UPDATE: Whose Country Is It, Anyway?

 

If you have ever watched the movie Whose Life Is it, Anyway?, you will know it is about a man who wants the right to die owing to his quadriplegia. Sovereignty over his body is the issue, and he goes to trial to have the right to choose. He ultimately prevails in claiming that right.

I can't help but see some parallels between that movie and the question of our own national sovereignty. As I have recently written, each concession or act of appeasement by the Carney government is yet another diminishment of our national freedom of choice, whether it be on bridge tolls or the cowardly silence on Canadian ICJ Kimberly Prost's fight against the sanctions the Americans imposed on her. Such timidity is, in my view, a national embarrassment and does nothing but invite more abuse from the mad king ruling the U.S.

There now appears to be a new issue upon which Canada refuses to speak, and it has to do with Trump's ideological war against anyone who dares oppose him:

 The Trump administration is hosting a high-level global meeting on combating “political terrorism” in Washington on Thursday, as it tries to rally together allies on its plans to crack down on left-wing movements.

But neither the Carney government nor Canada’s national security agencies will say whether they have been invited or plan to attend, or share their views on a campaign that some experts have described as politically motivated and that has reportedly prompted reservations among countries that do not view the issue as a significant threat.

All we know thus far is that neither Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand ("prior engagements") nor Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree are attending. 

The political motivation of the 'summit' is obvious:

The meeting comes as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to crack down on what it describes as a rising trend of left-wing extremist violence, with officials focusing on “Antifa,” despite the fact it is not a single, organized group.

A White House counterterrorism strategy released in May names “violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists” as one of three major terror threats alongside “narcoterrorists and transnational gangs” and “legacy Islamist terrorists.” 

“In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national (counterterrorism) activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist,” the 16-page document notes.

Phil Gurski, a former analyst for the Canadian security Intelligence Service, makes these observation:

  “The most remarkable thing was there was nary a mention of the far-right. It completely disappeared. And if you look at any other sane, informed, justified threat assessment of political violence/terrorism in the United States, I mean the far-right is right up there,” Gurski said of the Americans’ counterterrorism strategy.

“To say that the far-left constitutes a significant national security threat in the United States, that’s complete bulls—t, based on the data that I’ve seen,” Gurski said. “To me, this is one more attempt by the Trump administration to sell this agenda, that you know, there’s nothing to see here, folks from the far-right.” 

Now, it can be reasonably argue that one doesn't want to provoke the beast, but citizens are not even allowed to know if there will be a Canadian presence at the gathering. And based on past performance, that in itself is ominous.

Gurski said Canada and the U.S. already share a lot of intelligence, but he’s concerned about Trump officials pressuring Canada to add left-wing groups to its designated terror list.

Already, he pointed out, Canada followed suit on the Trump administration’s moves to list Latin American cartels as terror groups, even though they’re typically treated as organized criminal organizations instead.

“If someone commits a criminal act, you can prosecute them for that, but pressuring us to list something like Antifa a terrorist group, just would not fly very well under our legislation as written,” added [Stephanie] Carvin [a professor at Carleton University and a former national security analyst for the federal government.]

 Significantly, during a meeting in Ottawa with senior officials in March, as reported in The New York Times, 

Monica A. Jacobsen ... told her counterparts from Europe, Canada and Australia, the Trump administration also wanted more attention on what it believed was an insidious, underestimated threat: the far left.

Western governments must combat “antifa and far-left terrorism,” Ms. Jacobsen’s prepared remarks asserted, casting the effort as an evolution in counterterrorism following the “global war on terror.” Her prepared speech defined far-left terrorism to include threats from communists, Marxists, anarchists, anticapitalists and those with “eco-extremist” and “other self-identified antifascist ideologies.”

Canada once had a proud foreign policy, one that did not bow to the caprices of the elephant to the south. Increasing, the Carney government is abandoning that independence in order to chase the illusory dream of peace with the U.S. Based on everything we have seen thus far, that 'strategy' is doomed to failure, and is another significant blow to our national stature and pride.

UPDATE: Absolute disgust is all I felt when I read this:

The Carney government has sent a senior official from Canada’s embassy in Washington, to a Trump administration summit trying to rally allies behind a new U.S. campaign targeting left-wing groups it claims are a top terrorism threat.

 Railing against anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anarchists and communists in his opening remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the western world’s post 9/11 counterterrorism strategies needed to shift to focus more on left-wing violence.

“This is a distinctive and unique evil. It has always been driven by a hatred, above all else, a hatred for civilization itself. It is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things, and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can. This is what radical leftism is.”

 Fascism is here. If you’re not alarmed you’re not paying attention.

.

For more, you can check this out.

To lend Canada's former good name to this new form of witch hunt is to diminish us beyond words. 

UPDATED: Walking On Tippy Toes

 

When I was in Grade One, I have a distinct memory of my teacher, a nun of considerable kindness and compassion (unlike many others of her ilk in the school), telling me to walk on my tippy toes. Being so young, I took her literally, my attempt at such a pedestrian feat provoking much merriment in my classmates. Of course, Sister Alexia meant for me to walk quietly, something I do think I also understood.

Walking quietly in a classroom a lifetime ago is one thing. Sadly, walking on tippy toes seems yet another 'policy' choice at the Canadian national level, lest we be noticed by a certain unhinged American president. The most recent episode of this 'strategy' is yet another demonstration of our ebbing sovereignty.

Ottawa won't say whether it will intervene in support of a Winnipeg-born global judge who is asking a U.S. court to reverse sanctions ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, which have left her unable to use a credit card or most major online vendors.

Washington sanctioned International Criminal Court judge Kimberly Prost nearly a year ago, over her work on a case involving American troops in Afghanistan. Unlike France, Canada has never criticized that decision.

"We haven't said anything about that," said Sabine Nolke, a former senior Canadian diplomat whose career focused on international law.

"We do have fairly solid human rights credentials, but we can certainly stand [to be] speaking out more about them."

Prost previously told The Canadian Press that being sanctioned has deeply affected her ability to travel or enjoy simple things such as using an Amazon smart speaker or buying theatre tickets.

Now, you might think that her inconvenience, while regrettable, is really not such a big deal. However, that would ignore the larger issues here of things like judicial independence and the limitations of presidential fiat.

Prost and two other judges are suing Trump and his administration, arguing he exceeded his authority and did not provide due process. The suit was brought in their personal capacity and not by the ICC.

"Congress did not vest the president with authority to violate international law in exercising his authority," said James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, a legal advocacy group that is representing Prost in the case.

"The sanctions are arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law and an abuse of discretion," he said in an interview. 

The lack of obvious Canadian support is both egregious and shameful:

Global Affairs Canada would not say whether it's considering supporting Prost's case.

"As a founding member, Canada has always been, and remains, a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court and its mandate. Protecting the independence of its judges is critical to the ICC's effectiveness," wrote spokeswoman Thida Ith.

"As this matter is currently before the courts, we cannot provide further comment at this time."

And where is our Foreign Affairs Minister, Anita Anand, in all of this? Well, almost a year ago, she did say that 

she has “the utmost confidence” that Prost is objective and impartial.

Her statement has no criticism toward the U.S. for sanctioning Prost.

Using the fig leaf of the courts and issuing anodyne statements of support are hardly indicators of a robust and independent government, are they?

Speaking of abject servility, there was this note from our prime minister on the passing of the craven, power-hungry, hypocritical Lindsey Graham:

This more realistic but impolitic assessment of Graham would resonant with more Canadians, I suspect:

Mark Carney is fond of talking about the world we live in, not the world we wish it were. Unfortunately, his government is doing nothing to move us toward the latter and everything to support the former.

 

UPDATE: A friend sent me the following. In the old days, we used to say a person's words count.

