"They Didn't Get Back To Me"

For those who follow such things, I think it is well-known that when a Canadian runs into problems while abroad, the statement "Canada is providing consular support" is often a euphemism for "We really aren't doing much of anything."

Problems seem to multiply if one holds dual-citizenship. The case of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist imprisoned in Egypt for seven years on bogus charges of terrorism amply attests to this, and reputable news gatherers have openly pondered this issue:

Al Jazeera, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and other media supporters ... question whether Fahmy's dual citizenship is working against him.

"The government's position at this point on this case has been shameful," Tony Burman, a journalism professor and former managing director for Al Jazeera English, said in a news conference Thursday.

"The issue of dual citizenship, the issue of perhaps Al Jazeera, any mention at all in the trumped-up charges by the Egyptian military of the Muslim Brotherhood -- these are all things that... could intimidate and inhibit government officials in this country from moving," he said.

Is it possible that those of foreign, especially Arabic origin, face not only indifference but malice from the Canadian government? There is, of course, the infamous case of Maher Arar who, with Canadian complicity, was sent to Syria to be imprisoned and tortured for non-existent crimes.

The case of Omar Khadr is in a category all of its own, but one that once again demonstrates the selectivity with which the government protects Canadians' rights, as is that of Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was smeared by our government as a terrorist and imprisoned in the Sudan and then abandoned by our government for many years; it is another case that should make all Canadians ashamed.

The most recent case of government indifference/malice, and one that is ongoing, is that of eight-year-old Salma Abuzaiter. It is especially disturbing, in that it deals with threats to the life of a child. Salma and her parents have been Canadian citizens for five years, and this summer the little girl accompanied her father, an emergency room doctor specializing in pediatrics, to Gaza, a chance for the young girl to spend time with her cousins and grandparents. Unfortunately, a few weeks after their arrival the present bloodshed in Gaza began, and now the girl is trapped there.

Salma's mother, Wesam Abuzaiter, has been told by authorities the only way her daughter can leave Gaza is to travel by bus, alone, for five hours, crossing the border into Israel and Jordan. Wesam says that is impossible for such a young child. Instead, she has asked the Canadian government to make arrangements allowing a relative to escort Salma to Egypt where she would board a plane to Canada: “I just asked them to communicate with the Egyptian side and let them know about that not more than that. I didn’t ask for more than that.

The Canadian government's reaction to that request:

"They didn’t get back to me."

How Not To Answer A Question

Texas Governor Rick Perry provides an expert technique lesson in the following video:

The New Logo For The Canada Revenue Agency?

CRA protests notwithstanding, it works for me.

H/t iPolitics

Harper's Reign Of Terror - Part Six

The latest installment of this series illustrating the Harper regime's subversion of the Canada Revenue Agency to punish nonprofits for opposing government policies also demonstrates its pathologically secretive nature.

The following was recently reported in The Globe and Mail:

Since Ottawa first started cracking down on political activities among charities in 2012, Pen Canada has filed a series of access-to-information requests seeking, among other things, the criteria auditors use to determine what, exactly, constitutes political activity.

The Harper cabal has refused to release this information, offering only a heavily redacted CRA training booklet that listed “Specific Audit Guidelines,” as well as a document entitled “Reminder Letter Guidelines” that was redacted where it explained, in three parts, when a letter might be issued. In other words, they refuse to tell people the criteria used in deciding whether or not to initiate political-activity audits.

Such a response seems more like an excerpt from a Monty Python sketch than one from an agency of a democratic government. Pen Canada executive director Tasleem Thawar had this reaction:

“The CRA claims that revealing the criteria their auditors use to determine political activities would make it easier for charities to avoid being caught, but if we don’t know which activities the CRA considers problematic, how can we ensure we’re following the rules?”

And of course Pen Canada now finds itself in audit hell because of their persistent inquiries.

But what the government refuses to admit, journalist Dean Beeby, from The Canadian Press, reveals in a compelling timeline that leaves little doubt about the regime's motives. I reproduce the entire piece below:


OTTAWA - Timeline of key events surrounding the Canada Revenue Agency's launch of political-activity audits of charities:

Jan. 9, 2012 — Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources minister, issues an open letter denouncing "environmental and other radical groups" who "threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical agenda."

March 21, 2012 — EthicalOil.org, founded in 2011 by Alykhan Velshi, who currently works in the Prime Minister's Office, files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Environmental Defence Canada Inc., an environmental charity.

March 29, 2012 — Federal budget announces new restrictions on political activities by charities, including more disclosure of funding by foreign sources. The Canada Revenue Agency is also provided with $8 million over two years largely to establish a new political-activity audit program, with 10 such audits planned for the first fiscal year. Funding later increased to $13.4 million over five years.

