Archive for the ‘Canada – national news and federal politics’ Category
Stephen Harper government shuts down parody websites criticizing environmental policies
Climate policy remains deplorable
Become a Member of The Canadian: Pledge $10.00 or over.
Featured LINK. Online dating. Alternative Lifestyles Personals. Free and Anonymous Membership
Special to The Canadian
PHOTO: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The government of Canada has used strong-arm tactics to shut down two parody websites criticizing Canada’s poor environmental policy, taking down 4500 other websites in the process.
The two websites, “enviro-canada.ca” and “ec-gc.ca”, are “directly connected to a hoax which misleads people into believing that the Government of Canada will take certain actions in relation to environmental matters,” wrote Mike Landreville from Environment Canada in an email to the German Internet Service Provider (ISP) Serverloft. “We trust you appreciate the importance of avoiding confusion among the public concerning Canadian governmental affairs and that you will assist us in preventing this hoax from spreading further.”
In a remarkable overstepping of bounds, Landreville also asked the ISP to “make every effort to prevent any further attempts concerning other environment-related domains (enviro, ec-gc, etc.) originating from your servers.”
In response to Environment Canada’s request, Serverloft immediately turned off a whole block of IP addresses, knocking out more than 4500 websites that had nothing to do with the parody sites or the activists who created them. Serverloft was shown no warrant, and never called the web hosting company about the shutdown.
“We are sorry to see that the Canadian government will not ‘take certain actions’ that could help stave off catastrophic climate change,” said Mike Bonanno of The Yes Men, one of the groups that performed the “sophisticated hoax” two weeks ago that involved the fake sites. “And we are also sorry to see that they don’t care so much for free speech.”
“Surely the Canadian government has better things to do than shut down thousands of websites, beg the US for photo opps, and berate NGOs for things they haven’t done,” said Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men. “They could instead figure out reasonable ways of responding to their growing legion of critics.”
The websites that Canada shut down were part of an elaborate “identity correction” carried out by anonymous Canadian activists, the Climate Debt Agents of Action Aid, and The Yes Men. They used press releases and fake websites to announce that Canada would adopt science-based emission targets – reducing emissions by 40% over 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – and would pay the countries most impacted by climate change a proportional amount of the $600 billion total recommended by the United Nations to mitigate and adapt to climate change. They even used a replica of the UN conference center podium to show “Uganda” reacting with glee to the plan, before seeing their “tragic hopes” dashed.
Canada had prepared for just such an eventuality by creating a so-called “Climate Change War Room,” a special office tasked with delivering rapid-response messaging to any negative media coverage around Canada’s role at the Copenhagen climate change negotiations. Despite these efforts, last week’s flurry of parody announcements, which the prime minister’s office called a “childish prank,” received enormous media attention across Canada and caused at least two embarrassing media moments for Canadian high officials.
Canada has been heavily criticized for its increasingly deplorable climate policy, and this year in Copenhagen was awarded the “Colossal Fossil” prize for worst behaviour in the COP-15 negotiations. The group giving the award, the Climate Action Network, is a global coalition of more than 500 organizations working on climate change.
More NAU-related High Treason in Ottawa: Civil Assistance Plan
Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.
by David Stein
 |
|
The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) is another example of the subversion of the national independence, and participatory democracy in Canada, to U.S. military expansionist objectives.
“U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
Canwest News Service elaborates:
“Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.”
Russian Colonel Gen Vladimir Bulgakov, Commander of Russia’s Far East Military District, points out that it is ‘no wonder’ that neither the U.S. or Canadian War Leaders want the masses of their citizens to know about these ‘unprecedented’ events as ‘soldiers by their inherent training are for use in war, not peace’.
CAP actually creates an incentive for U.S. to use the pretext of an “emergency” to fulfill longstanding U.S. military objectives of Manifest Destiny against Canada, that had precipitated the War of 1812. CAP is a clear violation of Canada’s independence, and the constitutional responsibility of government in Canada to obtain the endorsement of the people, in the pursuit of such international agreements.
CAP is a further step of the U.S. military establishing full control of the Canadian Armed Forces. CAP also further locks the Canadian Armed Forces to be used to carry out military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world, against the democratic will of the Canadian people, in relation to “USNORTHCOM“ (U.S. Northern Command). CAP represents just another way in which the “War against Freedom and Democracy” under the U.S. Bush administration is being used to consolidate a neo-fascistic globalist control.
The so-called “War on Terrorism” is clearly a fight for the spread of neo-fascism under greed driven corporate and military cliques, and not about the defence and advancement of fundamental principles of democracy. [Make Member Pledge and help support our not-for-profit media organization] LINK
Reflections on why Canadians are not as organized as Americans against North American Union
by Peter Tremblay
 |
|
Many Americans who have organized against Security and Prosperity Partnership North American Union agenda (SPP-NAU) are probably wondering why they have not been finding a lot of organized opposition in Canada.
Many Americans who are passionate about defending their country’s independence may interpret that as an indication that those Canadians north of the border mostly support the SPP-NAU. Many Americans might also be wondering as a result of not been able to find a variety of corresponding anti-NAU organizations in Canada that they can network with whether Canadians have less national pride that Americans.
Indeed, if there were such a network of corresponding grassroots organizations, both Americans and Canadians grassroots organizations could network as cross-boundary allies, to preserve respectfully, both their great countries.
Undoubtedly, there are probably many American anti-NAU activists who have done many ‘Google’ searches for Canadian organizations, and probably found the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and Vive le Canada to be among the few anti-NAU organizations in Canada. We won’t bother refer to the Council of Canadians so-called anti-NAU position, which appears to be as politically hypocritical as that of Jack Layton, the leader of the Canada’s NDP (New Democratic Party). Meanwhile, if you check out the NDP’s website, you will find out that they have a token statement against the SPP, while confederates like the NDP Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba, support the SPP’s so-called NAFTA Superhighway.
American anti-NAU activists need to appreciate much more about Canadian culture, in order to appreciate the why there is not a well organized network of ant-NAU organizations. The reason for this difference has critically to do to with the difference in attitudes the Americans have had to government relative to Canadians.
Americans have developed an attitude from the Revolutionary foundations of its culture, that is inherently suspicious of government in general, and politicians specifically. So, when an American hears about some plot that is being executed by political conspirators in government, it is relatively easier for Americans to readily accept that such communicated information tells of the possible that may well be probable.
As a result, many more American do not need to hear a conspiracy officially legitimated by CNN or the New York Times to believe it.
Out of their political instincts, Americans are also used to fending for themselves, and are used to spontaneously spreading massive petitions by large grassroots organizations who seek to always keep a check on government and politicians that they don’t trust.
Rest assured that if “rumours” are officially confirmed in “official elite” sources, Canadians would be far more fired up against the NAU, than Americans. Canadians have a high sense of latent nationalism. However, completely the opposite of Americans, Canadians view government as only sometimes acting irresponsibly. As a result, they instinctively trust in government and their political leadership, no matter who they are. This is because Canada was not founded from a Revolution like the United States. Canada was created through a compact of elites who had pledged to defend Canada from assimilation into the United States. This passionate pro-Canadian/nationalist inspired attitude had continued until the retirement of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Today, when a typical Canadian hears about the NAU, they scoff at the idea as then unthinkable. Then their next response is likely to be something like, “Then why have I hot heard about in on CBC Radio, or from a Member of Parliament, a political opposition leader, and why have I not read about it in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail or Le Devoir? Canadians have not adjusted to the fact that the elites who pledged to defend Canada, have been replaced by a bunch of corporate crypto-right wing traitors.
 |
 |
| Traitors among Us is a book for further reading on this subject. | |
 |
The NAU agents in Canada are aware of the amount of trust that Canadians have in receiving their information from government, and in being also guided by “official sources”, and have exploited that trust. The apparent traitors which include the leaders of so-called progressive groups, from the NDP and labour unions, know, that Canadians will only be guided by what they say, like shepherds to sheep.
If the leader of the NDP, a labour union, or of a newspaper like the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail published what American anti-NAU organizations already know about the NAU, rest assured, Canadians would be instantaneously demonstrating against the NAU. The current Stephen Harper government would then likely have to resign in weeks. Americans, all the way in Miami, Florida, would be able to hear the outrage. However, the leader the NDP, labour unions, and other similar organizations, have been apparently been bought out by Big Business interests.
Americans, who seek to save their country from the NAU will vitally need to obtain the cross-boundary support from Canadians. Grassroots anti-NAU American organizations seeking vitally needed Canadian allies would need to be able to penetrate a wall of silence, that a new generation of mis-information dispensing and information hiding traitorous elites have tried to use. A new generation of traitorous elites who also support the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), have sought to exploit the faith that Canadians have entrusted in government. If grassroots ant-NAU organizations can help break a wall of silence only, American anti-NAU organizations can expect to find very strong allies indeed, in Canada.
The Coalition Against the North American Union made a first step when they had travelled to Ottawa, Canada, to present a very detailed Press Conference late August 2007, in response the SPP-NAU Summit that was held in Montebello, Quebec. Pro SPP-NAU interests in the U.S. have sought to travel to Canada, in order to gain support among Canadian elites. How will American anti-NAU grassroots organizers respond to its critical need for Canadian allies in order to mutually defend two great nations?
SPP-NAU agenda: High Treason on Parliament Hill
Don’t let the Harper government and elite friends, make us surrender the affirmation of our national identity, as Canadians
Edited by Peter Tremblay
 |
||
|
|
The objective of the Stephen Harper minority government, is to continue to the “salami slicing” tactics started by Brian Mulroney, to of a public policy agenda, that will result in the step-by-step break down of our national soul as Canadians. The elite friends of the Harper government include apparent collaborators, like Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe in other parts of the Political Establishment, and corporate elites who together, support Mr Harper’s pursuit of the North American Union (NAU) agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
The genesis of Canada as an identifiable place, was in the 1530’s. Canada as a nation, would be further inspired by aboriginal peoples and settler immigrant groups who came together as ‘Canadiens’ along the St. Lawrence River.
Subsequent immigration from loyalists fleeing the American Revolution would support the genesis of a Canadian nationhood in the late eighteenth century, that sought to embrace a national ideal of “Peace, Order and Good Government”, that distinguished ourselves from the culture of violence in the United States. A culture of violence associated with the American constitutional “right to bear arms”, remains a prominent part of the American cultural milieu.
In contrast, Canadians also sought to develop an alternative national community in which Peace, Order and Good Government manifested in the creation of a mutualistic socially progressive society.
Canadians, sought the wisdom of government intervention in redressing conditions of economic disparity in our cities through innovative social policy, and also sought to create a universal public healthcare system, that would reflect the expression of a higher communitarian civic consciousness.
As a society which sought to spread corresponding messages of peace throughout the world, Canadians also sought peacekeeping responsibilities over militarism. Canadians sought to affirm greater independence from the United Kingdom, and then the United States, in a matter which would allow us as a nation to make a vital independent contribution in a community of independent and free nations.
The Harper government and friends through its NAU, SPP agenda, seek to deny us our very national self-determination. The Harper government, has in fact been pursuing an active U.S. assimilation agenda, through the NAU and SPP agenda that will totally destroy our national institutions, like the Canadian Wheat Board, and absorption into a American Big Business-friendly “cultural template”.
The result will be that the “errors” of American society that have led to the destruction of America’s cities, and to a general predatory “survival of the fittest society” will be imported into Canada. Indeed, homelessness and other worsening social despair in Canada, is the result of the dismantling of innovative Canadian social policy, which once included rent control and other programs.
The Harper government also seeks to use the pretext of a jingoistic “War of Terrorism”… [CONTINUED.. see comment below]
[BECOME A MEMBER, and get the rest of this article emailed to you. E-mail editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com to find out how you can become a member of The Canadian.]
North American Union agenda shows Canada’s Parliament rife of traitors
Edited by Peter Tremblay
 |
||
|
Neither Canada’s elected Members of Parliament nor unelected Senators who are mandated to specifically protect Canada’s Parliamentary traditions, have sought to speak out against the continued efforts by an elite clique to assimilate Canada into a “New American Union”. It is apparent that Canada’s Parliament is comprised of traitors, without any integrity, commitment to upholding their Parliamentary Oaths as loyal representatives of the diverse people of Canada. or substantive love for Canada. Apparently gone are the days of passionate champions of Canada like Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Tommy Douglas and Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Deep integration between Canada and the United States is not a theory or a fear – it is a reality. For several years now, government task forces and working groups have been quietly harmonizing Canada-U.S. programs and procedures, without any input from the Canadian public.
 |
 |
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), agreed to by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in 2005, is moving Canada quickly toward a continental resource pact, a North American security perimeter, and harmonized military and security policies. Working groups composed of bureaucrats and corporate leaders are quietly putting this “partnership” into action, and to date only industry “stakeholders” have been consulted. SPP is designed to create the… [CONTINUED.. see comment below]
[BECOME A MEMBER, and get the rest of this article emailed to you. E-mail editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com to find out how you can become a member of The Canadian.]
U.S. solidier chooses Canada over fighting in Iraq War
Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.
by Rodney Watson
I am from Kansas City, Kansas, and I joined the U.S. Army for financial reasons in 2004 after my steady job of seven years ended.
I enlisted for a three-year contract with the intention of being a cook and not in a combat role. I wanted to support the troops in some way without being involved in any combat operations.
A recruiter promised that I could do this.
In 2005 I was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul where I was told that my duties as a cook would be to supervise and ensure that the local nationals in the dining facility were preparing meals according to military standards.
But instead of supervising in the dining facility, I was performing vehicle searches for explosives, contraband and weapons. I also operated a mobile X-ray machine that scanned vehicles and civilians for any possible explosives that could enter the base.
I had to keep the peace within an area that held 100 to 200 Iraqi civilian men who would be waiting for security clearances, and shoot warning shots at Iraqi children who were trying to set up mortars to fire at the base.
In Iraq I witnessed racism and physical abuse from soldiers toward the civilians.
On one occasion a soldier was beating an Iraqi civilian, called him a “sand nigger,” threw his Qur’an on the ground and spat on it. The civilian man was unarmed and was just looking for work on our base. He posed no type of threat and was beaten because soldiers brought their personal racist hatred to Iraq.
This was not what I had signed up for.
After all the wrongs I witnessed in Iraq, I decided that once my one-year tour of duty was over I would never again be part of this unnecessary war.
When I returned home, my unit was informed that we would be redeployed within four months. This would put me beyond the term I signed up for. I was going to be stop-lossed and forced to serve past my contract.
While on two-week leave I made my decision to come to Canada and not return to my base at Fort Hood, Texas.
I have been here in Vancouver since early 2007. I have been self-sufficient. I have fathered a beautiful son whose mother is Canadian. I plan to marry her and to provide our son with a loving and caring family unit.
I have made many friends and I have built a peaceful life here.
My son and my wife-to-be are my heart and soul and it would be a great tragedy for my family and for me personally if I were deported and torn away from them.
I think being punished as a prisoner of conscience for doing what I felt morally obligated to do is a great injustice.
This Christmas I hope and pray that people will open their hearts and minds to give peace and love a chance.
I appeal to the Canadian government to honour your country’s great traditions of being a place of refuge from militarism and a place that respects human rights by supporting my decision, and the decisions taken by my fellow resisters to refuse any further participation in this unjust war.
I ask that you urge your government to respect the will of the majority of Canadians by acting on the direction it has been given twice by Parliament to immediately stop deporting Iraq War resisters like me and to let us become permanent residents here.
My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones in this unnecessary war.
About the writer:
Rodney Watson is an Iraq War veteran who was ordered deported by the Harper government this fall. On Sept. 18 he took refuge in Vancouver’s First United Church. Dec. 27 will be his 100th day in sanctuary. Watson’s request to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds remains outstanding.
Find out how: Drop us a line: editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com or orders@booksagora.com. You can get your manuscript evaluated for book publishing readiness for only $40.00.
Are you instead looking a better dating life?
Then, Get our 4- Set CD Collection on Dating and Seduction designed for guys. Guarantee available.
Toronto Star commentator suggests Prime Minister Harper acts like an elected dictator
by Haroon Siddiqui
PHOTO: Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
When Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien were in power, conservative commentators used to complain that both tended to be dictatorial, courtesy of our parliamentary system that made the prime minister too powerful, more so in some respects than the president of the United States.
Where are those pundits when we really need them? Stephen Harper is centralizing power in the PMO on an unprecedented scale; defying Parliament (by refusing to comply with a Commons vote demanding the files on Afghan prisoner abuse); derailing public inquiries (by a parliamentary committee and the Military Police Complaints Commission); muzzling/firing civil servants; demonizing critics; and dragging the military into the line of partisan political fire.
“When you add up all that this government has done, it’s truly scary,” says Gar Pardy, former head of the foreign ministry’s consular services. He’s the one who organized the petition that defended diplomat Richard Colvin from Tory mudslinging, and which has been signed by 133 retired ambassadors.
The extent of Harper’s misuse of power becomes clearer when you realize that the Conservatives are replicating some of the worst practices of the Republicans under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:
Consolidating executive power; eviscerating the legislative branch; operating under extreme secrecy (by keeping an iron grip on information, through endless court challenges and censoring/redacting documents); riding the coattails of the military and questioning the patriotism of political opponents; and forcing out public servants who refused to fall in line.
Count the heads that have rolled in Ottawa:
Peter Tinsley, chair of the military police commission, who initiated the Afghan prison abuse probe – refused a second term.
Paul Kennedy, chair of the Complaints Commission for the RCMP, who criticized the use of Tasers – refused a second term.
Linda Keen, nuclear watchdog, who insisted on safety at Chalk River – fired.
Kevin Page, parliamentary budget watchdog, who rattled the Tories with several revelations – rendered ineffective with a cut of $1 million from his $2.8 million budget.
Marc Mayrand, chief electoral officer, who probed Tory election spending – publicly attacked.
Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who dared criticize both the U.S. and Israel – refused support for a second term and publicly rebuked.
Jean-Guy Fleury, chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, who opposed the Tory politicization of appointments to the tribunal – frustrated into quitting.
Similarly, groups that won’t toe the Tory line are being penalized.
The Canadian Arab Federation lost funding after its chair attacked Ottawa’s pro-Israeli policies. Now the same fate has befallen KAIROS, a Christian aid group, for “taking a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign” against Israel, boasts Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the designated Tory bulldog in charge of attacking real or perceived enemies.
Ottawa is rife with rumour of another scandal in the making: Harper asking Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament, yet again, this time during the Winter Olympics (ending Feb. 28) and perhaps also the Paralympics (ending March 21).
She should flat-out refuse and not repeat her mistake from a year ago, when she got rolled by him. At that fateful meeting, she should not have let Kevin Lynch, clerk of the Privy Council, into the room. Get-togethers between the governor general and the prime minister are privileged.
She also should not have shuttled between Harper and a team of constitutional advisers she had assembled. Instead, she should have taken his request under advisement and sent him off, and summoned Stéphane Dion and perhaps also Jack Layton to brief her on their coalition agreement.
That way, she would’ve had more choices:
Advise the Prime Minister to seek a vote of confidence. Or, if he felt he didn’t have it, to ask if someone else on his front benches might. Failing both, turn to the opposition to demonstrate that they could muster the confidence of the House, as claimed.
Jean failed in her duties by deciding the fate of the government behind closed doors, rather than in an open democratic process by the elected representatives of the people.
A governor general is not obliged to take the prime minister’s advice, only that which she deems appropriate to our parliamentary system. What Jean saw as appropriate last year wasn’t. Each passing day proves it.
Haroon Siddiqui writes Thursdays and Sundays. hsiddiqui@thestar.ca
Featured LINK. Online dating. Alternative Lifestyles Personals. Free and Anonymous Membership
Canada tightens aviation security after Nigerian attempts to bomb U.S. aeroplane
Featured LINK. Online dating. Alternative Lifestyles Personals. Free and Anonymous Membership
PHOTO: Announcements were made Saturday over the loudspeaker at Pearson International Airport in Toronto to let passengers know about the expected delays.
The federal government has ordered Transport Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to tighten security the day after an attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam.
Air Canada and WestJet are instructing passengers to arrive as much as three hours early at airports to allow for extra security checks.
Passengers and their luggage will be fully searched at airport screening points as usual, but their bags will also be searched by hand at the gate. Every passenger to the U.S. will also receive a physical pat-down, WestJet wrote in a statement.
Transport Canada has limited passengers to one piece of carry-on luggage instead of the usual two on flights into the U.S.
In addition to the pre-flight security measures mandated by the Canadian government, there are new in-flight rules imposed by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace.
Air Canada said in a statement that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won’t be allowed access to carry-on baggage or to have any items on their laps.
Air Canada suggests passengers avoid bringing any carry-on baggage, and only bring on small items such as a purse, laptop bag, briefcase or diaper bag. It says it will waive any extra fees for passengers who must check extra bags due to the new restriction.
“As a result of the added security precautions, passengers should also expect delayed and cancelled flights as well as missed connections,” Air Canada wrote in a news release.
Passengers who miss their connections will not be charged to rebook.
Air Canada warned that although these measures only apply to flights into the U.S., domestic and international flights will also be delayed due to airport congestion.
WestJet says these heightened security measures will be in place until Dec. 30, and Air Canada did not specify a date.
The changes follow the arrest Friday of a Nigerian national who allegedly tried to detonate an explosive aboard the Detroit-bound flight. Passengers thwarted the suspect and the plane landed safely.
Announcements were made Saturday over the loudspeaker at Pearson International Airport in Toronto to let passengers know about the expected delays due to heightened security.
The Nicholas family, heading to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to catch a Caribbean cruise, came to the airport four hours ahead of their departure, just in case.
“I’m glad there’s heightened security,” Cindy Nicholas told CTV Toronto.
The changes follow the arrest Friday of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, a Nigerian national who has been charged with trying to detonate an explosive aboard the Detroit-bound flight. Passengers thwarted the suspect and the plane landed safely.
The suspect is currently in hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, being treated for burns.
Expect longer lines
Douglas Laird, the former security director at Northwest Airlines, told CTV News Channel that passengers can expect longer lines than usual and that they should remember the restrictions on bringing liquids onto the plane. Passengers are only allowed to bring liquids in 100 ml bottles or smaller, and can only bring one Ziploc bag with liquids on board.
He said the problem isn’t that people try to get around the restrictions, but that people who don’t fly frequently may be unaware of them.
“The slowdown is people that don’t travel, of course they come with containers that are too large, and they don’t have the clear plastic bags,” he said.
Some airports, such as Chicago’s Midway International Airport, have separate security lineups for people who fly frequently and know the rules, in order to expedite their security checks for everyone. But all passengers should expect delays at airports that don’t have this system.
Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said he spoke with U.S. Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Jane Lute regarding the incident.
“Security threats to the United States are security threats to Canada. The Canadian government remains fully engaged with the Obama administration on efforts to combat terrorist threats,” he wrote in a statement.
‘Pat-downs’ not enough
Larry Johnson, CEO of Berg Associates, a security firm in Washington said that there is no real way to make sure passengers do not bring bombs onto planes until better technology is developed.
Until that happens pat-downs are not enough to fully protect passengers.
“Pat-downs are better than nothing, but not a terribly useful or effective approach,” he told CTV News Channel.
Former CSIS senior intelligence officer Michel Juneau-Katsuya told CTV News Channel that it is hard to strike a balance between keeping travellers safe, but also letting them keep them move freely around the airports.
“The challenge since 9/11 is that we want more security, but we don’t want to turn it into a police state where everyone is getting a body search instead of getting on the plane,” he said
Is Globalive truly a Canadian company? The minority Conservative Government says yes
by John Geddes
Tony Clement has done his best not to put himself at the centre of an uproar over Canadian ownership of sensitive parts of the economy. The industry minister announced that the federal cabinet was letting Toronto-based Globalive into the Canadian cellphone business, overturning the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s earlier ruling that the Egyptian-financed company failed to meet Canadian control rules. But Clement insisted cabinet wasn’t “removing, reducing, bending or creating an exception to Canadian ownership and control requirements in telecommunications and broadcasting.” No matter how far he dug into his thesaurus, though, many expert observers weren’t buying it.
The potential implications of the decision, announced Dec. 11, were just too obvious to be smothered under even the wordiest denial. The CRTC had ruled in October that Globalive didn’t satisfy Canadian ownership requirements because Egyptian telecom giant Orascom holds almost all of its debt, owns most of its non-voting shares, and provides its technical expertise. But cabinet exercised its power to overrule the regulator, accepting Globalive’s argument that its corporate structure puts voting shares mainly in Canadian hands. Clement stressed that the decision was “based on the legal facts of the ownership, and not on the government’s position that there needs to be more competition in this marketplace.”
It was the prospect of another competitor, of course, that had led the big wireless companies—BCE, Telus, and Rogers (owner of Maclean’s)—to oppose Globalive’s bid to step onto their turf. The CRTC doesn’t see the Canadian wireless marketplace as too dominated by a few players: it says wireless prices in Canada are about in the middle compared with the U.S., Britain, France and Australia. But the Conservatives perceive a problem. Two blue-ribbon panel reports—one on telecom alone and another more broadly on the Canadian economy—have urged them to open up the industry. “We believe,” Clement said, “that when consumers have more choice, when there’s more competition, that lowers prices and increases quality.”
University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, an expert on telecommunications, said the Conservatives seemed more motivated by their desire to see another cellphone company vying for customers than by legal analysis of Globalive’s ownership. “The government has made it clear for a couple of years that they view wireless as an area where there’s not enough competition,” he said. And letting Globalive’s Wind Mobile brand compete fits with a pattern of Tory marketplace populism. “Their approach on this issue,” Geist said, “is consistent with their political approach more generally—do things that the broad public, the Tim Hortons people, can get and understand.”
If one more wireless company was the Conservatives’ sole goal, they might end up getting much more than they bargained for. Clement said green-lighting Globalive “is a specific decision that is pertinent to the specific facts of this case.” But Michael Hennessy, vice-president of regulatory and government affairs for Vancouver-based Telus, argues the decision opens the door to more foreign investment—not just in telecommunications, but also in other sectors where federal law requires Canadian control, like broadcasting, banking and airlines. “There is a bit of public-relations artifice to saying this is a one-off,” Hennessy said. “Politically they’re going to have great difficulty saying we have a unique and special rule for Egyptians only, when many of us in the industry might want to look at more European or American financing for certain activities.”
An obvious point of interest is the future of Canwest Global Communications, which owns the Global TV network, and filed for creditor protection for a portion of its troubled business earlier this year. Would the debt-burdened Winnipeg-based media conglomerate now be allowed to follow the Globalive model in seeking more foreign capital? “Canwest of course watched this very closely,” Hennessy said. Still, cellphones are one thing, TV quite another. “Broadcasting raises cultural issues that telecom just doesn’t,” Geist said.
