">
While I have written extensively elsewhere on the abuses of Charter Rights that took place during the G20 Summit in Toronto last June, I was heartened by some information received from the Real News Network about the extent of the latest inquiry, to be conducted by the Office of the Independent Police Review director. The information is as follows:
Ontario G20 Police Review Director Makes a Pledge
Gerry McNeilly: Will conduct a systemic review of police actions during G20 after complaints from citizens indicate a ‘pattern of behavior concerns’.
Oct. 5 TRNN - A review by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) will delve into the method behind the madness of Toronto’s G20 policing fiasco.
In an interview with The Real News, Senior Editor Paul Jay asked director of the IOPRD, Gerry McNeilly about whether his review would address specific incidents, such as the kettling of peaceful protesters on Queen Street, the intolerance of self-identified journalists, to the extent of arresting or being violent towards journalists, and the absence of police during the notorious police car burnings being a strategic move to validate other police hostility. McNeilly, said the review will be systemic, and will address all incidents mentioned in complaints received by his office, including unlawful arrests, detainment, treatment of journalists, and the training and culture that police were exposed to in preparation of the summit.
In an interview with The Real News, McNeilly said both the nature and volume of complaints received by his office compelled him to conduct the review. He said the complaints pointed to a pattern of police behavior that warranted investigation.
“And that led me to look at the authorities that I have under the legislation, and the authorities indicated that I have the ability to conduct a review of a systemic nature when a pattern of behavior concerns developed. And this was that situation,” he said.
The IOPRD has the legal authority, under the Public Inquiries Act, to issue subpoenas and conduct searches if evidence or testimony is not forthcoming.
“I have the power, and if I have to use the power, I will,” he said.
Investigating the Integrated Security Unit, the policing body responsible for security during the G20, is tricky as it consisted of Toronto police but was headed up by RCMP chief superintendent Alfonse McNeil. McNeilly said his jurisdiction doesn’t extend to the RCMP.
“I cannot review the RCMP and its role. I will talk to the RCMP to find out about its role and what part that they played in policing and providing security for the G-20, but I don't have the authority. That's the Canadian Police Commission's role,” he said.
He said he doesn’t know of any review being conducted of the RCMP’s role in the G20, but said he would be talking to chief superintendent Alfonse McNeil.
“And, as I said, to date I have not had any indication that they are not prepared to cooperate with me,” he said.
The Real News has raised concerns over the Public Works Protection Act, and the Breech of the Queen’s Peace legislation, that were cited in most of the arrests during the summit, as they appear to negate the constitutional right to free assembly. McNeilly said his office will be investigating unlawful arrests, including ‘the tools that were used’, but said his authority doesn’t permit him to review the constitutional legitimacy of legislation.
“I am not specifically going to be reviewing any piece of legislation as to the appropriateness of that legislation, you are correct. That's for the courts to do.”
He said his review will be transparent, but will not include public hearings in order to expediate the process. He said his biggest challenge is addressing the volume of complaints quickly enough that the findings remain current and meaningful to the public.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Rick Salutin's Demise
The phone rang this morning about 8 o'clock as we were skimming the new and 'improved' Globe and Mail, filled with pretty colour pictures printed on glossy, magazine type paper in some sections. My wife noticed immediately that the physical size of the paper was smaller (explained in the Globe as a way of making it easier to handle for the reader), but it wasn't until the phone call that we realized the changes were much more than physical.
It was our daughter calling to inform us that she had been listening to C.B.C.'s Metro Morning and learned that Rick Salutin has been fired from the Globe, with no reason given. While I might not always have agreed with Salutin's points, (indeed, there were some columns where I wasn't really clear on what his point was) I always looked forward to reading the thoughts of a man who interpreted events in a way few others did, putting forth a point of view that usually hadn't occurred to me at all. The only other Globe writer whose work I had savoured as much was David Macfarlane, who for a number of years wrote a column entitled Cheap Seats before being reassigned to one concentrating on Toronto. He inexplicably met the same fate as Salutin.