April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 — First wave of 10 political-activity audits includes at least five environmental charities, including Environmental Defence Canada, Tides Canada Foundation, Tides Canada Initiatives Society, Ecology Action Centre, Equiterre. CRA will not itself release list, citing confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

April 24, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the alleged political activities of the David Suzuki Foundation, an environmental charity.

May 1, 2012 — Peter Kent, environment minister at the time, suggests Canadian charities have been illegally used "to launder offshore funds for inappropriate use against Canadian interest," that is, by obstructing the environmental assessment process.

July 23, 2012 — CRA issues a warning letter to the publisher of Canadian Mennonite, a monthly magazine, saying the Canadian Mennonite Publishing Service risks revocation of its charitable status for publishing recent pieces "that appear to promote opposition to a political party, or to candidates for public office." The agency later identifies several problem pieces, including one criticizing then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

July 24, 2012 — CRA concludes an audit begun in 2004, revoking the charitable status of Physicians for Global Survival because the group's work is "inherently political." The audit was not conducted as part of the new political-activity program, but under the standard financial audit that also examined political activities wherever necessary.

Aug. 8, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Society, two related environmental charities.

April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014 — Audits slotted for second year of the political-activity audit program appear to broaden targets to include more groups fighting poverty and human-rights abuses, and promoting international aid.

Feb. 12, 2014 — Then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responds to a question about why the CRA is auditing charities that oppose oil-pipeline projects by saying "charities are not permitted to accept money from terrorist organizations."

April 9, 2014 — Pen Canada, a Toronto-based freedom-of-expression charity, receives call from CRA saying the group is to undergo an audit that will include a review of its political activities. Three auditors show up at their offices on July 28, 2014.

April 10, 2014 — Canadian Council of Churches sends letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper raising concerns about the "chilling effect of threats to revoke the charitable status of organizations that draw attention to policies that harm our world."

May 27, 2014 — Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada sends letter to UN Human Rights Council raising a "particularly troubling trend ... the selective targeting of organizations by Canadian revenue authorities to strip certain organizations of their charitable status."

June 2014 — Gareth Kirkby, graduate student at Royal Roads University, completes master's degree identifying "advocacy chill" resulting from the political-activity audits of 16 charities he examined, after offering them anonymity. Kirkby cites evidence indicating three charitable sectors singled out for CRA attention: environmental, development/human rights, and charities receiving donations from labour unions.

July 16, 2014 — NDP sends letter to Kerry-Lynne Findlay, national revenue minister, calling for an independent inquiry into whether CRA is conducting its political-activity audits at arm's length and free of political interference. "These targeted audits are effectively muzzling public interest groups," say MPs Murray Rankin and Megan Leslie.


Sure sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Canada's Searing Moment of Clarity

I hope you didn't miss it. The events of the past month in that distant corner of the world, the mid-east, shone a light of fierce brilliance on our own Canada that exposed an ugly side of our country for all to see who would not look the other way.

What was laid bare was the extent to which neo-liberalism has captured our politics. What we were shown was how the governing Conservatives lead and, worse yet, how the supposedly progressive alternatives meekly fell into line. We witnessed the Liberals and New Democrats fecklessly abandon the very principles they once proudly upheld in decades past, the better time.

While Trudeau and Mulcair weren't sure exactly what the people of Gaza had done to warrant the wholesale ransacking of their fetid little territory by the powerful Israeli military juggernaut, they simply fell back on the old sop about Israel's "right to defend itself."

Yet, as Israel pretended to defend itself from some hapless Hamas rockets by taking down Gaza’s water and sewage system and, finally, its electricity plant, not a peep of protest, no call for restraint crossed the lips of wee Justin or the curiously retiring Tommy Boy. As Israel barraged schools and hospitals, as it put women and children in their hundreds to the sword, our leaders - those who seek to lead Canada in our name, yours and mine - turned their backs.

What do those hundreds of corpses have to do with Hamas or its alleged rockets? How does that river of blood help defend Israel? How does the collapse of a besieged territory's water, sewage and electrical system make Israel more secure? What was the military necessity for laying waste to civilian Gaza? What legitimate casus belli existed and, if there was such a thing, why did Netanyahu tie the war to seeking revenge against Hamas for three murders in the West Bank, not Gaza, that Israeli authorities knew Hamas did not commit?

Trudeau and Mulcair can rely on the fact that few of their supporters have even a passing acquaintance with the laws of war that were so grievously trampled underfoot by Israel in its blitzkrieg on Gaza. We don't understand notions of proportionality or military necessity or the duty to avoid attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. Our political leaders count on the fact that they can mutter "right to defend itself" and avoid all the awkward details of fact and laws.

If you're a Liberal or New Democrat, you've been conned (in every possible sense of that word) by your party of choice and its leader. You've been had, you've been done over. This time it was foreign policy, a murderous butchery that will soon be a distant memory. What will it be next time? What principles will be on the block tomorrow or next year or far beyond that? When you shift to neo-liberalism, principles must yield to the will of the corporatist state.

