Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts

Sunday, March 20, 2011


As you may know, Afghan writer and activist Malalai Joya has been denied entry to the US. Joya opposes the Western occupation of her country, and with a clear majority of USians now opposing the war in Afghanistan, those who profit from the occupation want to prevent her injecting public opinion with facts and motivation.

I saw Joya speak - report here and here - and I know the peace movement in the United States needs her.

When Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's flunky stupidly declared former UK MP George Galloway "inadmissible" to Canada, the ensuing publicity for Galloway's tour became Jason Kenney's nightmare. Eventually that nightmare ended up in court, and Galloway is now a regular guest of peace activists in Canada. I hope the US peace movement will get behind Joya's visit in a similar way. [For details on that, click on the wmtc category "george galloway in canada".]

United for Peace and Justice, the umbrella coalition of 1,400 US anti-war groups, has four ways you can help.

1. Have your elected representatives sign onto a letter urging the US Embassy to reconsider their decision.

Six Congresspeople and three Senators have sent such a letter, which is posted at here and here.

Ask your Senator or Representative to send a similar letter as soon as possible.

2. Sign an online petition demanding Malalai Joya be granted a visa to the US.

Click here to sign the petition.

Share the petition on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, email.

3. Attend one of the many events organized for Malalai around the country.

Whether Joya is allowed to enter the US or not, the events will go on as scheduled, with Joya appearing either live or by video. Transform these events into declarations of your right to free speech and free association.

Tour details here.

4. Demand media coverage of Malalai's visa denial.

Contact local and national media, urge them to cover Malalai Joya's visa exclusion. The denial of a visa to Afghanistan's most intrepid and well known feminist should make headlines! See the Afghan Women's Mission's media release for details.

And I'll add number 5: share this post.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

This is painful to watch, and important.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Here's a brilliant and inspiring video from "Democracy Now!", bringing you inside the Wisconsin State Capitol.



These are thrilling times, watching people all over the world discover their voices and their power.

How 'bout it, Canada?
Last night's news from Wisconsin was the best yet. Governor Scott Walker ordered the capitol building cleared of sleeping bags, saying he would close the building for the weekend. Police said: No.

The union representing Wisconsin's police officers issued this statement (click to enlarge):


Law enforcement officers know the difference between right and wrong, and Governor Walker's attempt to eliminate the collective voice of Wisconsin's devoted public employees is wrong. That is why we have stood with our fellow employees each day and why we will be sleeping among them tonight.

When police officers recognize that they have more in common with other workers than with the state whose edicts they are asked to carry out, we are really onto something. These cops are the civilian equivalent of war resisters. More power to them!

Friday, February 25, 2011

One of the more interesting ideas I've encountered at the iSchool is questioning why internet access is controlled through private corporations.

Broadband internet access is now a necessity, but we must pay private, for-profit services for access. From the start, internet access could have been fashioned as a public utility, much the way access to water and electricity is, or - depending on where you live - should be. If our governments were more interested in public access (democracy) than in corporate access (free-market capitalism), it might be. Much as been written and said about this (a sample of the issues can be heard in this debate on NPR); I mention it only to note that the concept was new to me, and immediately made perfect sense.

Expensive monthly fees for broadband access is only one of many roots of the digital divide, the chasm that separates the internet-literate haves from the internet-illiterate have-nots, but it's an important one. The digital divide is often conceived of solely in terms of access, such as in the Wikipedia definition, but many other issues factor into confidence in a digital environment - age, education, job status, gender, language skills, and others.

The idea that internet access should be free from dovetails with our desire to free the internet of censorship and either government or corporate control. Many of us use free platforms like Blogger or Facebook without a second thought as to who controls these applications. When we do think about it, we generally shudder or shake our heads, then go back to the same platforms. That's what we know and that's where our friends - and our information - are. Again, this is a huge topic that I'm not tackling here. But I do want to highlight what one person is suggesting as an alternative.

Meet The Freedom Box.
Decentralizing the Internet So Big Brother Can’t Find You

By Jim Dwyer [ed note: hooray for Jim Dwyer, excellent progressive writer]

On Tuesday afternoon, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke in Washington about the Internet and human liberty, a Columbia law professor in Manhattan, Eben Moglen, was putting together a shopping list to rebuild the Internet — this time, without governments and big companies able to watch every twitch of our fingers.

