Showing posts with label #Harpocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Harpocracy. Show all posts

May 8, 2015

Bill C-51: Asking the basic questions - Why, Where, When, What, Who?

Some genuinely curious Canadians are puzzled by the vociferous and passionate opposition to Bill C-51 -- why is it so bad?  Some have read the Bill and not found anything too controversial in it.  Others have pointed to the Government making some changes in the Bill's language.  Still others have expressed their "trust" in the "goodness" of Canadian legislators and government agencies.  (For those that are THAT naive, I think just pointing out that their trust has already been repeatedly betrayed should suffice: RED FLAG!  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/eva-prkachin/cses-spying_b_6575142.html)

While definitely not exhaustive, my thoughts are summarized here to avoid repeating the same points in different forums.  I have raised some basic questions: Why? Where? When? What? Who? 


WHY? 

Or rather, why now?  Despite jumping on the US bandwagon in 2003 to go attack a country (Afghanistan) that hadn't attacked Canada, the country hasn't seen any large-scale "terrorist" incident in the last 10 years?  No mass attacks, no plane hijackings, no threats to infrastructure, etc.  Canada is not even mentioned in the threats of most terrorist groups.  The Harper government seized the excuse of a deranged gunman shooting in the Parliament.  But in a country of 30 million, a solitary shooting incident whether it is in the Parliament in Ottawa or in the Eaton Center Mall in Toronto does not become the basis for changing some very serious laws!  

It appears that Canadian lives have more of a threat from drunk driving and operating cellphones while driving than from terrorism!  Current laws have managed to thwart current terrorist threats.  And they are getting more and more invasive, with the Supreme Court opening up Canadians' cell phones to police snooping before Bill C-51 was even passed. RED FLAG!  http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2014/12/supreme-court-opens-canadian-phones-to-police-snooping.html.  So why do we need new laws? 


WHAT? 

What are the new laws preventing or targeting anyways?  If they are the nation's reaction to curb terrorism like the Ottawa shooting, how come there are no gun-control provisions in the new law?  Why not de-weaponize our cities?  Who needs a gun in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal?  Guns are made to kill.  Why should any civilian in today's civilized Canadian society be allowed to buy or possess a gun?  Wouldn't that be more effective? 


WHERE? 

Where should anti-terrorism focus be?  Terrorist threats largely originate outside of Canada.  Terrorist outfits like the Taliban and ISIS rely on weapons supplies and funding to sustain their crimes.  Why is it that new anti-terror legislation does not have a focus on foreign policy and cutting of funding and applying trade embargoes and sanctions against the financiers, funders and supporters of terrorism like Saudi Arabia?  Why is it that instead of severing ties with these terrorist regimes, Canada is busy arming them to crush their civilians' uprisings? RED FLAG!  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism.  Same story in Egypt. http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/canada-backs-violent-military-regime-egypt/33004  Why is our counter-terrorism policy's focus so "inward" looking?  How come the larger global perspective is completely ignored in the counter-terrorism narrative? 


WHEN? 

When did "counter-terrorism" legislation start?  The attacks against the parliament happened in 2014.  However, as this writer pointed out in an earlier post RED FLAG!  (http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2012/06/next-stop-canadian-government-to.html), 3 years ago in 2012 the Canadian government established a "counter-terrorism" unit to protect Canada's "energy" industry.  The only threat at that time to Big Oil's infrastructure was from the aboriginals / First Nations opposing pipeline projects and threatening even physical disruptions if the pipelines crossed their lands, disrupting their lives.  So is counter-terrorism merely an extension of the Canadian government's services as private security guards for the Big Oil industry, as observed in the arrests of Burnaby Mountain protesters against the Kinder Morgan pipeline? RED FLAG!  http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/david-suzuki-burnaby-mountain-support-kinder-morgan-protest. This becomes even more dodgy when seen in conjunction with the Canadian government's muzzling of environment science. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/20/stephen-harper-science-research_n_6019806.html


WHO? 

