Shh! Don't Ask!

I have to confess to feeling a small measure of guilt each time I reproduce someone else's words with little editorializing on my part. Yet my ego is sufficiently robust to be able to acknowledge the fact that there are many others with views that merit space in this blog, views that are in many cases expressed more elequently and succinctly than mine.

Such is the following letter from today's Star by Judy Ward of Oshawa as she opines on CETA, about which I have written in the past. Ms Ward speaks for many as she strongly objects to the Harper cabal's obsession with keeping Canadians ignorant about a trade deal that could have devastating domestic effects:

Canada-EU trade deal is wishful thinking, Business June 20

We read day after day about our prime minister travelling about the world and talking free trade. Why doesn’t he talk to Canadians? He wants a free-trade pact with the EU. What is he planning to trade away in order to secure this agreement? Why doesn’t he let Canadians know what is on the table in these talks? We have a right to know.

It is rumoured that the EU wants to change our banking rules. Why? So we can end up like Spain or Greece or Portugal or Cyprus or even Ireland? It is also rumoured that if businesses didn’t like our rules they could sue us for loss of income.

But what frightens me is that our prime minister may be trading away our health care. We have a right to know what is on the table and health care should not in any way, shape or form be on the table. No hospitals, drugs or any aspect of health care should be bartered in the name of free trade.
The secrecy surrounding these talks is frightening. This information should be available to Canadians. We are the ones who have to live with the decisions made by the government. We have a right to know what its plans are. If the opposition parties know what is happening with these talks, then they should make it public.

This is the most secretive government I can ever recall. Tell us what is being bartered in these talks before an agreement is signed.

If Woodward And Bernstein Were Dead

.... I'm sure there would be reports of seismic activity in the vicinity of their graves over this question asked of Glenn Greenwald by Meet the Press host David Gregory about the propriety of his bringing Edward Snowden's story to the world:

He Certainly Has Mr. Harper's Number

It is always heartening to me, and I am sure to countless others, to see that some members of the Canadian electorate are not asleep at the proverbial wheel but instead busy exercising their critical-thinking skills. Peter Dick of Toronto is one such citizen. Not content to blithely and blindly accept the official mythology that the Conservative government is an able manager of the economy, Mr. Dick, in today's Star, offers the following trenchant observations about a naked emperor and his entourage:


Re: Parliamentary session over for summer, but scandals still remain, June 20

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan continues to spout the Stephen Harper party line in Thursday’s Star, saying: “We’ve been working hard to strengthen our economy, create jobs and support Canadian families.” If only repeating this, ad nauseam, made it true! People outside the 1 per cent know how bad things are. Economies suffer and degrade when people don’t spend money, and people don’t spend money when they are unemployed, in a precarious job or making less than a living wage.

As long as Harper continues to create and support policies that export Canadian jobs, put downward pressure on Canadian salaries, weaken unions and destroy any semblance of job security, he is sabotaging the economy for us all. Add to this the deliberate degradation, rather than bolstering, of the Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance benefits, and you ensure that fewer and fewer Canadians have disposable income to spend. How strange that an “economics guy” like Harper does not make the connection between a precarious, low-paid workforce and a tanked economy. Harper’s policies contradict everything that comes out of his mouth, and your wallet already knows this. Vote accordingly.

Perhaps Its Time To Stop Talking And Start Acting?

For obvious reasons.

Pam Sings The Blues

On this fine Friday evening, for those of you whose tastes tend toward the confessional genre, may I suggest this rendition of "Pam Sings The Blues"?

A critical caveat: Although the wailer from Wadena hits all of the right notes, her performance somehow leaves one with a vague but abiding dissatisfaction.

Government Would Never Abuse Its Authority, Would It?

You decide.

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?