The list begins with “cheap, small, low-power plug servers,” Mr. Moglen said. “A small device the size of a cellphone charger, running on a low-power chip. You plug it into the wall and forget about it.”

Almost anyone could have one of these tiny servers, which are now produced for limited purposes but could be adapted to a full range of Internet applications, he said.

“They will get very cheap, very quick,” Mr. Moglen said. “They’re $99; they will go to $69. Once everyone is getting them, they will cost $29.”

The missing ingredients are software packages, which are available at no cost but have to be made easy to use. “You would have a whole system with privacy and security built in for the civil world we are living in,” he said. “It stores everything you care about.”

Put free software into the little plug server in the wall, and you would have a Freedom Box that would decentralize information and power, Mr. Moglen said. This month, he created the Freedom Box Foundation to organize the software.

“We have to aim our engineering more directly at politics now,” he said. “What has happened in Egypt is enormously inspiring, but the Egyptian state was late to the attempt to control the Net and not ready to be as remorseless as it could have been.”

. . .

In the first days of the personal computer era, many scoffed at the idea that free software could have an important place in the modern world. Today, it is the digital genome for millions of phones, printers, cameras, MP3 players, televisions, the Pentagon, the New York Stock Exchange and the computers that underpin Google’s empire.

This month, Mr. Moglen, who now runs the Software Freedom Law Center, spoke to a convention of 2,000 free-software programmers in Brussels, urging them to get to work on the Freedom Box.

Social networking has changed the balance of political power, he said, “but everything we know about technology tells us that the current forms of social network communication, despite their enormous current value for politics, are also intensely dangerous to use. They are too centralized; they are too vulnerable to state retaliation and control.”

In January, investors were said to have put a value of about $50 billion on Facebook, the social network founded by Mark Zuckerberg. If revolutions for freedom rest on the shoulders of Facebook, Mr. Moglen said, the revolutionaries will have to count on individuals who have huge stakes in keeping the powerful happy.

“It is not hard, when everybody is just in one big database controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg, to decapitate a revolution by sending an order to Mr. Zuckerberg that he cannot afford to refuse,” Mr. Moglen said.

By contrast, with tens of thousands of individual encrypted servers, there would be no one place where a repressive government could find out who was publishing or reading “subversive” material. . . .

The decentralized social network platform Diaspora was conceived in response to an earlier talk by Moglen. Now he's trying to raise half a million dollars to get The Freedom Box off the ground. Read it here.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

On Saturday, February 19, Zimbabwean police raided a meeting of the International Socialist Organisation. 52 people were arrested - students, union members and workers - and are still being detained at Harare Central prison. Please see below for how you can help.

The Central Intelligence Organisation infiltrated the meeting, where people were discussing the events in the Middle East and the fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Munyaradzi Gwisai, the director of the Labour Law Center, is among those detained.

The most recent report is that none have been released and that they are being charged with treason. This is a very serious charge that carries the death penalty.

This directly from Ashley Fataar, Claire Ceruti and Shone Igene of the group Keep Left, South Africa:
Our contact went to court this afternoon. All 52 were at court an hour before the Magistrate arrived. The prosecutor looked surprised that the Magistrate – and the lawyers for the accused – wanted the comrades to appear in the court. It took ages before everyone was brought in, and named, and accounted for.

Meanwhile, the prosecution had sprung new charges on the accused at the last minute – the lawyers for the accused weren’t even aware of them until they all got to court. The extra charge is Treason. The first charge of "Plotting to subvert the government through unconstitutional means" is now just the back-up charge.

Having had all the charges read out to them, at least five did not understand what they were being charged for, understandably. So the Magistrate ordered all the 52 to report back tomorrow (Thursday). They are now spending their fifth night in jail.

After the case was adjourned, the women prisoners were then handcuffed and had leg irons placed on them. They have been taken to the maximum security jail called Chikurubi on the outskirts of Harare. Lawyers have still been denied access to them to explain what they are being charged for.

These are simply delaying tactics to deny the comrades their freedom. What they are being charged for means that the case will have to go to the High Court - a further delay as more papers get prepared.

We are asking comrades to also organise protests outside their nearest Zimbabwean embassy as a matter of urgency, where possible.

