committees agree that squalene at such low levels has no adverse health consequences.12

The National Vaccine Information Center  (NVIC) has argued that squalene adjuvants have not been tested in comparison to placebos in large trials published in scientific journals. Moreover, there are no studies specifically evaluating cellular, molecular and DNA changes in the body after squalene-adjuvant vaccines have been administered.12

The inclusion of squalene adjuvants in some lots of anthrax vaccine may have been authorized under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which allows the FDA Commissioner to approve unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in “an emergency” to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.15

DoD Mandated Anthrax Vaccine for All Military Personnel Despite Safety and Effectiveness Questions

Questions about the safety of BioThrax vaccine, as well as its effectiveness against weaponized inhalation anthrax, were growing long before the DoD decided to not only continue giving anthrax vaccine to soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to expand the vaccination program to all U.S. military personnel and DoD civilian contractors. In 1996, in anticipation of mandating the widespread use of the anthrax vaccine in the military, BioPort Corporation submitted an investigational new drug application (IND) to the FDA to expand the approved indications for the vaccine to include (1) aerosol exposure to the insert; (2) switching to intramuscular injection and  (3) reducing the number of doses.3

On Dec. 15 1997, the Clinton administration decided to initiate the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP), which made the anthrax vaccine mandatory for all 2.5 million active duty U.S. service personnel.3 A few weeks prior to the launch of the AVIP, Secretary of Defense William Cohen held up a five-pound bag of sugar on national television warning the public that if the bag did indeed contain anthrax, it could kill half of the population of Washington, DC.3

In March 1998, Secretary Cohen was publicly given the anthrax vaccine after which mandatory anthrax vaccinations began for all military personnel and DoD civilian contractors.3

This decision for mass vaccination was made despite the fact that the FDA had not yet approved any changes to the vaccine manufacturer’s package insert.3 In a report published in the American Journal for Public Health, the author Meryl Nass MD wrote:

Six months after the IND was filed, but before any supporting data to amend the original license was submitted to the FDA, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, Dr. Stephen Joseph, asked the acting deputy commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Michael Friedman, for a go-ahead to use the vaccine, thus skirting the FDA’s normal regulatory procedures for amending a vaccine license. Less than 2 weeks into his new position, Friedman wrote back, “While there is a paucity of data regarding the effectiveness of Anthrax Vaccine for prevention of inhalation anthrax, the current package insert does not preclude this use.” However, Friedman’s words merely expressed his personal opinion and did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations for amending the vaccine’s label; therefore, they provided no legally acceptable justification for the vaccine’s off-label use.3

In June 2001, there was an announcement made that there would be a “slow down” of the AVIP. Interestingly, the FDA had not released any more anthrax vaccine supplies in over a year. DoD announced that the only groups scheduled to receive the anthrax vaccine were the same two groups originally receiving the vaccine before DoD broadened the program in 1998: research laboratory personnel at high risk for anthrax exposure and active Special Forces troops.3

After Sept. 11, 2001 and Anthrax Letter Bombs: Calls for Expanded Military and Civilian Anthrax Vaccinations

When the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, they were almost immediately followed by the release of anthrax-contaminated mail in the U.S. postal system, and there were calls for expanded use of anthrax vaccine not only in the military but also some suggested the vaccine also should be given to the civilian population.16

NVIC was among the groups and individuals that questioned the use of the reactive anthrax vaccine by large numbers of American civilians, pointing out there were logistical problems for anyone attempting to launch a successful bioterrorism attack using weaponized anthrax (or smallpox) on the U.S. population, which would require the failure of both extra internal and external homeland security measures put in place after 9-11.17

Judge Issues Temporary Ban on Mandatory Anthrax Vaccination of U.S. Troops

In March 2003, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC on behalf of U.S. military personnel and DoD civilian contractors forced to get BioThrax vaccinations, asking the Court to declare the vaccine “experimental.”18 In October 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was “illegal” for the federal government to mandate anthrax vaccinations, which by then had been given to more than 1.2 million troops since 1998.19 

Judge Sullivan issued an injunction banning the Pentagon from forcing military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and parts of Asia and Africa from being required to get anthrax shots without their informed consent until the FDA adequately reviewed and licensed the vaccine.

Congress has prohibited the administration of investigational drugs to service members without their consent,” Sullivan said. “This Court will not permit the government to circumvent this requirement.” Sullivan wrote, “The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all—public scrutiny. This is the process the FDA in its expert judgment has outlined, and this is the course this court shall compel FDA to follow.19 

In 2006, the Pentagon resumed mandatory anthrax vaccinations of troops after the FDA pronounced BioThrax vaccine as “safe and effective,” including against inhalation anthrax.20

Proposed Pediatric Anthrax Vaccine Trial

In March 2013, BioThrax manufacturer, Emergent Biosolutions, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed to conduct clinical trials of anthrax vaccine on American infants and children. According to an article in Nature, “Interest in a vaccination campaign was spurred by a 2011 modelling exercise, ‘Dark Zephyr’, which found that a release of anthrax spores in a city the size of San Francisco, California, would compel officials to vaccinate 7.6 million people—including 1.7 million individuals under age 18.”

The Alliance for Human Protection, along with NVIC and other health safety groups, opposed the trials, citing the vaccine’s poor safety record, including many documented cases of brain and immune system damage suffering by military personnel in the Gulf War.21 

Within a week, bioethicists with the US President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, also advised against proceeding with the proposed pediatric clinical trials, stating that until a bioterror attack occurs, tests of anthrax vaccine or other anti-bioterrorism “countermeasures” should not pose risks greater than those that a child might encounter in daily life or during a routine pediatric checkup.

References:

1 Peakman M, Skowera A, Hotopf M. Immunological dysfunction, vaccination and Gulf War illness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 2006; 361(1468): 681-687.
2 U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. Vaccinations and Gulf War Veterans. Mar. 28, 2017.
3 Nass M. The Anthrax Vaccine Program: An Analysis of the CDC’s Recommendations for Vaccine Use. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92(5): 715–721.
4 Null G. Gulf War Syndrome: US Veterans Suffering from Multiple Debilitating Symptoms. Global Research Feb. 19, 2016.
5 Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illness. Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans: Research Update and Recommendations, 2009-2013. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2014.
6 Roos R. Military anthrax vaccine shots caused many reactions, prompted some pilots to quit. CIDRAP Nov. 8, 2002.
7 National Vaccine Information Center. Anthrax and Anthrax Vaccine. NVIC.org.
8 Weiss MM, Weiss PP, Weiss JB. Anthrax Vaccine and Public Health Policy. Am J Public Health 2007; 97(11): 1945-1951.
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States. MMWR Dec. 15, 2000; 49(RR15): 1-20.
10 “Direct Order”–Soldiers Ordered to Take Anthrax Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction July 15, 2016.
11 Fisher BL. Biological Warfare and the Anthrax Vaccine. NVIC.org December 2001.
12 La Vigne P. FDA Approves Experimental H5N1 Bird Flu Vaccine with Reactive AS03 Adjuvant for U.S. Stockpile. NVIC.org 2013.
13 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. AVIP Questions and Answers–The Facts on Squalene. FDA.gov 2005.
14 Asa PB, Wilson RB, Gary RF. Antibodies to squalene in recipients of anthrax vaccine. Experimental and Molecular Pathology 2002; 73(1): 19-27.
15 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Emergency Use Authorization. FDA.gov.
16 Rempfer T. The Anthrax Vaccine: A Dilemma for Homeland Security. Homeland Security Affairs 2009; 5(3).
17 Fisher BL. Biological Warfare and Anthrax Vaccine. NVIC Report December 2001.
18 Alliance for Human Research Protection. Lawsuit Filed Challenging the Legality of the Defense Department’s Anthrax Vaccination Program. AAPS Mar. 18, 2003.
19 Kaufman M. Court Orders Pentagon to Stop Anthrax Vaccinations. The Washington Post Oct. 28, 2004.
20 Lee C. Mandatory Anthrax Shots to Return. The Washington Post Oct. 19, 2006.
21 NVIC. U.S. Public Health Officials Support Pediatric Anthrax Vaccine Experiment. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 12, 2013.

2019-06-12 Canada’s top military general needs to resign. Bruce Moncur, rabble.ca

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  No Responses »
Jun 142019
 

I support the call for the resignation of General Jonathan Vance.  Bad enough what is outlined in the article below.

What concerns me more is the intentional use of propaganda:

I recall:

 

Canada’s top military general needs to resign. Bruce Moncur, rabble.ca

http:   //rabble.ca/news/2019/06/canadas-top-military-general-needs-resign

 

General Jonathan Vance. Photo: NATO/Flickr

 

The Canadian military is currently fighting a three-headed dragon.

First, there is the state of the equipment. Second there is the problem of endemic sexual harassment. And third there is the perilous mental health of those currently in military service and those who have left.

The current chief of the defence staff, General Jonathan Vance, was supposed to tackle all three heads of this monster, but he has failed in spectacular fashion.

It is no secret that the ships, planes, helicopters and submarines that the Canadian forces employ belong in museums rather than in operation. Recently, the Sea King helicopter finished 40 years of service. These helicopters are not just obsolete for the battlefield. In many ways, they have become a safety hazard to the government employees who use them every day.