What about the subversion of democratic freedom by our corporate media cartel that now serves the political classes instead of we the people? What about a balancing of the ever-conflicting interests of labour and capital? What about a direct frontal assault on growing inequality of income, of wealth, and of opportunity? What about the plague that will curse our children and grandchildren - the environment and climate change? What will a pair of avowed fossil fuelers like Trudeau and Mulcair do for Canada and the world to decarbonize our economy and our society? Nothing, they're petro-pols, wake up!

If opposition leaders can't stand up for what is right, can't uphold principles and our traditions from the better time, you can be damn sure they'll have even less courage if they ever get the reins of power. You can be sure they will carry on Harper's work of incrementally transforming Canada into an increasingly illiberal democracy. Support these characters if you must but at least free yourself from any delusion of the peril that poses to our country and to our children.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Harper's Reign Of Terror: Star Readers Respond

Stephen Harper's attack on those charities that refuse to hew to the regime's dogma and ideology is becoming increasingly recognized for what it is: the wanton, immoral, unethical and likely illegal actions of a martinet who will brook no opposing views. Lacking even a modicum of subtlety, his purpose is to send an unequivocal message to induce a pervasive chill in nonprofits.

Yesterday, I took special delight in reading a series of letters from Toronto Star readers who are almost uniform in their condemnation of this unfit subversive who is undermining the democratic traditions of our country and the Canada Revenue Agency that is allowing this perversion to occur. I hope you will visit the Star site to read all of the letters and consider sending the link to anyone you think might benefit from the insights offered therein.

Here is but a small sampling of those letters:

There can be little doubt that the “Harper government” is indeed attempting to silence charities that have criticized its policies. This is, after all, the same government that has a long and distinguished history of viciously attacking any and all individuals or organizations that have dared to question or criticize its policies or its vision for Canada.

From Richard Colvin and our scientists to environmental charities and now PEN Canada, any and all forms of criticism of the “Harper government” have been met with a very belligerent response from the federal Conservatives.

The rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy were hard won some 70 years ago. It is distressing to witness our right to free speech and open discussion of government policies being systematically eroded.

What is even more distressing is the apparent willingness of so many Canadians to permit this to happen. As the lyric to Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi warns, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

Lyle Goodin, Bowmanville

First, it seems that only those charities that disagree with the policies of the Harper regime are the targets of these audits. I also note that the Harper government would like to force charities to reveal who there donors are, no doubt to cause them to have second thoughts about donating to certain charities.

Just last week I received a request from the CRA to submit all the charitable receipts that I claimed on my taxes. They claim that the request was made so that they could gauge their self-assessment tax system. I don’t believe them. It’s just another example of the Harper government lashing out at all those who don’t agree with the direction he is taking the country.

If my grandparents were still alive, I’m sure they would be dismayed to see that the country they came to from Eastern Europe morphing into a pale imitation of the Putin government under Stephen Harper. The only difference is that Harper hasn’t resorted to having his detractors beaten or killed. Otherwise, there is not much difference between the two.

Chester Gregorasz, Cambridge

I am not a writer — oh I do write to the Star and sometimes they honour me by publishing my thoughts on the Harper government — but I have lived in countries where this simple act that we take for granted could land a person in jail our worse.

In Canada we are not there yet but I think the motivation for censorship is the same as in these non-democratic countries where they did not have the will of the people and they knew that to stay in power it was necessary to have the silence of the people.

The Harper government does not have the will of the people therefore it follows that every dissenting voice, MPs, scientist, researchers, charities, and so on must be silenced.

So, Canadians, let’s not be silent. As for me I going to keep writing to the Star, if they will have me, because nothing says democracy louder than the printed word in a newspaper. (emphasis added)

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Mr. Harper is relentless at silencing any voice contrary to his “vision for Canada” (God help us). Statistics Canada, followed by such others as Environment Canada, government scientists and the CBC, over whom he can exercise budgetary and ministerial censorship were first. Now the voices of countless charities (and their numerous donors) with concerns and views about poverty, justice, censorship, the environment and the like are being extorted by tax audits by the Charities Directorate.

Might I suggest that people contact Revenue Canada, Charities Directorate, Compliance Division and complain about the highly partisan “charitable” activities of the Fraser Institute. Let’s see if they are measured by the same standards. I filed my complaint yesterday. (emphasis added)

Robert Thorpe, Toronto

Wouldn't Smothering Have Been More Humane?

America loves her capital punishment, she's just not very good at it. In fact, the process of state sanctioned murder has a richly deserved reputation for being barbaric and routinely botched.

As Joe Wood writhed on the executioner's gurney, Arizona prison officials realized their lethal cocktail wasn't performing as expected. The experimental combination of midazolam and hydromorphone was a failure and so, over the course of nearly two hours, executioners administered the "lethal" dose something like 15-times.

The director of Arizona's prisons department denies the execution was botched.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib