Get Them Harper Nominated Commissioners Out Of Here!! email by Stewart Shields to federal and provincial authorities and politicians, May 16, 2016
The Duffy trials certainly pointed out with no uncertainty that the Conservative PMO and Stephan Harper were far more dangerous to Canadians than a cheating Senate!!
Harper who surrounded himself with many criminal types could not pull the wool over Judge Charles Vaillancourts face! What still sticks in my craw is the fact that Bob Paulson remains as Commissioner of the RCMP!! We are now just learning of the RCMP tailing the press in a information breach that insists Paulson knew nothing about, but then gave his blessings to the Caper after all ? Between the RCMP finding it possible to charge Duffy with bribery–but not the originator and planner of the bribe Nigel Wright, and this new illegal surveillance of reporters—we appear to have a Commissioner who basis for RCMP work is not Justice, but indeed the opposite!! When will the Liberal party ask Paulson to step down?? Hopefully Yves Cote—Lections Canada”s Commissioner isn’t to comfortable in his job either!!
The Trans Pacific Partnership. Canada And Imperial Globalization. Part One by Robin Mathews, May 18, 2016
A characteristic of Imperial Globalization is criminal manipulation of people and events for the profit of a few. It includes massive ‘disinformation’ about equality, benefits, social development, law, improved standards of living, etc. The disinformation is spread by “authoritative” news sources. In the hands of gigantic, wealthy, private corporations, globalization is a process which works to erase sovereign democracies and replace them with “treatied” sub-states, economic colonies ruled by faceless, offshore, often secret, unaccountable powers.
Corruption – often not put into context – is endemic to globalization because the process creates lawless parallel government which uses lawless (and criminal) modes of operation that infect traditional government (apparently) working within the rule of law.
Parties and governments cooperating with globalization forces (Canadian governments have co-operated since the 1987 Canada/U.S. Free Trade Agreement) are, by their actions, committed to giving up independent democracy in favour of rule by “international”, unelected, often secretly operating front organizations (and adjudicating panels) acting on behalf of so-called “international capital”.
The phrase ‘International Capital’ implies great wealth, but doesn’t suggest the full aggressive reality of the force. “International capital”, in fact, is made up of consortiums of corporate and financial power wielding heavy influence on most Western governments (largely working from the U.S.A.), undermining democratic forces, and having available the NATO and U.S. military to back its ‘global’ policies.
A Canadian Tradition of Sell-Out
Since the Brian Mulroney Conservative government acted in 1987, Canadian governments have believed that by supporting international capital and globalization the wealthy of Canada will be part of a ‘global’ club, and will benefit greatly, profiting from the erasure of democracy in Canada.
That makes for consistency of policy through apparently different governments. Since 1987 no Party that has won federal government in Canada has rejected ‘imperial globalization’ … and each has, indeed, worked to enter so-called Trade Treaties which give away rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Moving in an undemocratic, fascist direction, Canadian governments (which appear to change) maintain the same ‘globalization’ policies and so – beneath propaganda about root differences – they carry forward the same basic, destructive policies.
As the failure to take legal action against Mike Duffy’s (almost certainly criminal) false accusers in the Conservative structure shows, the Liberals are, apparently, too closely partnered with the Conservatives (at the invisible top) to act meaningfully against them.
The complete silence on that subject in Ottawa tells (almost) all one needs to know.
A Poster-Boy For Sell-Out
Meanwhile, the jockeying for top national political position continues – and the competition whether to employ soft or hard fascism continues.
As example we may use the cardboard cut-out figure, Conservative Peter MacKay, apparently considering throwing his cap into the ring as a contender for the leadership of the Conservative Party (apparently supported by the National Post). He was cabinet minister through most of the years of Harper misrule – as federal justice minister and attorney general of Canada – among other roles.
Peter MacKay takes more than a half a page of the National Post (Apr. 25/A8) to urge Canadians (in large Capital Letters) to “RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW”.
George Orwell would have loved every word of the MacKay article. In short – beneath the surface language – it says that whatever repressive government in Ottawa chooses to make as law … is law. And the guardian of fundamental Canadian Rights and Freedoms (made clear in the Charter) – the Supreme Court of Canada – has no place in the legislation process. If a gutted and criminal House of Commons passes fascist legislation – that should be the law. Period. MacKay builds the non-argument around a favourite far-Right Conservative matter – ‘tough-on-crime’ legislation.
A member of the Leadership Mob that made the House of Commons a lackey-rubber-stamp for every and any violation of Canadian democracy, MacKay writes of the House of Commons as a “democratically elected and accountable parliament” and he writes of the brutal, neo-fascist power-core of the Harper regime as a group making decisions “through a democratic and consultative process”.