The refueling ship that caught ablaze and had to be towed to Hawaii is just one example of the decrepit state of our navy. It was after this incident that the former Conservative government awarded a sole source contract to build a new refueling ship to a company in Quebec, Davie Shipbuilding in Lévis, across the river from Quebec City.

When the incoming Trudeau government took over in October 2015, rival shipbuilders, the Irvings of New Brunswick, asked several cabinet ministers including Scott Brison, a Nova Scotia MP, about reopening the procurement process to consider other proposals.

The Liberals had just swept Atlantic Canada, winning all 32 seats. They decided it was worth paying the $89-million cancelation penalty to the Quebec firm to re-open the process. That decision pushed the desperately needed ship’s production back years.

Someone leaked the information about this decision to the press and Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the military’s second-in-command, was selected out of 73 possible whistle blowers and charged by the RCMP.

The subsequent two years have seen a persistent attempt to hinder the Canadian military’s Norman’s due process.

Norman was relieved of his position and denied compensation for his legal representation. In the end, when the prosecution abandoned the case, the government had to apologize to the vice-admiral.

General Vance accepted full responsibility for the Admiral Norman fiasco, but not before he, as chief of the defence staff, had received an increase in pay.

No progress over two decades on sexual assaults

On top of all this, General Vance has had to deal with a problem that has given Canada’s Armed Forces a black eye for decades: the sexual misconduct within the forces. So persistent is this problem that Maclean’s magazine could use the same headline about the victims of sexual assault within the Canadian forces twice, 20 years apart.

The military leadership announced a few years ago that sexual misconduct would be the chief of the defence staff’s top priority. Then came a booze-filled Department of National Defence flight, carrying former NHLer Tiger Williams to meet the troops on the front lines. Instead of spreading good will and raising morale, the former hockey star got himself accused of sexual misconduct.

Although the charges were dropped, the damage was done. The military decided to cancel these morale-building visits.

The auditor general’s 2018 report and a recent Statistics Canada study both showed that little to no progress on the sexual harassment file has been made in the three years since the current chief of defence staff assumed his role.

That is not a record of which anyone could be proud.

Then there is the very recent fiasco of the new Afghan Memorial. It was unveiled behind closed doors with only high-ranking leadership and civilian staff in attendance. The military brass did not invite any of the more than 1,800 soldiers injured in the Afghanistan operation injured; nor did they see fit to invite the families of the 158 soldiers killed there.

The ensuing outrage led to yet another government apology, with General Vance, yet again, shouldering the full responsibility. The damage to the mental health and well-being of the injured veterans, their families and the families of the dead was done, and no apology could assuage it.

Insensitivity to veterans and their families

I have had my own experience with the Canadian military’s insensitivity to the suffering and sacrifice of its front-line troops. As a member of the service excellence committee I attended the last veterans’ stakeholder summit. The veterans affairs minister, at the time, was Kent Hehr, and he presided over the whole affair.

This event coincided with the 10th anniversary of Operation Medusa, the 2006 Canadian-led offensive in Afghanistan, that saw 12 Canadian soldiers lose their lives. It was a deeply traumatic experience for all who took part, including me. Prior to the summit, I requested, through our committee, that Veterans Affairs give a presentation which would offer material that could help me and my colleagues find the mental health services we all needed.

Veterans’ Affairs denied this request, on the premise that it would take away from the “vibe” the stakeholders’ summit was trying to create.

I then asked if they would at least provide an information table for the veterans of Medusa in attendance, but that request was denied as well.

During the summit the chief of the defence staff did a Q and A with the assembled stakeholders, during which I asked him why this opportunity — probably the last where most of the battle group would be together — was wasted. His response was not merely to disagree. It was to yell and berate me. Three weeks later, one of the Operation Medusa veterans committed suicide.

This callous behaviour towards colleagues, subordinates and soldiers who died or were injured shows that the current chief of the defence staff is not fit for his command. He should do the honourable thing and resign his position before this contract comes to an end. His conduct and demeanour have been truly unbecoming of an officer.

Editor’s note, June 14, 2019: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the refuelling ship contract had originally been part of a bidding process; in fact it was awarded as a sole source contract to Davie Shipbuilding.

Bruce Moncur is a Canadian Afghan war veteran. In 2006, he suffered severe injuries during Operation Medusa in a “friendly-fire” incident between Canadian and American troops.

Photo: NATO/Flickr

 

Further Reading
The Canadian Forces boast largest PR machine in the country, complain about ‘toxic’ media treatment
General Jonathan Vance claims the media’s reporting on the Canadian Forces has created “very toxic narratives.” Poor muffin.
Military refuses to print ad from law firm seeking to represent sexually assaulted soldiers
The military’s internal ideological capacity has a wide reach. The newspaper at the naval base rejected an ad from a law firm seeking to represent CF members who had been sexually harassed/assaulted.
How Canada’s military shapes media coverage of deployments
The military goes to great lengths to shape coverage of its affairs and one should expect stories about Canada’s mission in Mali to be influenced by the armed forces.

2015-09-21 Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance and the “weaponization of public affairs”. Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  No Responses »
Jun 142019
 

Defence Minister Jason Kenney, right, shares a laugh with Admiral William Gortney, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command, middle, and Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command Lieutenant-General Jonathan Vance, left, during the Conference of Defence Associations Institute conference on security and defence at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa on Thursday, February 19, 2015. Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS

 

There is a lot of excitement these days in the public affairs branch at National Defence headquarters about Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance and what senior officers are calling the “weaponization of public affairs.”

There are already different interpretations among public affairs officers about this new plan/terminology being attributed to Gen. Vance.

But the more common explanation provided to Defence Watch is this: There will be more strategic leaks by the Canadian Forces/DND to journalists who are deemed “friendly” to the military. Such leaks will consist mainly of “good news” stories or positive initiatives and the journalists will be required to heavily promote those.

Equally important, is the flip-side of this “weaponization” strategy. That is the targeting of journalists who are writing or broadcasting the stories that the CF/DND don’t want out in the public domain.

Journalists seen as “trouble-makers” are those producing stories about failed equipment purchases or uncovering details about severely injured soldiers not being treated properly or individuals being sexually harassed, etc., public affairs officers tell Defence Watch.  In other words, reporters who are producing what the CF/DND views as negative or embarrassing news stories.

The “weaponization” aspect will come into play with phone calls to media bosses, letters to the editor, etc. – anything to undercut the credibility of such journalists in the eyes of readers and their employers, NDHQ public affairs sources say. Other tactics aimed at these journalists could also be developed.

But will this strategy work?

Vance isn’t the first to attempt to bring pesky journalists to heel.

It was quite common for officials working for then Defence Minister Peter MacKay to phone editors of various publications to complain about reporters. Such officials would make demands for immediate changes to headlines or question how the gaffe-prone MacKay was being portrayed in articles and broadcasts.

Officers working for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk would suggest journalists produce highly positive articles about their boss or not write about certain embarrassing topics that angered him. Those topics included equipment procurement problems and the poor treatment of physically and mentally injured soldiers. The payoff? Guaranteed access to the general (i.e. more interviews with Natynczyk).

Some journalists faced other issues.

Defence Watch readers might recall that it was revealed in 2013 that Canadian Forces military police launched an investigation regarding CTV journalist Bob Fife.

Fife’s “crime” was that he had dug up embarrassing information about Natynczyk who in 2011 spent more than $1-million using government aircraft to jet to hockey games and to a Caribbean vacation spot.

Nothing ever came of the probe by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. But critics saw the move as an intimidation tactic by the NIS against a journalist who was clearly not playing military cheerleader.

For sure, the “weaponization of public affairs” is certainly a catchy title.

But Vance’s “weapon” is arguably a little rusty.

These days DND/CF public affairs officers communicate with journalists mostly via emails. And those emails usually consist of pre-approved “talking points.”

Even such canned answers can take time to make their way to a reporter. It recently took DND public affairs a week to provide me with the current number of personnel in the military’s reserves.

UPDATE: Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance spoke to Defence Watch late Monday about his vision for the “weaponization of public affairs.”

He acknowledges this is a term he has used but believes his intention is being inadvertently misconstrued/misunderstood by some public affairs officers at NDHQ.

“It’s no surprise to me that there are those who would see weaponization as an aggressive, attack mode,” he explained.

But Vance tells Defence Watch that although his terminology might seem to indicate offensive operations against the media that is not his plan.

“I don’t consider it unfair you are reporting on it,” he explained. “In fact I’m happy you are. What I am taking about is operationalizing the public affairs branch. I want to make the public affairs branch better.”

Vance noted that the DND/CF public affairs team works hard but he is frustrated at a system that has been set up that often does not allow the Canadian Forces or DND to provide its viewpoints to the media and others.

“I want Defence to be a respected voice in the very important defence dialogue that goes on in the country,” Vance explained. “Sometimes I feel we lose that respect because we have incomplete information and not in a timely (way). We don’t do it on purpose.

Vance is now working on producing guidance for public affairs officers on what he wants.

“I was detecting our inability to answer questions in a timely manner and to be able to respond and deal effectively in a very dynamic and very fast paced information environment.”

“I don’t know whether there is a structural change that is required,” Vance noted. “Other nations have the ability to access subject matter experts and turn things around and get them back out.”

 Older Entries  Newer Entries