What you can do:

1. Call the Zimbabwe Embassy in Ottawa. It doesn’t matter what time of day; leave a message). 613.421.2824 For speaking notes, see sample letter, below.

2. Send an email.

Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Ottawa, Ontario: visa@zimottawa.com
Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe in London, England: zimlondon@yahoo.co.uk
Please cc: ashley_fataar@yahoo.co.uk, shanthabloemen@gmail.com, socialismfrombelow@gmail.com

Please also cc your own Member of Parliament.

Here's a sample letter, to modify as you see fit:

To: The Ambassadors of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Ottawa, Canada & London, England
Ms. Florence Zano Chideya
Mr. Gabriel Mharadze Machinga

I am writing to demand that your government drop the charges of "treason" against those who met to discuss current events in Northern Africa. It is appalling that on February 20, over 50 people who were participating in an academic debate were arrested, beaten, and charged with treason. This form of repression is unacceptable in any democracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights that must be respected.

I understand that those arrested are being held in Harare Central prison. I also understand that among those arrested is Munyaradzi Gwisai, the director of the Labour Law Center and a former elected Member of Parliament. I am calling on your government to drop all charges and release all detainees immediately.

I have copied my own Member of Parliament, [add the name of your MP here].

Canadians are demanding that all charges are dropped immediately, and that every person arrested on Saturday is released quickly, without further harm and without retribution.

Sincerely,

[your name, your city], Canada

For more information:

Socialist Worker UK

New York Times

Toronto Sun

AP

In Ottawa, there will be a small picket at the Zimbabwe Embassy. More details to follow. You can email me for information.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Scott Walker, the embattled union-busting Governor of Wisconsin, had a little chat with his favourite ultra-rightwing financier, David Koch. Or so he thought. From AMERICAblog:
Last night, the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, delivered an address to the people of his state. But, yesterday, Walker also got on the phone with someone who really matters to him - billionaire GOP activist David Koch, who is behind much of what is happening in Wisconsin, but also funds far-right GOP activism nationwide. Well, that's who Walker thought he was talking to. . . . .

Ian Murphy, a blogger at Buffalo Beast, managed to talk to Governor Scott Walker by pretending to be Koch. . . . [Ed note: the Buffalo Beast site is down. The post, called "Koch Whore", should be here. The call has been confirmed by the governor's office.]

More details from the call are emerging - Greg Sargent at the Washington Post has a few:

* Walker doesn't bat an eye when Koch describes the opposition as "Democrat bastards."

* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.

* Walker says he's sending out notices next week to some five or six thousand state workers letting them know that they are "at risk" of layoffs. "Beautiful, beautiful," the Koch impersonator replies. "You gotta crush that union."

Listen so you'll know that Walker really is one of Koch's minions. And, this is about crushing unions and workers. In fact, you'll hear Governor Walker admit that he "thought about" it when fake Koch suggested the idea of "planting some troublemakers" among the protesters in Madison. Were they going to come in on horses and camels?

AMERICAblog has the audio and the transcript: here, and scroll down.

Walker's frank talk is small potatoes compared to the deputy attorney general of Indiana calling for the Wisconsion protesters to be massacred. From Mother Jones:
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building­ - something that didn't end up happening­ - one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was [Jeff Cox], a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.

Cox says liberals hate police, but it looks like this legal eagle isn't too keen on the US Constitution, with all those guarantees of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and all that silly stuff. And a man advocating the use of deadly force against peaceful protesters is calling those protesters "thugs". Project much?

Update from Mother Jones:
Update: The Indiana attorney general's office has confirmed to Mother Jones that Jeff Cox was terminated Wednesday. The full statement and screen captures of the now-defunct blog re posted here.

Both items with thanks to James.

Sunday, February 20, 2011


This week is Freedom To Read Week, the Canadian cousin of the ALA's Banned Books Week. FTRW is sponsored by the Freedom of Expression Committee of the Book and Periodical Council. They say:
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right of all Canadians, and freedom to read is part of that precious heritage. Our Committee, representing member organizations and associations of the Book and Periodical Council, reaffirms its support of this vital principle and opposes all efforts to suppress writing and silence writers. Words and images in their myriad configurations are the substance of free expression.

The freedom to choose what we read does not, however, include the freedom to choose for others. We accept that courts alone have the authority to restrict reading material, a prerogative that cannot be delegated or appropriated. Prior restraint demeans individual responsibility; it is anathema to freedom and democracy.

As writers, editors, publishers, book manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and librarians, we abhor arbitrary interpretations of the law and other attempts to limit freedom of expression. We recognize court judgments; otherwise, we oppose the detention, seizure, destruction, or banning of books and periodicals – indeed, any effort to deny, repress, or sanitize. Censorship does not protect society; it smothers creativity and precludes open debate of controversial issues.


This year, FTRW has teamed up with BookCrossing to create Free A Challenged Book.

I hope you're familiar with BookCrossing, the amazing website that helps you share books and connect with book lovers all over the world. If you don't, please go here and read about it right now!

Free A Challenged Book is a special kind of BookCrossing.
Most Canadians probably don't even realize that on their own shelves sit challenged books. During Freedom to Read Week, your mission is to release challenged books all across Canada — on park benches, in coffee shops and in schools — as a way to mimic how challenged books are passed around, and to spread the word about challenged and banned books in Canada.

The Freedom of Expression Committee invites you to find a title you care about from our list of challenged literature and release it into your community. Perhaps your book will be picked up by someone in your community or maybe even by a foreign exchange student who will release it in another country — that's the beauty of this project and our hope for your freed book.

Interested? Here's how to get started...

1. Find a title from your own bookshelf that appears on our list of Challenged Books.

Here are just a few examples of books that have been challenged in Canada:
* Margaret Laurence, The Diviners
* J.D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye
* Rosamund Elwin, Asha's Mums
* Alice Munro, Lives of Girls and Women
* Elizabeth Laird, A Little Piece of Ground
* Mordecai Richler, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz
* John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men
* Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
* J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter
* Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn
* Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale
* more books...

2. Tag it with our handy book label.

3. Follow the link to BookCrossing.com and register the book.

4. Release the book into your community.

5. Log on to the BookCrossing website often to see who finds your book and what they think about freedom of expression.

More about my own Freedom To Read Week soon.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed a new border "security" agreement with the United States. Completed without public input or Parliamentary debate, the agreement aims to bring Canada's security "in line with" - read, under - US policy.

In Parliament, Bill C-42 - the Public Safety Act, or An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act - would seal the deal at home, putting Canada's airspace under US control, too.

When the "no deep integration" cry was making the rounds of the Canadian blogosphere some years back, I didn't bite. (Some old posts here and here.) The fear of the US taking over Canada has a long and often well-founded history, but it seemed to me hyperbolic to claim that a trade deal would lead to Canada becoming the 51st state.

There are many reasons to oppose so-called "free" trade deals: they are usually free of labour laws and environmental protections, and they free your community of decent jobs. They are generally enacted without public consultation or debate - that is, outside of any kind of democratic structure - by governments more concerned with corporate profits than the people they supposedly serve.

But the language surrounding "no deep integration" seemed to me based more on fear than on reality. Take, for example, the "North American superhighway". Depending on who you ask, this would lead to Mexico taking over the US, or the US taking over Canada. In reality, it was a change in tariff and border laws on highways that already exist. What's more, I had only recently emigrated to Canada, and the nationalist tone of the "no deep integration" campaign struck a sour note for me.

But hyperbole and nationalism aside, I know a raw deal when I see one. And I know a Canadian Prime Minister who is a lackey to the US when I see one, too.

First, from the Council of Canadians.
Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consulting Canadians or Parliament

Late Friday afternoon, Prime Minster Stephen Harper announced he had unilaterally signed a deal with the United States government that some pundits have said is larger in scope than NAFTA.

The security perimeter deal, which Harper touted as being needed to further ease trade restrictions between the two countries, states that Canadian and U.S. governments will work “together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries” to toughen security and promote trade.

In his comments following the announcement, Prime Minister Harper said the border plan is intended to “keep out terrorists and criminals,” “simplify regulations that hinder trade,” create “consistent inspection measures,” and to have “better management of our border” but not eliminate it.

The Council of Canadians has spoken out against this deal, which was reportedly negotiated in secret for six months with involvement from business groups, but not Parliament or public interest groups. While concrete details about the deal have been sparse, many concerns have already been raised about the implications of sharing security information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the loss of sovereignty and trade-offs made to come to this agreement, and the degree to which any of the common measures being discussed will address the so-called “thickening” of the border.

"We've gone down this road before – it was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership – and North Americans rejected it," said Stuart Trew, Trade Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Harper government must disclose what terms it is negotiating with the Americans and open it to public and parliamentary scrutiny."

And on C-42, from Maclean's:
Please Uncle Sam, May We Enter Your Airspace?

We knew it was coming, but the way it’s being done is upsetting opposition politicians – not to mention raising a few ethical questions. As Canwest News Service reported this week, the federal government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who can board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly through United States airspace – even though they are not landing in the U.S.

Bill C-42 allows airlines to pass on passenger information to “a foreign state” for flights over that country. The legislation is needed so that Canadian airlines comply with U.S. Homeland Security’s Secure Flight program, which requires airlines to submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight’s departure. If the bill passes, passengers leaving Canada on one of the many flights that travel over U.S. airspace will have their name, birth date and gender subject to screening by U.S. officials. If you have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, you may be questioned, delayed or even barred from the flight. If your name doesn’t show up, you get your boarding pass.

Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe said Bill C-42 was introduced with no warning and no discussion with the opposition. Together, the opposition parties could vote down the legislation – a situation that could cause turmoil for air travel. “Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window,” Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent interview. “You are going to be subject to American law.” NDP transport critic Dennis Bevington told Canwest that “We’re doing this without understanding what the threat assessment is. There’s no way that this is going to get an easy ride.”

Public outcry has killed bills and deals like this before. Here are a few actions you can take to add your voice.

* Sign a letter to Stephen Harper at the Council of Canadians website.

* Read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's response to amendments to Bill C-42. The amendments don't go far enough: the bill must be killed.

* Write to your MP opposing Bill C-42. Find your MP by entering your postal code here (scroll down).

* Educate your friends and colleagues about Bill C-42. Email the Council of Canadians link asking people to sign the letter.

* Get rid of this *&@#$! government!

Friday, January 7, 2011


The only thing that scares me more than the fascist shift are all the sheeple who willingly march to the bleat.

In December, Claire Hirschkind, a 56-year-old rape survivor who has a type of pacemaker implant, was arrested and banned from an airport for refusing to submit to having her breasts handled by a stranger. Emphasis mine.
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.

"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.

Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.

"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.

When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."

An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.

Other travelers KVUE talked to say they empathize with Hirschkind, but the law is the law.

"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.

"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.

Claire Hirschkind being sexually assaulted is "for our own protection" and "makes me feel a little safer". I keep reading and re-reading these words, marveling at how thoroughly brainwashed USians are, how perfectly their government has instilled fear in their hearts, how weak, compliant and complicit in their own oppression they have become.

Speaking of sheep, have you heard about this? A Christian cult called Cadets For Christ is operating within the United States Air Force. Cadets for Christ is part of the "shepherding" movement, which teaches that females are sheep, males are shepherds, and you do the math. Go read Ed Brayton, with links to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and HuffPo.

I was a bit suspicious when I read the family name of the people who have gone public about their daughter's brainwashing: they are Peter and Jean Baas. But this has been documented for at least a year. It is not a hoax.

Thanks to James for sending. I couldn't resist the juxtaposition of these various ruminants.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Columnist Rosie DiManno has intelligently and independently told the truth about police violence at the G20 summit (see my posts here, here and here). So I'll let DiManno begin for me, writing about the arrest of one police officer in the assault of Adam Nobody.
And then there was . . . well, just the one.

Out of all the police officers behaving badly during the G20 protests — swinging batons recklessly, kicking, punching — a single cop was charged on Tuesday by the Special Investigations Unit.

Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani — you da man.

Assault with a weapon is the charge.

Perhaps somewhat unfairly, Andalib-Goortani is the only law enforcement member to wear the scandal of overzealous and allegedly criminal protester-pounding from that chaotic week last June.

He made the mistake of lifting his face-shield, which rather defeated the purpose of removing his epaulet badge number. In videotape obtained by the Star, Andalib-Goortani is clearly recognizable — Mr. Policeman with a Goatee. It was this footage, which the Star publicized nearly two weeks ago, that helped SIU investigators put a name to a face.

You’re welcome.

But just the one name and just the one face, despite a veritable deluge of videos and still photographs that was offered by the public after SIU director Ian Scott had originally claimed there was insufficient evidence to lay charges in the most notorious police pile-on incident — the tackling of Adam Nobody, a man who insists he was beaten not once, but twice, the second time around by plainclothes officers behind some police vans, a purported assault that was apparently not captured by any probing candid camera, if it indeed occurred.

Public, take a bow. If not for the unwillingness of ordinary citizens to let this matter alone, to simply accept the SIU’s frustrated and no-outcome investigation, to stand down when Police Chief Bill Blair stood up and ridiculed the veracity of earlier videotape evidence, to go along with that absurd applause-applause commendation that city council invested on police for their handling of the G20 clashes — this result, however small, would likely have never come to pass. [Read more here.]

This is all true, but it is also horribly inadequate. It took an enormous public outcry to achieve a paltry, token result. This is the way learned helplessness sets in: people see their efforts accomplish nothing or very little, so they don't bother speaking out.

Let's not forget the larger picture. The G20 itself is an undemocratic body whose autocratic decisions benefit a privatized economy to the extreme detriment of the public good. The "security" of their meetings was used as an excuse to grossly curtail basic civil liberties and to violate basic human rights. When citizens peacefully challenged both the G20 agenda and their self-appointed "right" to fashion the economy for the benefit of the few, they were brutally repressed. And when even greater numbers of citizens spoke out against that repression, they were given a token result.

We shouldn't settle for this. We must renew our calls for a full public inquiry. There will be a rally at Queen's Park in Toronto on January 8, 2011, but Canadians all over the country can and should get involved.

To stay updated, join the Facebook group Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 or follow the group on Twitter.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Earlier this year - and more than once - I promised to upload the documents submitted by the applicants (our side) in the suit against the federal government for refusing to allow George Galloway into Canada. Finally, for those interested, here they are:

• the brief itself, and

• the timeline of the email chain between CIC and CBSA, which the government sent to the applicants by mistake!, but which the court ruled could not be suppressed.

They open as read-only Word documents. Sorry for the delay, and enjoy.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Please read this excellent column by Linda McQuaig, which ran in yesterday's Toronto Star:
In the aftermath of the G20 fiasco here last summer, one thing Torontonians agreed on was that such summits should be held in isolated venues — on military bases, on ocean-going vessels, on melting glaciers — anywhere but where lots of people reside.

But beyond being upset with the expense and disorder that weekend, many Torontonians (and city council) sided with the police, assuming that the arrest of 1,105 people must have somehow been justified, given the rampage of a small group through the downtown core.

What is now unmistakably clear — with the release of a searing report by Ontario Ombudsman André Marin and startling new video evidence of police beatings obtained by the Star’s Rosie DiManno — is that the vast powers of the state were unjustifiably used against thousands of innocent protesters, as well as against others doing nothing more subversive than riding a bike or picking up groceries.

Unbeknownst to citizens who had gathered for a peaceful march through downtown Toronto — similar to marches frequently held without incident in the city — the provincial cabinet had resurrected police powers from the 70-year-old Public Works Protection Act, enacted when the country was at war with Nazi Germany.

This, according to Marin, triggered "extravagant police authority" which the police went on to exercise outside the intended area, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and detention far from the G20, and creating "the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history."

If one were trying to dream up scenarios of overarching police powers, it would be hard to invent anything more lurid than the real-life tale of police yanking the prosthetic leg off 57-year-old Revenue Canada employee John Pruyn, after he was unable to move quickly enough from the designated Queen's Park "speech area" where he was sitting with his daughter.

The war measures powers only compounded the problem created by the massive police presence assembled by the federal government. Harry Glasbeek, professor emeritus at Osgoode Hall Law School, notes that, with almost 20,000 police to monitor some 10,000 demonstrators, there were two "guardians of the peace" for every unarmed demonstrator.

All this not only alerts us to the dangers of creeping authoritarianism, but amounts to a vindication of the demonstrators, who were often dismissed as troublemakers.

On the contrary, we need more these sorts of citizens, who take seriously the notion that dissent is essential to freedom, because it keeps political leaders in check.

Indeed, while police were arresting the one-legged man on the lawn at Queen’s Park, a few kilometres away the G20 leaders were quietly scrapping a proposed tax on financial speculation, promoting an agenda of austerity, and generally assuring that the horrendous costs of the financial crisis would be paid for by the world’s citizens — not by the banks that brought it on.

The important role of protesters — so well appreciated by iconic Western thinkers like John Stuart Mill — is denigrated these days, perhaps because it fits uneasily with our society’s narrative about everyone being driven purely by greed and self-interest.

We seem to have trouble understanding people willing to spend hours marching in protests without the slightest prospect of personal gain, just a commitment to justice.

Instead, oddly, we accept as normal governments that squander $1 billion on "security," turning the country’s largest city into a pseudo war zone and locking up hundreds of its finest citizens.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

From Avaaz:
The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this week!

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

Sign the Petition here.

Sources: [from Avaaz]

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)

WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists (PC World)

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)

Sign the petition here.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Imagine how bad, how blatant, how incontrovertible, the evidence must be: Rosie DiManno agrees with us.
Sorry chief — truly I am — but sorry just isn’t good enough.

A man of integrity, which Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is, would at least offer to resign.

And a police services board that has the authority to hire and fire this city’s top cop — no one else can do that — should think seriously about terminating Blair’s renewed contract.

Some professionals, because of the power they wield and all the moral heft they carry in our society, don’t have the luxury of being so profoundly wrong or misguided.

It is not simply about taking the blame for the misdeeds of others — officers who answer ultimately to their chief through the chain of command — because the buck stops in that brass-and-braid invested office.

It’s about acknowledging one’s own misjudgments, statements and actions (or inactions) that have brought law enforcement into disrepute, from the top down.

Blair is neither a private citizen nor a talk-radio loudmouth, a defence lawyer who can stand on the courthouse steps and spew nonsense or a bloviating politician. He’s our No. 1 cop. His is the face of law, order and probity.

And the chief is far too polished a public persona to have just sloppily put his foot in it when vehemently condemning the independent Special Investigations Unit last week.

Blair knew very well what he was saying and the impact it would have coming from so virtuous a source when he lashed out at the SIU on a radio show, slamming the agency for relying on a YouTube video as corroboration for allegations of brutality against a cop during the G20 Summit protests in June, accusing it of “guesswork and speculation.”

SIU director Ian Scott called Blair’s bluff, announcing the watchdog had reopened the investigation into custody injuries sustained by Adam Nobody — broken nose and shattered cheek — during his arrest. Further, Scott revealed that a sworn affidavit had been obtained from the man who shot the 26-second video. John Bridge has declared he turned the camera off for only a few moments, fearing he too would have to run from police, before flicking it back on and capturing the rest of the incident.

What was Blair thinking when he teed-up on the SIU? That kind of stuff is expected from the obstreperous police union. It was shocking and, frankly, insupportable coming from the police chief.

So Friday Blair took it back, in a manner of speaking, a thrust-reversal in which the chief simultaneously managed to cut himself a whole lot of slack.

“In an effort to demonstrate the potential significance of the missing audio and video, I said police were attempting to arrest an armed criminal and that the missing video images might have shed light on the reasons force was used,” said Blair in a released statement.

“This statement created a false impression that I wish to clarify. I have no evidence that he was armed or violent and all charges against the injured man have been withdrawn. I regret the false impression that my comments may have created and apologize to Mr. Nobody.”

Well, that’s all right then. It was only the police chief, after all, running off at the mouth, insinuating, accusing; perplexing even his most ardent acolytes.

But should “Tapegate” be allowed to end there, on a self-justifying grace note, without any stern consequences?

Blair impugned the trustworthiness — insofar that it had much — of the SIU. At minimum, he trashed their investigative competence, implying the damning YouTube video had been edited, “tampered” with, and then ineptly scrutinized by SIU analysts so that the potentially exculpating unseen was, unfairly, never taken into consideration.

He bullied by proxy a couple of civilians by essentially calling them fabricators of evidence.

Wind the tape back further: Blair misled about the applicability of that wrongfully exploited five-metre fence law used to pick off G20 protesters.

On his watch, a scary seizure — chainsaw, crossbow and fuel-tipped arrows — was proferred by police as weapons-porn, a sly bit of theatre to pre-emptively rationalize formidable use of force, although those items were not taken off demonstrators.

And he’s been unable to exercise the muscular sanctions of his office so that cops who whaled on harmless citizens — doesn’t matter if they’re annoying or provocative — can be identified and charged.

If cops remove their badges or change the numbers so that their identity can never be traced — despite the face recognition imagery and other high-tech gadgetry available to police investigators — they are not merely a small pack of lone wolves, rogues unfit to wear the uniform. Somewhere in the back of their minds, I dare say, lay a conviction that such conduct would be acceptable on the front line of heated police-public collision.

And that culture of entitlement does not exist in a vacuum. Those anonymous cops must surely know who’s watching their backs: other cops.

How can Blair ever again admonish witnesses to shootings and assaults who adhere to the street-level code of silence? That see-no-evil covenant has now — though hardly for the first time, where police are concerned — been consecrated by cops themselves.

About 100 officers caught on camera without their identification tags during the G20 protests will face a one-day suspension without pay — hardly an onerous penalty. Yet a half-dozen believed to have caused actual injuries are in the wind, the SIU unable to lay criminal charges because they can’t put a name to a shielded face. And Blair is purportedly unable to flex either command or moral suasion against colleagues protecting them.

bona fides of a long and meritorious career record. No fool he — far from that — Blair also enjoys political clout, having successfully manoeuvred the thickets of Toronto’s policing hierarchy and civilian oversight. He has friends in high places and that is of inestimable value in a political culture averse to challenging police brass.

Collectively, however, Blair has diminished himself.

It’s been a sorry display indeed. [Ed note: links added.]

The video in question is here.

Last Thursday, it was announced that no criminal charges will be laid in connection with any of the incidents under investigation. What a surprise.

If you haven't seen this excellent video yet, a summary of recent police violence against protestors in Canada, please watch: Police State Canada.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Daniel Ellsberg:
Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear – and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses – to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Powell's, by the way, is an excellent bookseller. The company supports progressive causes and their employees are unionized.

Monday, November 29, 2010

George Galloway, on the close of his 12-city, ban-busting tour of Canada. He'll be back!

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Canadian Press:
Political firebrand George Galloway took his message straight into the heart of Alberta's conservative country Tuesday evening and into the city represented in part by the man who earlier blocked his entry into Canada.

The former British MP -- once a member of the Labour Party and more recently a founder of the left-wing Respect Party -- spoke to more than 750 people who braved the -28 C temperature to take in his speech at the University of Calgary.

His current speaking tour of Canada replaces the one he had planned for last year when he was denied entry into the country over his alleged financial support of the Palestinian group Hamas. Ottawa considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

Immigration officials later let Galloway into the country following a Federal Court ruling that was critical of the government, saying its decision to keep him out was in part politically motivated.

"I'm astounded at this turnout on this bitter winter's evening. I thought I wasn't welcome in Calgary. Practically the only seat vacant in this hall is the one that we kept for the local member of Parliament," he said to loud applause.

Two seats were noticeably empty. They had been set aside for federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, the MP for Calgary Southeast, and a guest.

"I visited his constituency office today. He hadn't even cleared the snow and ice from the front of it. I don't know how he gets such a big vote," Galloway joked.

"I went there looking for him. I'm looking for him everywhere. He doesn't answer my calls, he doesn't reply to my letters and today he wasn't there.

"When he banned me 18 months ago, Mr. Kenney's office said `he's not getting in and that is that.' I said it ain't over until the fat lady sings and the fat lady in question is the grand old lady of Canadian justice."

Earlier this year in Toronto, Galloway donned a pair of red mittens as if they were boxing gloves, challenged Kenney to a public debate and promised to sue the minister for slander.

On Tuesday, Galloway didn't limit his barbs to Kenney. He also took shots at Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the opposition leaders over word that Canada was extending its mission to Afghanistan by another three years.

"I see that your government has broken yet another promise," Galloway said. "They've promised they would withdraw your young soldiers from this doomed and disastrous war in Afghanistan.

"What's wrong with this Parliament? You're paying an opposition to be the opposition but actually on such a momentus decision such as this continuing, your opposition doesn't even want a debate, never mind a vote."

Galloway said Canadian taxpayers will lose more of their "tax dollars and the lifesblood of your young men" by continuing to participate in a war that has "gone so disastrously wrong."