So the pace of journalistic decline continues at The Globe and Mail. I suggested to my wife that we give the paper one more week, but without a reversal of the Salutin decision, I believe we will be cancelling our subscription to the paper after having received it for an untold number of years.
It was our daughter calling to inform us that she had been listening to C.B.C.'s Metro Morning and learned that Rick Salutin has been fired from the Globe, with no reason given. While I might not always have agreed with Salutin's points, (indeed, there were some columns where I wasn't really clear on what his point was) I always looked forward to reading the thoughts of a man who interpreted events in a way few others did, putting forth a point of view that usually hadn't occurred to me at all. The only other Globe writer whose work I had savoured as much was David Macfarlane, who for a number of years wrote a column entitled Cheap Seats before being reassigned to one concentrating on Toronto. He inexplicably met the same fate as Salutin.
So the pace of journalistic decline continues at The Globe and Mail. I suggested to my wife that we give the paper one more week, but without a reversal of the Salutin decision, I believe we will be cancelling our subscription to the paper after having received it for an untold number of years.
Monday, September 27, 2010
John Allemang Looks to 2050
In Saturday's Globe and Mail, columnist John Allemang wrote a piece from the perspective of Canada in the year 2050, examining the country's place in the great scheme of things after climate change has wrought its full effects. It concentrates on the advantages that will accrue to Canada with the opening up of the North West Passage, the export of water and hydroelectricity to the parched southern United States, the development of thriving Northern communities, etc.
My quibble with the article is three fold:
First, it echoes an increasingly common opinion that since climate change is happening and much further changes are inevitable, we need to spend our time and resources adapting rather than trying to mitigate its effects now.
Secondly, it pays little attention to the negative consequences of climate change within Canada, only making reference to it being responsible for more mosquitoes and the fact that prairie farmers had to abandon the parched and eroded land where wheat used to grow.
Finally, while the article purposely takes an admittedly entrepreneurial approach to climate change, the fact that so many parts of the world will suffer tremendously is given short shrift; the closest he comes is reference to the lack of water in the drought-stricken southern U.S.
The dearth of compassion or concern for the rest of the world led me to wonder whether, in John Allemang's view, climate change will also entail another completely different cost: the loss of Canadian compassion from our national identity.
My quibble with the article is three fold:
First, it echoes an increasingly common opinion that since climate change is happening and much further changes are inevitable, we need to spend our time and resources adapting rather than trying to mitigate its effects now.
Secondly, it pays little attention to the negative consequences of climate change within Canada, only making reference to it being responsible for more mosquitoes and the fact that prairie farmers had to abandon the parched and eroded land where wheat used to grow.
Finally, while the article purposely takes an admittedly entrepreneurial approach to climate change, the fact that so many parts of the world will suffer tremendously is given short shrift; the closest he comes is reference to the lack of water in the drought-stricken southern U.S.
The dearth of compassion or concern for the rest of the world led me to wonder whether, in John Allemang's view, climate change will also entail another completely different cost: the loss of Canadian compassion from our national identity.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Where Are Your Charity Dollars Going?
I doubt there are many amongst us who have not experienced the following: You are sitting down for a mid-evening meal, or perhaps settling in to watch an hour of television when the phone rings. At the other end of the line is someone calling on behalf of a charity, either one you currently patronize or one seeking your support. You do one of three things: you either agree to increase your support, say you can't give more, or agree to sponsor the new charity.
It may surprise you to know that in some cases, the person you have just dealt with is not necessarily a volunteer calling on behalf of the charity, but rather an employee of a professional fundraising company that will be receiving anywhere from 35 to 80% of your donation.
These startling facts were presented on last night's edition of C.B.C.'s The National in a report by Diana Swain. The value of the report lies not in discouraging us from contributing to worthwhile causes, but rather in allowing us to make better-informed decisions as to where to allot our philanthropic dollars.