MacKay writes, remember, as a member of the Conservative government that gagged scientists, destroyed valuable libraries, attempted to appoint an unqualified Supreme Court judge, denied the human rights of a deeply wronged Maher Arar, fired the head of Atomic Energy Canada for doing her job, sold off the Canadian Wheat Board in the face of a protesting majority of its members, worked at least two Election Scandals (In-and-Out, and Robocalls) and – most recently – was proved by a higher court to have worked in organized collaboration to entrap and deny the fundamental rights of a Canadian senator: Mike Duffy. (That incomplete list reveals Peter MacKay’s deep concern for the rule of law.)
Responsible Government. For Whom?
Probably most disturbing in the whole recent story of our democracy is the visible (self-chosen) impotence of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in the House of Commons. Through ten years of wilful desecration of Canadian democracy, only one Conservative Member of Parliament, Brent Rathgeber, resigned from the Conservative Caucus and sat as an Independent Member. He also wrote a book for Canadians, fittingly entitled: Irresponsible Government: The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada (2014).
Corruption … At A Gallop
The Mike Duffy trial revealed – almost certainly – criminal action on the part of significant Conservatives involved in government. Moreover, practised legal professionals fashioned 31 criminal charges against that Canadian – AND NOT ONE OF THE CHARGES COULD HOLD UP under fair judicial scrutiny. Reasonable and prudent Canadians may conclude that the charges were fashioned maliciously, lawlessly, in Breach of Trust, and for malign Public Relations reasons. The fact that all 31 charges against Mr. Duffy were squashed strongly suggests “a put up job”. And the (too guarded) but strong response of the judge adds another reason to believe full criminal investigation of the Affair should be undertaken to protect Canadian democracy.
I believe there is no other example in Canadian history of a single Canadian being charged, at one time, with more than 30 criminal charges – NOT ONE of which was able to hold up in court. That is because never before in history has the Canadian State staged such a brazen, criminal attack on the Rights and Freedoms of a Canadian.
Consider: a malicious, criminal machine, operated at the highest level of government, appears, baselessly, to have conspired to destroy a Canadian – who is found innocent of all 31 alleged criminal acts. His innocence is proved … and not a Member of Parliament nor a single public commentator in national press and media demands that the actors involved in concocting the 31 non-viable charges against the innocent person be fully and completely investigated with a view to laying charges against one or many of the perpetrators, if charges are warranted.
Exposed in the trial were the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, members of his office, certain senators, RCMP officers, Prosecution personnel – to name only the most visible. The failure – still! – in the House of Commons to demand full accounting means, simply, that the MPs do not represent – and make almost no pretence that they do represent the people of Canada. (If Canadian readers were told that of another “democratic” country, they would shake their heads in disbelief.)
The failure of the Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau screams of covert policies (shared with the Conservative Party) kept from the Canadian people.
So What Do We Do?
That present, desperate condition must change the role and attitude of all aware and caring Canadians. They must seriously consider the prospect of creating a new party (or really empowering and bulking-out a present, small one presently unrepresented in Parliament) devoted to sweeping the board of the present “club of ill-doers”, and reversing the fascist directions of present Canadian government. [Emphasis added]
[Refer also to: Gigantic Betrayal: the Mike Duffy Trial ]
Tom Mulcair calls for public inquiry after revelation RCMP spied on journalists, Trudeau says RCMP surveillance of journalists ‘will not happen again’ by John Paul Tasker, May 18, 2016, CBC News
Bob Paulson, the commissioner of the RCMP, partially authorized a request to spy on reporters after they obtained a secret CSIS document that detailed an alleged, failed terrorist plot.
The federal NDP leader is calling on the government to investigate revelations that RCMP officers conducted unauthorized surveillance of two journalists in 2007.
“There has to be, rapidly, a public inquiry into how this happened and if higher ups approved it. [Canada’s Justice Minister Peter MacKay? Ex-PM Steve Harper?] I’ve rarely, in my life, seen officers acting on their own in something like this. This is an attempt to stifle the abilities of journalists to do their crucial work in our democracy,” Tom Mulcair said.
Why do/did Mulcair and Trudeau say nothing publicly about Harper’s anti-terrorist RCMP squad harassing Ernst after CTV’s W5 aired a short segment on her contaminated water, and the RCMP squad invading her private property warrantless after she served legal papers on Encana, the Alberta government and AER?
Because big oil’s involved?
More important question:
Who ordered the RCMP to harass and try to intimidate Ernst?
Harper? Encana? Peter MacKay? AER? All of them together, while dining on steak?]
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed that the RCMP was out of line to spy on journalists and he repeated assurances Wednesday that it won’t happen again.
“It was unacceptable and we’ve already apologized directly to those journalists,” the prime minister said briefly in French on his way into the Liberal caucus meeting Wednesday. “We will ensure that it will not happen again.”
[Will the RCMP/ Harper/Encana/AER/MacKay complex apologize to Ernst? Will Trudeau?]
Canada’s public safety minister also condemned the spying, adding the government is committed to protecting the freedom of the press.
“This matter has been handled at the highest levels. The responsible officers have been reprimanded and RCMP leadership has reaffirmed the existing policy, which should have been followed,” Goodale said in a statement, referring to RCMP rules that demand “special care” when dealing with sensitive sectors such as media, academia, religion and unions. [Canadian civil litigants are beneath RCMP rules?]
CBC News first reported Wednesday that a group of RCMP investigators placed two Ottawa-based reporters under physical surveillance for nine days in August, 2007 in the hope it might lead them to identify the source of a leaked CSIS document.
The journalists, Gilles Toupin and Joel-Denis Bellavance, both with La Presse, obtained a secret CSIS document in 2007 about alleged discussions of a terrorist attack on an airliner. Adil Charkaoui, one of the men named in the document, has denied the allegations in court actions against the government and La Presse.
The officers spying on the reporters did not obtain the necessary permission from their bosses before launching their surveillance efforts. [Did they get special secret permission and instructions from Harper/MacKay?] When they eventually sought approval, they were immediately denied authorization and told to cease the surveillance. They appealed three times before receiving a partial green light from Bob Paulson, then an acting assistant commissioner, months later. That approval was not acted upon.
Paulson has since become the commissioner of the RCMP. When reached by CBC News, Paulson confirmed the surveillance activity.
He said he could not confirm this was the only case of the Mounties spying on reporters, though he said he was unaware of other cases.
“It was only partially approved under limited conditions having regard for the fully exhausted alternative avenues and the relatively mild level of intrusiveness. A very last resort if you will. The relatively more intrusive search and seizure technique … was not approved,” he said in a note to CBC News.
Mulcair said the move — to track journalists in an effort to subvert their reporting and arrest their source — is affront to the work of reporters.
“Your ability to do your jobs here, in Parliament, is a way of buttressing all of the democratic life in our country. The work of journalists in our political life is essential to guarantee our democracy for all Canadians,” [Is that why Encana threatens reporters with taking their jobs if they report on the Encana illegal aquifer fracing/Ernst water contamination case?] he told reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons. [Emphasis added]
EXCLUSIVE Mounties probing CSIS leak conducted unauthorized surveillance of 2 journalists, Officers spent 9 days watching Ottawa-based journalists, new document reveals by Dean Beeby, May 18, 2016, CBC News
A rogue group of Mounties [How many are there?] investigating the leak of a secret document spied on two Canadian journalists for more than a week without any authorization [Or, did they get it directly from then PM of Canada Steve Harper? Was it even the rogue RCMP’s idea? Did Harper come up with the plan?], CBC News has learned.
The RCMP investigators placed two Ottawa-based reporters under physical surveillance for nine days in 2007 in the hope they might lead them to the unidentified leaker, who could then be arrested.
The leaked government document referred to suspected terrorist Adil Charkaoui, alleging he had discussed blowing up a plane in 2000.
Only after the surveillance of the reporters had occurred did officers ask their RCMP bosses for the required permission. They were immediately denied authorization, and told to cease the surveillance.
The bombshell revelation about a national police agency spying without authorization on Canadian journalists appears in a document obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act.
The partly censored briefing note for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was written after media reports appeared last November detailing Project Standard. That was the official name of the Mountie probe into the leak of a 2003 secret document, created by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), to journalists working for the Montreal newspaper La Presse.
The November media reports cited a court document, disclosed in a civil case against the federal government, that said the RCMP had planned to watch the two Ottawa-based journalists, Joel-Denis Bellavance and Gilles Toupin.
Rules tightened after earlier raid [Tightened or loosened, eg, Harper’s seemingly Anti-Charter Bill C-51?]
But the newly released briefing note goes much further, noting that the planned surveillance was actually carried out — and without the required permission of Bob Paulson, [Maybe Paulson knew and gave “wink wink, go ahead, but if you get caught, I won’t know anything about it” permission?] then an acting assistant commissioner. Paulson has since become the commissioner of the RCMP.
“Investigators conducted physical surveillance on two journalists — [names removed] — without proper internal authorization and contrary to RCMP policy for a period of nine days in August 2007,” says the note, headlined “Project Standard – Sensitive Sectors.”
“Investigators were attempting to identify the person leaking material to these reporters.”
Bellavance says he had no idea he was being followed.
“That is a bit shocking because police usually operate under strict guidelines,” he told CBC News on Wednesday. “I hope this isn’t a common way of doing things.”
[Perhaps darkly common during the Harper years?