Who defines a "terrorist"?  A casual reading of any anti-terror law or bill would obviously seem innocuous because who wants any leniency for "terrorists"?  But WHO defines a terrorist?  As pointed above, in 2012 the counter-terrorism threat was focusing on First Nations.  Tomorrow it might focus on environmental activists like GreenPeace.  Next, it might focus on protesters like the Occupy movement, the G20 Summit protests in Toronto or other civilian protests.  If the gunman who attacked the Parliament in Ottawa cited Star Wars or a Hollywood movie like "Enemy of the State" as his inspiration, would he be a terrorist?  If he cited a deranged reading of a religion as his inspiration, is he a terrorist?  It becomes even scarier when our Defence Minister cannot define or does not even bother to define it and instead directs inquirers to "look it up" -- as in laws should rely on Google or Wikipedia's (or worse, Urban Dictionary's!) definition of terrorism?! RED FLAG!  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-skirts-debate-on-definition-of-terrorism-look-it-up-1.2961934  This is highly problematic as it leaves it open to the interpretation and creates a deliberate vagueness that governments and nefarious politicians can exploit to their advantage to silence dissent and legitimate protests. RED FLAG!   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/anti-terrorism-bill-will-unleash-csis-on-a-lot-more-than-terrorists/article22821691/

Jan 24, 2015

Democratic Hypocrates grieve Saudi Dictator's death / riddance?

Mainstream news coverage of the Saudi Dictator's demise shows disgustingly low journalism standards. Consider this article by New York Times that mentions 2 contradictory statements without clarifying for its readers how this can be possible?
"[Abdullah] in at least two telephone calls CASTIGATED President Obama for encouraging democracy in the Middle East, saying it was dangerous."
"I always valued King Abdullah's perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship” President Obama said. 
FRIENDSHIP?!  Sounds more like a sadomasochist Master/slave relationship!  Perhaps best illustrated by this spoof photo mocking Obama's deferential low bow when meeting the dictator! 

Barack Obama bows down to a brutal dictator


Civilian Uprisings or Insurgencies?

But that was not all.  NY Times conveniently skipped details of the Dictator's "SWIFT REACTION" when mentioning the civilian uprisings:
"When popular movements and insurgencies overthrew or threatened long-established Arab rulers from Tunisia to Yemen in 2011, Abdullah reacted swiftly." 
The fact that the article uses the word "INSURGENCIES" for the famed "Arab Spring" civilian protests and uprisings is shameful in itself!  "Rulers" conveniently replaces "Dictators" and "Kings" in this forgetful look back at recent history! 

Why is New York Times kissing up to the Saudi dictator?  Or is it simply following George Bush's presidential tradition? 


George Bush kissing a brutal dictator

Saudi Dictator's Legacy

Such is the disgusting legacy of the Saudi dictator that even in NY Times' "respectful" eulogy, one can find some interesting facts about this "genuine" friend of US Presidents. 

Here is a sprinkling of some facts mentioned even in this flattering article: 

  • Abdullah considered democracy "dangerous"
  • He was a war-monger, urging USA to attack Iran to "cut off the snake's head"
  • His kingdom outlaws the practice of any other religion other than Wahhabi Islam
  • His pet religious puppet cleric passed a verdict declaring street protests illegal
  • He sent tanks to crush a civillian uprising in a neighbouring country (dictatorship of Bahrain)
  • Women in his kingdom are arrested or beaten up by police for not covering up completely
  • His kingdom postponed voting rights for women


The Big Question?

What are Canadian, American and British "leaders" doing kissing Saudi ass?  Why are the champions of democracy, free speech and women's rights cozying up to brutal dictators who crush and suppress their civilians and hate democracy??