The full report, with links to a searchable database breaking down the expenditures of registered charities, can be found on the C.B.C. website
It may surprise you to know that in some cases, the person you have just dealt with is not necessarily a volunteer calling on behalf of the charity, but rather an employee of a professional fundraising company that will be receiving anywhere from 35 to 80% of your donation.
These startling facts were presented on last night's edition of C.B.C.'s The National in a report by Diana Swain. The value of the report lies not in discouraging us from contributing to worthwhile causes, but rather in allowing us to make better-informed decisions as to where to allot our philanthropic dollars.
The full report, with links to a searchable database breaking down the expenditures of registered charities, can be found on the C.B.C. website
Friday, September 10, 2010
Canada's Shame
While I shall always be proud to be a Canadian, I have never subscribed to the mantra, "My country, right or wrong," which to me means uncritical acceptance of every action taken by one's country simply because it is one's country. In my mind, such a philosophy is an abdication of one of the responsibilities of citizenship, not an expression of it.
With that in mind, I am reproducing below an article from yesterday's Globe and Mail that addresses an issue of fundamental wrongdoing, the export of asbestos to developing countries. As most people know, asbestos is a leading cause of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining that is invariably fatal. In fact, it is what killed the actor Steve McQueen many years ago. Despite the well-established link between asbestos inhalation and this cancer, the Quebec provincial government, aided and abetted by the federal government, continues to mine and export it, the result being increased rates of mesothelioma and other lung cancers in places such as Mexico, where it is used as an additive to strengthen cement. No amount of jobs (700 in Quebec) can justify this export of death.
Government investment in asbestos is morally bankrupt
Quebec has lent Jeffrey Mine Inc. $3.5-million to keep it alive when the asbestos industry should be allowed to die a natural death
Andre Picard
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2010 12:48PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 09, 2010 12:08PM EDT
Investissement Québec, a government agency, has provided Jeffrey Mine Inc. with a $3.5-million loan, allowing it to continue mining asbestos for a month longer and giving it one last gasp at attracting foreign investment.
One has to wonder why.
Why are the governments of Quebec and Canada so hell bound in their support of a deathly, dying industry?
How can a country and a province that claim to care about human rights and international health justify peddling tonnes of a carcinogen to the developing world for a few shekels?
What horrors are being wrought in the name of economic development, and in a bid for a few votes?
To date, 52 countries have banned asbestos. It is a cancer-causing product, and we have known so since the 1950s. The tiny fibres, when inhaled, can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Asbestos was once a miracle fibre because of its resistance to fire, rust, rot and termites.
In Canada, the “white gold” was once used liberally, in everything from pipe insulation to car brakes, modelling clay to talcum powder.
As a result, we have one of the highest rates of asbestos-related cancer in the world. In Quebec, asbestos is responsible for half of all workplace-related deaths.
Domestically, the use of asbestos is now strictly regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. We go to great lengths and much expense to remove it from public buildings, including Parliament and 24 Sussex Dr.
Yet Canada allows – and actively promotes – the export of asbestos. Ottawa even opposes the inclusion of asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention, a treaty on the use of hazardous substances.
The federal government also provides $250,000 a year to the Chrysotile Institute so it can flog asbestos abroad and propagandize at home.
The institute is a master of Orwellian doublespeak: It calls asbestos “chrysotile”; it promotes the “safe use” of the product, glossing over the scientific evidence that there is no practical means of safe handling; its lobbying is responsible for the fact that, in Quebec, the “safe” level of exposure to asbestos is 10 times what it is in other provinces; and one of the group’s favourite rhetorical claims is that asbestos is invaluable and safe because even NASA uses it.
Indeed, asbestos is used on the space shuttle so that it won’t catch fire during launch and re-entry. But the reality is that the principal buyers of asbestos are India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, where the mineral is used in construction. Needless to say, the workplace safety standards in these countries aren’t exactly comparable with NASA’s.
“When it comes to the asbestos industry, you readily abandon science and put forward the lie that Quebec asbestos can be safely used, when even your own government health experts have told you this is not true,” Mohit Gupta, co-ordinator of the Occupational and Environmental Health Network of India said in a stinging letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest.