Putting A Stake Through The Heart Of Harper's Lies

As a youngster, there were few things I enjoyed more than vampire films starring Christopher Lee, in my view the best cinematic vampire there ever was. Usually, at the end, either a stake through the heart or exposure to the rays of the sun ended his evil hold on people. It was a satisfying form of exorcism.

In this impending (or is it never ending?) election campaign, the only thing that will release Canadians from the foul grip of the Harper regime's lies, deceptions, attacks and secrecy is the metaphorical light that only facts and truth can provide.

And there are so many untruths and that we need to be armed against, including the one about how a low-tax regime spurs the economy and proves Harper's economic 'mastery'. Star reader Russell Pangborn of Keswick, Ontario begs to differ:

Re: Budget watchdog predicts $1B deficit, July 23

The Conservatives told us their plan to reduce taxes was good for the country. Reminds me of the disastrous low-fat diet craze. While we were obsessing about lowering the quantity of fat in a serving, we overlooked the corresponding sugar increase that was introduced to make the food palatable.

Instead of improving our health, the low-fat mania actually ended up increasing our weight and our chance of getting health-unfriendly diseases like diabetes and heart problems. The new message, just starting to get through to the public, is that some fat is actually good for us.

There have been negative repercussions related to our acceptance of the promise of prosperity with the reduction of taxes. The truth is that we are in a recession. Health care, affordable higher education, proper infrastructure all sound like reasonable endeavors funded by taxes.

Attacking the amount of fat we eat and the amount of taxes we pay has not worked. I don’t want a huge tax increase, but I do want to stop hearing that “all taxes are bad” ad campaign that is thrown out to discredit some political parties.

My overall health improved when I stopped buying only low-fat products. Let’s hope that our country’s general health also will improve when we stop following the “lower taxes are always better” refrain.

Excerpts from a missive written by David C. Searle of Toronto offer some pungent reminders of Harper's failures on the economic front:

Stephen Harper’s attack on Justin Trudeau’s “budgets balance themselves” may soon ignite an implosion of fortunes for the “omnipotent Conservative Grand Poobah,” who impetuously ditched the wise and prudent Red Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s sound $3 billion contingency fund, steering Canada back into deficit with “a barrage of tax cuts,” well aware that oil commodity storm clouds were gathering.

The highly reputable Flaherty warned against the billions that income splitting for 15 per cent of households loyal to the Harper base would cost and actually had a conscience to resolutely stand against it.

The unveiled Harper legacy is one forsaking of our military personnel with rusted, trouble-plagued submarines, obsolete air and ground assets, a born-again-like sense of purpose at the last minute for veteran’s affairs that many deem as nothing but a charade, our aged suffering from deteriorating health care infrustructure, sewage and water repair backlogs in Toronto and Montreal are direly highlighting the need for federal help, meanwhile investments are disproportionately going to Conservative ridings in less trouble-prone areas.

We can thank Finance Critics Liberal Scott Brison and NDP Nathan Cullen for requesting a Parliamentary Budget Office Update exposes Harper’s fallacy of a balanced budget in 2015 and we should be awakened by this forecast from the PBO that warns, “Doubling Tax-Free Savings Accounts and indexing them to inflation could harm Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplements for the poorest of the poor the majority of which are women, yes our mothers.”

We shouldn’t buy into Harper’s fear-mongering-hysterics about terrorism, as he is merely deflecting our attention from the reality of a crumbling currency and economy.

Continuing with economic matters, J. Richard Wright of Niagara-on-the-Lake assesses Mr. Harper as a "smug corporate pawn':

Stephen Harper has never met a free trade deal he didn’t like and seems ready to sign anything placed in front of him as he turns Canada from a benevolent and caring country into a corporate fiefdom. But, in doing so, he is playing a dangerous game.

Many of the agreements have little protections for Canadian rights but he doesn’t seem to care. For the almighty dollar, he is happy to give away out country and our resources to business interests despite the damage Canada may suffer. Of course, after the damage is done, the foreign investors will just move on, leaving us with the mess.

For instance, since many of these free trade agreements have investor protection clauses in them, he has exposed every Canadian citizen, through their tax contributions, to legal action if a foreign investor doesn’t realize a return on its investment because we won’t allow them to destroy or pollute our land.

Even now there is a $250 million lawsuit against the Canadian government by Lone Pine Resources Inc. (registered in Delaware), because the province of Quebec has banned fracking for natural gas in its province. Lone Pine wants to frack under the St. Lawrence River where it says there are massive deposits of natural gas.

Farmers and others near fracking operations in Pennsylvania regularly show that their drinking water can be lit on fire. So, imagine the St. Lawrence River on fire.

Experts say that even if the suit doesn’t succeed, it creates a libel chill for governments, discouraging them from passing environmental laws for health and safety for fear it will upset foreign investors. In addition, Harper’s latest free trade agreement with the European Union is expected to generate even more lawsuits against our government.

Also, Harper is saying he will sue the provinces if they pass laws, environmental or otherwise, that interfere with a foreign investor’s profits and leads to an action against the federal government. Is there no end to this smug, corporate pawn’s lunacy?

Those who fought Dracula's evil reign were armed with garlic, crucifixes and stakes. Going into the October election, the best things we can arm ourselves with are facts, facts and more facts.

Things We Are Not Supposed To Know Or Think About

While The Star's David Olive recently wrote an article extolling the economic benefits of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, others strongly suggest the need for extreme caution, not just because of potential job losses, but also due to the very real losses in national sovereignty that will ensue if the agreement is ever finalized.

Consider the following from The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur, who argues that the secrecy behind the negotiations is understandable, given that its benefits will redound not to the people, but to the multinational corporations. While speaking from an American perspective, his observations are equally applicable to Canada:



As well, Star readers sound these notes of caution about free trade agreements:

Trade pact coming, despite opposition, June 19

David Olive’s championing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is so wrong-headed, I hardly know where to begin. In suggesting that state authority and power in developing countries should rather give way to corporate power, he is doubling down on the proven dysfunction of such corporate hegemony, in terms of income inequality, and the impact on workers and the environmental.

To suggest that countries will be better off in a corporate-dominated world is naive at best. His assertion that Canada has really done fine as a result of free trade so far is also an amazingly blinkered view of reality.

Even measured in that narrowest of measures, GDP, we have not done as well in the last 20 years as we did in the “protectionist” era of the 1950s through 1970s. When you look at distribution of this GDP, it is obvious that middle class families have not benefited at all.

John Simke, Toronto

Free-trade agreements are based on the premise that if every country exports what it makes most efficiently and if governments clear the way for market forces to engage in transactions, then everyone will be better off. However, in practice, only multi-national corporations have benefited from free-trade agreements as national interests are undermined.

Taxes are lowered, public services are cut, wages are downgraded, environmental protection is weakened, and regulations are abolished. In short, economic activities have taken precedent over other considerations, such as social justice and national democratic mandates.

The European and North American experiences have shown how, under free trade, governments lose the ability to be responsive to the national needs. Under NAFTA, the Chapter 11 clause has allowed investors to launch successful legal challenges against governments, undermining their efforts to enforce environmental, health or safety standards.

The free trade arrangements worked for the West in the follow up to World War II. However, in the complex 21st century world, they are no longer working. We should come up with a way to regulate the damage done by free trade without undermining its advantages.

Ali Orang, Richmond Hill

Trade deals a big threat to Medicare, Letter June 21

I sincerely hope that the Star is mustering its considerable investigative talents to check out the alarming allegations in Professor Meyer Brownstone’s letter. He claims that the new Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) “includes health among services to be shifted to the corporate sector in a wholesale global privatization process that includes education, prisons and other public services.” He also claims that “all participants are sworn to secrecy for five years even if the negotiations fail.”

Thanks in advance for your excellent service in this and so many other secretive and complex matters.

Jean Gower, Kingston

And so the world moves on, not always for the better, while we sleep.