 













Dec 14, 2014

Supreme Court opens Canadians' cell phones to police snooping

Watching "RoseWater" last night, I was disgusted that Canadian police have the same powers as Iranian police to snoop into citizens' personal lives without a warrant.  Canadians' cell phones - and their lives -- are now open to the police for snooping, without needing a warrant.  4 judges, 3 of whom were appointed by the conservative Harpocracy of Stephen Harper, gave these broad snooping powers to the police.  

My first reaction on reading the news was: "It is bizarre that 4 people, whose average age is greater than 65 years, can pass landmark judgments without demonstrating that they fully understand the power of the technology that is a cellphone"!  And nobody can do anything about their opinion! 

Firsty let's get the lingo right...  

A "Cell phone" is NOT just a phone today.  

  • It is a computer.
  • It is a repository of private documents.  
  • It is the family photo album.  
  • It is where 80% of all your private conversations happen and are stored. 
  • It is an instrument for activists in a democracy, planning and expressing their dissent.
  • It also is a window into private conversations that your co-workers, professional networks, friends, lovers and relatives have with you -- or with others! 
  • It is also a library of books that you choose to read.
  • It is also your collection of movies and videos you watch.
  • It is a geographical history of your physical movement, places you have been to, businesses you have visited. 
In short, what is left of my private life that is NOT open to a cop that chooses to arrest me?  This is another step towards turning Canada into a police state where a cop can arrest and snoop through all my personal and private data to find more information to use against me.  

I don't feel safe knowing that my political intentions, ambitions and dissenting views (like this one) can be made visible to any policeman without a warrant?  Specially at a time when Americans and Canadians are horrified by police brutality and high-handedness, as evidenced by the widespread protests in the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner!    



Ridiculous Conditions don't make citizens feel safer! 


Of course the judiciary in their finely age wisdom didn't just give police access to your lives willy nilly without any checks and balances?  Here are a few checks: 
  • The arrest has to be lawful. (And who gets to decide that on the spot? Let me see, my name is Officer Snoopyreach and I am scratching my head thinking whether this arrest I am making is lawful or not so I am not sure if I want to go through your phone to see if I can find a reason to claim it is lawful?!)
  • The search of the phone must be made promptly.  (Great, so now the first thing a cop MUST do is search through my phone immediately on arresting me because as time goes by, they would not be able to find that precious incriminating evidence that my Facebook and email would provide?)
  • The police don't have a license to just "rummage around the device at will".  (But how are you policing that? What is to prevent a cop who has forced open his way into a cell phone to not click on that tempting "Private Docs" app?).
  • Police must take detailed notes of what private information they looked at and for how long.  (Great! I can imagine a cop taking copious notes like "Errr, went through John's porn collection and stared at the image of a dominatrix whipping a judge for 30 seconds before I orgasmed"). 
While I watch in amusement people freak out every time Facebook and Instagram update their privacy terms, Clueless Canadians will not utter a peep that any copy on the street can arrest them and search through their most private data and life events without a warrant!  

Laws like these are ridiculous not just because they encourage police high-handedness and make activists, demonstrators and dissenters feel unsafe -- they also take away the moral legitimacy for the Canadian government to speak out against censorship, privacy intrusions and snooping by countries like Iran and Israel). 

D'oh Canada! Our privacy stands unguarded and open to thee! 


 

Jun 21, 2014

World Cup fever masks Canadian Government's sickness

The timing of Harper's government's announcement of approving the Northern
Gateway pipeline could not have been more sneaky!  It was probably counting on World Cup fever to hide Canada's sick policies.  While ignorant Canadians blare the horns of their flag-draped cars to celebrate the soccer victory of some remote country in Europe and get high on that opium for the masses (TV), Canada moves to approve the Northern Gateway. 


In some parts of the world, this would result in militancy and armed resistance by civilian militias -- which one hopes is the path that ultimately the First Nations will consider if all else fails.  

But for now, apathetic Canadians will just order that 4th beer on the patio.  At least we have a government that we deserve - lacking complete transparency and integrity.  
 

Jan 2, 2014

Dirty Oil Spills: Coming soon to a neighbourhood in BC...