Every credible health organization in Canada, from the Quebec Institute for Public Health to the Canadian Cancer Society has condemned the federal and provincial governments for their unethical promotion of asbestos.
More than 100,000 people worldwide die of occupational exposure to asbestos each year, according to the World Health Organization.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Asbestos-related disease has a long latency period; workers breathing the fibres today will be sick and dying in decades. And, unlike Canadian workers, they will have little legal recourse.
Canada – one of the top five asbestos exporters in the world – is a major contributor to the carnage, but we turn a blind eye to it.
It is apathy tinged with more than a slight hint of racism. Killing workers in India is no more acceptable than killing them in Canada, regardless of the jobs the practice creates in small-town Quebec.
There are two asbestos mines in Canada: the LAB Chrysotile Mine in Thetford Mines, Que. is a few years from exhaustion; and the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Que., which is in bankruptcy protection. Between them they account for 7 per cent of the world production of asbestos, worth a few hundred million dollars a year.
These mines should be allowed to die an overdue death. Monies that go to promoting and subsidizing the sale of asbestos should be redirected to retraining and supporting the remaining workers – about 500 in total, almost all of them close to retirement age.
But Bernard Coulombe, owner of the Jeffrey Mine, has grand plans. He wants to massively expand and extract 200,000 tonnes a year of asbestos (oh, sorry, chrysotile) for the next 25 years.
He needs a $58-million investment to make a go of it.
Quebec was prepared to make a loan guarantee in that full amount, with a few token conditions, such as attracting some private investment and asking importers to respect safety standards. But the support seems to be wavering.
It is time to stop “exporting death made in Quebec,” according to Gilles Paradis, scientific editor of the Canadian Public Health Association Journal.
“The decision by the Quebec government to continue exporting chrysotile asbestos is a public health tragedy for Canada and the rest of the world. Asbestos kills workers and citizens. … The decision is wrong, unethical, indecent and we should be outraged.”
Indeed.
With that in mind, I am reproducing below an article from yesterday's Globe and Mail that addresses an issue of fundamental wrongdoing, the export of asbestos to developing countries. As most people know, asbestos is a leading cause of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining that is invariably fatal. In fact, it is what killed the actor Steve McQueen many years ago. Despite the well-established link between asbestos inhalation and this cancer, the Quebec provincial government, aided and abetted by the federal government, continues to mine and export it, the result being increased rates of mesothelioma and other lung cancers in places such as Mexico, where it is used as an additive to strengthen cement. No amount of jobs (700 in Quebec) can justify this export of death.
Government investment in asbestos is morally bankrupt
Quebec has lent Jeffrey Mine Inc. $3.5-million to keep it alive when the asbestos industry should be allowed to die a natural death
Andre Picard
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2010 12:48PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 09, 2010 12:08PM EDT
Investissement Québec, a government agency, has provided Jeffrey Mine Inc. with a $3.5-million loan, allowing it to continue mining asbestos for a month longer and giving it one last gasp at attracting foreign investment.
One has to wonder why.
Why are the governments of Quebec and Canada so hell bound in their support of a deathly, dying industry?
How can a country and a province that claim to care about human rights and international health justify peddling tonnes of a carcinogen to the developing world for a few shekels?
What horrors are being wrought in the name of economic development, and in a bid for a few votes?
To date, 52 countries have banned asbestos. It is a cancer-causing product, and we have known so since the 1950s. The tiny fibres, when inhaled, can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Asbestos was once a miracle fibre because of its resistance to fire, rust, rot and termites.
In Canada, the “white gold” was once used liberally, in everything from pipe insulation to car brakes, modelling clay to talcum powder.
As a result, we have one of the highest rates of asbestos-related cancer in the world. In Quebec, asbestos is responsible for half of all workplace-related deaths.
Domestically, the use of asbestos is now strictly regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. We go to great lengths and much expense to remove it from public buildings, including Parliament and 24 Sussex Dr.
Yet Canada allows – and actively promotes – the export of asbestos. Ottawa even opposes the inclusion of asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention, a treaty on the use of hazardous substances.
The federal government also provides $250,000 a year to the Chrysotile Institute so it can flog asbestos abroad and propagandize at home.
The institute is a master of Orwellian doublespeak: It calls asbestos “chrysotile”; it promotes the “safe use” of the product, glossing over the scientific evidence that there is no practical means of safe handling; its lobbying is responsible for the fact that, in Quebec, the “safe” level of exposure to asbestos is 10 times what it is in other provinces; and one of the group’s favourite rhetorical claims is that asbestos is invaluable and safe because even NASA uses it.
Indeed, asbestos is used on the space shuttle so that it won’t catch fire during launch and re-entry. But the reality is that the principal buyers of asbestos are India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, where the mineral is used in construction. Needless to say, the workplace safety standards in these countries aren’t exactly comparable with NASA’s.
“When it comes to the asbestos industry, you readily abandon science and put forward the lie that Quebec asbestos can be safely used, when even your own government health experts have told you this is not true,” Mohit Gupta, co-ordinator of the Occupational and Environmental Health Network of India said in a stinging letter to Quebec Premier Jean Charest.
Every credible health organization in Canada, from the Quebec Institute for Public Health to the Canadian Cancer Society has condemned the federal and provincial governments for their unethical promotion of asbestos.
More than 100,000 people worldwide die of occupational exposure to asbestos each year, according to the World Health Organization.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Asbestos-related disease has a long latency period; workers breathing the fibres today will be sick and dying in decades. And, unlike Canadian workers, they will have little legal recourse.
Canada – one of the top five asbestos exporters in the world – is a major contributor to the carnage, but we turn a blind eye to it.
It is apathy tinged with more than a slight hint of racism. Killing workers in India is no more acceptable than killing them in Canada, regardless of the jobs the practice creates in small-town Quebec.
There are two asbestos mines in Canada: the LAB Chrysotile Mine in Thetford Mines, Que. is a few years from exhaustion; and the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, Que., which is in bankruptcy protection. Between them they account for 7 per cent of the world production of asbestos, worth a few hundred million dollars a year.
These mines should be allowed to die an overdue death. Monies that go to promoting and subsidizing the sale of asbestos should be redirected to retraining and supporting the remaining workers – about 500 in total, almost all of them close to retirement age.
But Bernard Coulombe, owner of the Jeffrey Mine, has grand plans. He wants to massively expand and extract 200,000 tonnes a year of asbestos (oh, sorry, chrysotile) for the next 25 years.
He needs a $58-million investment to make a go of it.
Quebec was prepared to make a loan guarantee in that full amount, with a few token conditions, such as attracting some private investment and asking importers to respect safety standards. But the support seems to be wavering.
It is time to stop “exporting death made in Quebec,” according to Gilles Paradis, scientific editor of the Canadian Public Health Association Journal.
“The decision by the Quebec government to continue exporting chrysotile asbestos is a public health tragedy for Canada and the rest of the world. Asbestos kills workers and citizens. … The decision is wrong, unethical, indecent and we should be outraged.”
Indeed.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Thoughtful Piece by Roger Ebert
I'm just back from a brief holiday, so I don't have anything of my own to offer. There is, however, a piece I recommend by noted film critic and intrepid blogger Roger Ebert. Lamenting the cancer of ignorance that has infected American democracy, he has some incisive and insightful comments to offer about people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others of their ilk in his latest entry.
Some of what he writes is also applicable to Canada, especially with the divisive tactics employed by the Harper Government that often mirror those of American extremists.
Some of what he writes is also applicable to Canada, especially with the divisive tactics employed by the Harper Government that often mirror those of American extremists.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Holding Harper to Account
Writing in today's Chronicle Herald, columnist Ralph Surette offers an interesting perspective on what Stephen Harper has thus far done to Canada, and what will be required to unseat him. Check it out here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)