UPDATED: On Harper's Reign of Terror

Last week, Owen wrote a post he entitled Corrupting Civil Society, a reflection on the Harper war on non-profits that stand in opposition to any of his regime's agenda. I recommend reading it for a good overview of the situation.

In yesterday's Star, three letters articulated three excellent perspectives on this shameful war:

Tories intimidate charities into silence. Who's next? Opinion July 16

One way to deal with the Harperites’ bullying of charities might be for all charitable organizations to renounce their charitable status. Personally, I make most of my donations to non-charities. I figure they are doing the most-needed advocacy work. The deduction I get on my income tax for charitable donations is hardly enough to bother.

Of course, for multi-millionaire Stephen Harper supporters, this would be anathema. They like donating a chunk of money, getting a massive tax rebate from you and me, and having their names in lights on some university or hospital.

It’s time this type of selfish “philanthropy” is stopped. It costs taxpayers huge sums of money, while allowing the 1 per cent to dictate how that money is spent. Let’s end this distortion, and return to real charity. And let’s make the 1 per cent pay their fair share of taxes, while we’re at it.

Kate Chung, Toronto

The Harper government suddenly detects rampant subversion of the charitable tax exemption. Oddly, the concern appears to be less about the extravagant lifestyle of religious charlatans or about politicians siphoning tax free dollars into their campaign chests than about organizations whose good works are not aligned with the government’s agenda. This, according to the government, is illegal political activity.

Wake up Stephen Harper! All charity is 100 per cent political. Charity is voluntary action by citizens to correct the failings of our society. Charities support the needy and disabled at home, fight disease and starvation abroad and work to free political prisoners precisely because government policy is not to act on these urgent social problems.

It is time to acknowledge that charities provide an immeasurable service by patching the policy holes in our social safety net which the government so cheerfully cuts.

Paul Collier, Toronto

Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay trots out the old warhorse of “good stewardship over taxpayer dollars” to excuse the government’s latest crackdown on advocacy by charitable groups. “The CRA has a legal responsibility to ensure that charitable dollars, donated by charitable Canadians, are used for charitable purposes,” she says.

Whether we identify as “taxpayers” or “charitable Canadians” — and probably most of us are both — we can all figure out that it makes more economic sense to address the causes of poverty and injustice than to try to remedy the effects.

Susan Warden, Scarborough

As well, a Star editorial applauds the fact that the NDP is finally speaking up about this misuse of the CRA:

The New Democratic Party, worried that voluntary agencies are being silenced, sent a sharply-worded letter to Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay this past week. “This program has the appearance of blatantly abusing CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) resources to target those who do not agree with government and compromises the very integrity of CRA,” wrote NDP revenue critic Murray Rankin and environment critic Megan Leslie.

They called for an independent, external review to determine whether the government is using the muscle of the tax department to crack down on human rights advocates, environmentalists and anti-poverty activists.

While this demand is likely to be met with the Harper cabal's usual disdainful disregard of opposing views, it is at least heartening that with both the press and some politicians speaking up, more of the general public will learn of the profoundly anti-democratic and cowardly nature of their national government.

UPDATE: For a very comprehensive discussion of the problem, check out this post at Desmog Canada, which explores a new analysis by former journalist and graduate student Gareth Kirkby.

A 'Sign' Of Our Debased Democracy

If you are under the impression that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for freedom of expression, please be aware there are apparently severe restrictions on that freedom should you try to express yourself on public property in the vicinity of Prime Minister's residence; perhaps Mr. Harper invoked the notwithstanding clause?


Women told they need a permit for their sign



H/t Occupy Canada

For Those Who Don't Mind Gov't Surveillance Because They Have Nothing To Hide

You might want to take a moment to read Rick Salutin's thoughts on the implications of living in a country where environmentalists and others who oppose the government's corporate agenda are regarded as terrorists.

As well, this Canadian Dimension piece might also give you pause.

Let's All Be Good, Quiescent Citizens, Eh?

It is no secret that this country, under the 'leadership' of the Harper cabal, has suffered a significant loss of democratic freedoms reflected in the abuse of and contempt for parliamentary procedure, the subversion of senate inquiries, the muzzling of civil servants, and the extollment of opacity in place of transparency (anyone made a freedom of information request lately?) to name but four 'crimes' of the government. A new threat, of which I have already briefly written twice, is the new law, Bill C-309, which makes it a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison to wear a mask during a riot (cue the misdirection here) or an 'unlawful assembly'. It is the latter stipulation that should be of concern to all of us.

First, what constitutes an unlawful assembly? It would seem that it is in the eye of the beholder. The Criminal Code defines it this way:

"An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they will disturb the peace tumultuously; or will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."

You can see that one of the problems here is the rather subjective nature of an unlawful assembly, the determination of which would ultimately fall to the authoriteis on site to make. For example, if a group of people, without a permit, assemble to loudly and very publically protest, for example, environmental degradation, and one of them, because he/she fears retaliation from an employer, dons a disguise, if the authorities call it an ulawfual assembly, that person is potentially facing a very protracted period of incarceration.

Are people who might be present at a current protest in Westover over Enbridge plans to pump tar sand crude to Montreal but don't want to run afoul of employers thereby deterred from this 'unlawful assembly'? Those who embrace the corporate agenda would doubless be hearted by such deterrence; those who can think beyond the bottom line, not so much.

While the author of the bill, Conservative M.P. Blake Richards has insisted that the law is necessary for dealing with protesters "pre-emptively,", Osgoode Hall Law School Professor James Stribopoulos [has] pointed to the possible "chilling effects" posed by making it unlawful to disguise one’s identity at a protest, say to prevent against reprisals from your boss or coworkers, or to avoid facial recognition software.

Given that existing law already makes it an offence to wear a mask during the commission of a crime, some are suggesting the new law will not withstand a constitutional challenge. Writes the Huffington Post's Marni Soupcoff:

The problem with the new law is that it threatens to chill the political and social activities of completely innocent people -- or to land them in jail for doing nothing more serious than trying to stay anonymous. What if a .... particularly creative environmentalist wanted to make a point at an anti-oil sands demonstration by wearing a handmade sludge-covered duck mask?

Can the government really get away with this level of intimidation, dampening, and punishment of public demonstrations... Not if the Charter's protections of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly mean anything. Which is why I hope the new law will be challenged in court -- and soon. It deserves more serious constitutional scrutiny than it has been afforded, and it deserves more outrage too. Canada should not feel comfortable joining the ranks of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia -- countries (none of them exactly known for their respect of civil liberties) that have ... recently banned Guy Fawkes masks.

So the choice becomes a very basic one: Will we play the role of the quiescent citizen that coroporate/governmental interests are so avidly casting for? Or do we think that democracy is something well-worth vigourously fighting for and defending?

Harper Government Finds Another Way To Stifle Dissent

Wearing a mask at an 'unlawful' assembly (example, spontaneous demonstration) now carries a maximum 10-year-prison term, thanks to Bill C-309, a private member's bill sponsored by Conservative MP Blake Richards which became law today.

No word yet on any bills making it unlawful for police to conceal their identities by removing badges while attending such events.

Is Our Freedom More Illusion Than Reality?

That is a question you may be prompted to ask yourself after reading this piece by Kevin Logan and watching the video below. Described therein are the measures and efforts designed to realize what I suspect is Mr. Harper's fondest dream: a compliant, unquestioning, 'disciplined' and very passive populace, not surprisingly the same goal of the corporate agenda.

Thomas Walkom - Harper and Oil

In this time of unprecedented climate change, I think most people realize that Stephen Harper has an unhealthy addiction to oil, one that marks him as truly retrogressive as he seeks to return Canada to its traditional role as primarily an exporter of resources, all the while couching that backward movement with the use of muscular language, calling us, for example, an energy superpower.

And of course, when that language fails to convince, there is always the vilification of opponents, the muzzling of scientists, etc., all arrows in the quiver of this fatuous autocrat.

Yet despite all of those weapons and propaganda efforts, resistance to sending Alberta tarsands to the west coast via pipeline is growing. Thomas Walkom has some interesting insights to offer about the Harper strategy in today's Star, which you can read here.

New Crime Discovered in Edmonton

Known in legal circles as politicius pontificus interruptus, Edmonton police are doing everything within their power to prevent this terrible crime from spreading and becoming a national scourge.

Another Victim of the Harper Thought Police

The message couldn't be clearer: if you want to continue to receive funding, don't produce data that contradicts Dear Leader.

The Haunting Threats To Democracy

Being a rather fitful sleeper at the best of times, I often awake throughout the night, the sole advantage of this affliction being the ability to recall a large number of my dreams. Last night was one such night.

In the dream, while I lived in an apparently normal environment, each time that I tried to express my opinion or move freely about, some force came out of the background to stop me, leading me to realize that my freedom was illusory.

While this dream actually did occur and is not a writer's artifice to lead into his theme, its central metaphor was obvious to me upon awakening. We live in a time when our democratic freedoms are being eroded, along with the values and supports that Canadians have long held dear. And yet, if we do not scratch beneath the surface, everything appears to be reasonably normal. It is only upon closer scrutiny or action that we begin to detect the stench coming from the hidden rot.

I guess it was something I was thinking about the other day during the demonstration at David Sweet's office. A young couple was in attendance; they told those of us who were taking pictures that they didn't want theirs posted on the Internet, the specific reasons for which I will not reveal except to say fear of government reprisal.

I suspect there is much such fear in this country today, and with very good reason. The Harper government, in its relentless drive to remake Canada in its stunted image, is well-known for its vindictiveness against groups who oppose its agenda, currently investigating, for example, the charitable status of those groups who oppose the regime's campaign of environmental despoliation. If there is a government equivalent to libel chill, this is it, although a more apt description is abuse of government power to stifle our Charter right of freedom of expression.

I was watching a documentary recently from a series called Earth From Above. In it, an activist who has worked hard to stop the building of dams on the Loire River in France makes this statement: "If you do not use democracy, it will wither."

I can only hope that this truth will dawn upon more and more people as they contemplate joining some of the planned future demonstrations against the Harper agenda.

Death By Download?

Although a cliche, it is nonetheless true that knowledge is power, which probably explains why Canada is currently under the yoke of the most secretive and undemocratic federal government it has ever known.

The latest restriction on access to information is reflected in the Harper termination of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, a move which Tim Harper, in his Star column today, attributes to Conservative political ideology.

The group never strayed from its mandate, which was to study both the economic side and the environmental side of climate change, but never one at the exclusion of another. Apparently, however, as the Harper regime eliminates a variety of environmental regulations to fulfill its commitment to turn over the country wholly to the free enterprise 'masters of the universe', the Rountable's reports proved to be too popular a source of information for interested citizens.

As Tim Harper reports, Twin reports entitled Achieving 2050 were downloaded 51,605 times. A report on water sustainability was downloaded 33,565 times, another one entitled Climate Prosperity was downloaded 25,592 times and was linked from national and international media websites.

The NRTEE website gets more than 500,000 hits each year.

It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Coupled with all of the other measures implemented by this regime to limit access to information, it is a safe bet to say that the current Prime Minister agrees.

When Does An Assembly Become Unlawful?

Because we were rather busy yesterday preparing a small celebration marking my sister-in-law's retirement at an enviably young age, I am just getting caught up on my Saturday newspaper reading. One of the issues that caught my attention is the private member's bill making its way through Parliament as an amendment to the Criminal Code. Introduced by Alberta Conservative Blake Richards, Bill C-309 is the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots or unlawful assemblies act.

While the proposed amendment presents itself as a strong response to the violent depredations of anarchists like the Black Bloc during the 2010 G20 Summit demonstrations in Toronto, many infer a more sinister motivation behind Richards' initiative. Curious as to the truth in this matter, I checked out the Criminal Code's definition of unlawful assembly:

Unlawful assembly

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

You can perhaps appreciate the ominous implications of this definition, most notably the subjective nature of fear that demonstrators will disturb the peace tumultuously, an elastic definition if there ever was one. As my wife pointed out to me, does that mean that if three people were picketing their M.P.'s office, their behaviour, whether masked or not, could constitute criminal behaviour based on someone else's reaction to the assembly?

Bill C-309 does indeed carry ominous implications, epecially since existing law already gives police all the power they need to arrest rioters and those committing crimes while masked.

As outlined in Section 351 of the Criminal Code,

Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

So yes, I think there is much merit in the argument that this private member's bill is just another move by the Harper regime to stifle dissent. That is also the view of many Star readers, who have responded to this issue with their usual vigour and thoughtfulness. I am posting a link to those letters here, but because access to readers' letters on the Star website is frequently of limited duration, I am going to later put up a separate post that reproduces several of them for your consideration.