Exactly how the government would respond to another company testing the Globalive precedent is impossible to predict. “As of this decision,” Hennessy said, “you cannot say with any certainty what the law of the land is or how it will be interpreted.” Clement said cabinet didn’t bend the rules. He didn’t say anything about not blurring them.
internet site: LINK
Canada’s Supreme Court establishes new libel defence
by Glen McGregor
Photograph by: Pat McGrath, The Ottawa Citizen
The court ruled in favour of the Ottawa Citizen and other media organizations by creating a new defence from defamation lawsuits based on “responsible communication” of issues of public importance.
Journalists or Internet bloggers who are sued for libel or slander will no longer have to prove in court the absolute truth of every allegation. Instead, they can rely on the new defence if the issue is of public importance and they took proper steps to verify the information.
The court said that defamation law must balance freedom of expression on these issues against the need to protect a person’s reputation and privacy.
“I conclude that the current law with respect to statements that are reliable and important to the public debate does not give adequate weight to the constitutional value of free expression,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in a unanimous decision.
The court decision was based on two cases, one involving the Toronto Star and another on Ottawa Citizen reports about a former OPP officer Danno Cusson.
The Citizen stories reported allegations Cusson had misrepresented himself and his dog as a trained RCMP sniffer-dog team when they went to World Trade Center in the weeks after the 2001 terror strikes.
Cusson won a libel case against the Citizen in 2006 and was awarded $100,000. The newspaper appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court said there should be a defence of responsible journalism, but said because the Citizen hadn’t presented it, the award to Cusson stood. The Citizen challenged the award to the Supreme Court.
The decision handed down Tuesday upheld the new defence and, contrary to the Court of Appeal, said it should have been available to the Citizen. The court ordered a new trial in the Cusson case and the Toronto Star case.
Citizen lawyer Richard Dearden said the decision marked a major advance in defamation law.
“Had this new defence not been established, we’d be in the Dark Ages,” he said.
“We’re now in the 21st century in terms of freedom of expression in the country. The SC has brought Canada in line with other Commonwealth countries.”
He also noted that the court found the Cusson case clearly involved issues in the public interest.
The case will be heard again with the Citizen free to claim the new defence, should Cusson decide to proceed. Ronald Caza, the lawyer representing Cusson, said his client would consider the ruling before saying how he would proceed.
The court said it was striking the “middle road” between the much looser defamation laws in the United States and the existing law, which required media organizations to prove the truth of every allegation.
Dearden said he believes the decision could effectively raise the standards of journalism in Canada because of the requirement to act responsibly.
The new defence will not give free license for journalists to make mistakes. They will still have to show they acted responsibly in their reporting on public interest issues.
The court said the definition of public interest to which the defence applies does not necessarily mean something of interest to the public. The private lives of public figures are not necessarily covered by the defence.
Once a judge establishes public interest, the responsibility of the reporting must be tested based on eight factors set out by the court, including the seriousness of the allegation, the trustworthiness of the source, the urgency of the issue and the attempts taken to obtain a response from the subject of story.
The Ontario court had called the defence “responsible journalism,” but the Supreme Court said that the title was too narrow and should also encompass communications made by Internet bloggers and others who are not journalists.
In defamation cases heard before a jury, the judge will decide whether the issue is in the public interest and juries will decided whether the reporter acted responsibly.
Media lawyers hailed the decision as groundbreaking.
“This is a great step forward in democratic and open discussion,” said Paul Schabas, who represented the Toronto Star.
“This means there will be more information put out to the public to scrutinize what public officials do and debate matters of public interest.”
Peter Jacobsen, lawyer for the Globe and Mail, an intervener in the two cases, said the decision will encourage freer debate on public issues by journalists and others without the fear of expensive litigation.
“They don’t have be afraid of being sued just because they got it wrong,” he said. “Now, if they’ve done everything they can reasonably do to get it right, they can publish without fear of horrendous libel damages against them.”
internet site reference: LINK
Find out how: Drop us a line: editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com or orders@booksagora.com. You can get your manuscript evaluated for book publishing readiness for only $40.00.
The Canadian National Newspaper Exopolitics Headlines 