While Canadian citizens were busy posting cutesy pics of their cats and nauseating selfies from Boxing Day sales lineups, Stephen Harper's Joint Review Panel sneaked in the green light for the Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline project.  I guess a democracy is only as good as its citizens.

Ironically, in the same week, images of the North Dakota oil spill appeared.  Surprisingly, when you type in "North Dakota oil spill" in Google Image Search, the first 75 pictures that come up do not show you any of those scary images of mushrooming fireballs exploding in the air -- like the one below: 
Oil spill in North Dakota, Dec. 2013

For me, David Suzuki's comments are the perfect thought-provoking summary: 
"Coastal native communities are desperate for economic development. They need jobs, they tell us that every time...So the economy is very important to them.  That's why their unified opposition to Northern Gateway is all the more striking.
They're telling us some things are simply more important than money, and no one is getting that."
Ha!  Try telling that to a nation obsessed with consumption and Boxing day sales. 

Dec 10, 2012

Harpocracy: PM wants to stop bad business by doing it one more time


Stephen Harper acknowledges there is a bad trend of China taking over oil sands and that it has to stop -- except he will stop it by doing it one MORE time? Harpocracy, anyone?

At least he finally acknowledges what I pointed out in my first blog post earlier this year that the flow of foreign money in the tar sands is disturbing and cannot be in Canada's best interest. 

Yet all this "strict, tough-talk" can be ignored as just green-washing because he went ahead and authorized another $15 billion buyout of Canada's tar sands. 


Harpocracy - Yes, let's stop it, by doing it once more






 

Nov 7, 2012

Canadians are a funny people who deserve a Harpocracy.

Now only if all the Canadians rooting for Obama like crazy could take only about HALF as much interest in their OWN elections - and VOTE, our cities wont have to suffer Rob Ford and Stephen Harper won't be auctioning away Aboriginal & environmental rights to China, without subjecting China to litigation in Canadian courts.  How many Canadian Obamaphiles know what Harper signed on Oct. 31??

Yet, everyone knows why Obama is great for USA! Oh Canada! For how long would you fight other people's wars and take more interest in your neighbours' politics than your own Harpocracy?

It is cute to see you get all excited about some Prince getting married in UK and "no change" in government in USA.  But when you snap out of your euphoria, you may want to put out some fires in your backyard.

 

Jun 26, 2012

Harpocracy: Shell wants nuclear power in Canadian tar sands while Germany goes Nuclear free

Another example of how Harpocracy allows the Canadian energy sector to act ridiculously: while post-Fukushima Germany is shutting down nuclear plants to go nuclear-free and leveraging solar energy to consume less non-renewable energy resources, meeting 50% of national demand on a weekend from solar, Shell is suggesting using nuclear power in Canada -- keep reading, it gets better -- to extract tar sands oil.  This coming from Shell with a tarnished track record of massive oil leaks in Nigeria and in the North Sea in UK waters.

Using nuclear power to extract tar sands oil which is already taxing the environment with higher emissions -- can ethical oil get any dirtier?  Is this a breakdown of sensible Economics?  Spending dirty energy to find more dirty energy?  Sounds like a vicious cycle!!

In 50 years, would the world look back at Canada's short-sighted policies scornfully? 

Feb 11, 2012

Harpocracy - PM blasts foreign money, welcomes Chinese money in oil sands


How can our PM, in the same breath, denounce foreign money pouring into oil sands while inviting Chinese "investment" in the oil sands? 

How can our PM blast environmentalists as "radicals" but then throw his radical support behind the Northern Gateway pipeline, "vowing" to ensure its completion, while an "independent" review panel is still assessing the environmental impact.  How independent can those bureaucrats feel, when the Primer Minister is a party, aggressively attacking and crushing all opposition to the pipeline?

Yes, crushing all opposition to the pipeline and trampling on First Nations' rights while preaching free speech in China?  I am embarrassed and offended.  Canadians deserve a slightly smarter, less "ethical" government.