2009 02 112: The Intimidation of Ernst: Members of Harper Government’s Anti-terrorist Squad Intimidate and Harass Ernst after her Legal Papers were Served on Encana, the EUB (now AER) and Alberta Environment
End darkly-common-during-the-Harper-years check of the RCMP]
Bellavance also revealed that Paulson met him in person last fall to apologize for the operation, confirming for the first time that the journalist had been under actual surveillance. Bellavance said he accepted the apology, but did not report it, adding he was shocked to learn through CBC News that Paulson had later authorized partial surveillance.
In an email to CBC News, Paulson confirmed the main details of Project Standard, saying that the immediate supervisors of the surveillance team also knew of the unauthorized surveillance operation.
“No discipline beyond the documented reprimand was applied,” he said, adding: “I am not aware of any other cases where journalists were followed. There may be, but I am not aware of any others.”
The rogue team was acting contrary to the RCMP rule book for investigations into so-called “sensitive sectors,” a term that refers to criminal probes involving academia, politics, religion, the media and trade unions.
That rule book was rewritten and made more restrictive following a scathing Ontario Superior Court ruling into the case of Ottawa journalist Juliet O’Neill, whose home was raided in 2004 by RCMP officers in search of a leak.
An Ontario high court judge ruled in 2006 that the raid was based on an unconstitutional section of the law, and should not have been allowed.
Approval granted months after operation
The officers investigating the La Presse leaks applied to their bosses three more times for permission to spy on the two reporters. They were denied permission for the first two requests, made Aug. 25 and Aug. 31, 2007. But the Goodale briefing note says they were given a partial green light on the third try, in 2008.
“Limited physical surveillance was approved, however no surveillance was ever conducted.” The note does not explain why officers did not carry out surveillance when they had finally received permission.
The document says Project Standard, launched in 2007, concluded in November 2014 — with no word on whether the source of the leak was ever identified.
The document says the rogue team — its members are not identified in the note — received “criticism” for not seeking approval for the first nine-day surveillance operation.
Commissioner Bob Paulson
The surveillance in 2007 was conducted without the permission of Bob Paulson, who was acting assistant commissioner at the time and is now RCMP commissioner.
“While journalists have no privilege or immunity from investigation, the application of the RCMP’s sensitive sector approval policy recognizes that the state’s interests in the investigation of crime and the freedom of the press (or religious/academic freedom) need to be balanced appropriately on a case-by-case basis,” says the note, approved by Commissioner Paulson himself on Nov. 13 last year.
“Vital to maintaining this balance is the centralized independent governance of these criminal investigations — a framework that was just being implemented at the time of these events in 2007.”
Another briefing note prepared Dec. 2, 2015, to help Goodale respond to any questions in the House of Commons, is silent on the nine-day unauthorized surveillance operation.
However, it acknowledges that the RCMP did give permission in 2008.
“Conditional and limited surveillance was approved, but not undertaken, a full year later in 2008,” says the note, “when it became clear that it was the only option remaining to identify the perpetrator(s) of this serious breach of national security.”
The CSIS document leaked to La Presse referred to suspected terrorist Adil Charkaoui.
Bellavance told CBC News that after he wrote the 2007 story, he decided to limit his contacts with his source to let things “cool off.”
The source was never approached by the RCMP, apparently never identified, and remains free today.
The incident “will probably lead to reforms,” Bellavance said. [“Probably” = code for not]
Following the November media reports of the RCMP’s plans to spy on the La Presse journalists, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to look into the case, saying he believes a free and independent press is an essential part of a strong democracy. [Emphasis added]
FUNNY! (But, it appears MacKay is serious) Respect the rule of law by Betrayer of Canadians Extraordinaire (for Steve Harper) Ex-Justice Minister Peter MacKay, April 25, 2016, The National Post
Two comments to the article:
Glen Henderson · York University
Mr. MacKay quotes approvingly from Justice Moldaver’s comments to Parliament prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. In fuller detail, Justice Moldaver said:
“Under the rule of law, it is not our function to create laws, nor do we have the right to direct governments on matters of policy. Under the constitution, we have been given the authority to determine the legality of laws passed by Parliament and the legislatures.”
“In fulfilling that role, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are being asked to strike down laws that had been enacted by a democratically elected majority of parliamentarians. The need for caution and restraint in these circumstances is self-evident, but the ramifications of our decisions must never prevent us from acting fearlessly in accordance with the mandate we have been given.”
In the two recent cases, Justice Moldaver sided with the majority.
Dorne Fitzsimmons · Tiverton, Ontario
The People and the Constitution are supreme not Parliament. Conservatives don’t seem to get that.
Canada’s Supreme Court has again struck down criminal laws enacted by a democratically elected and accountable [with many law violations] parliament, which were genuinely intended to reform our criminal justice system. These reforms were intended to re-balance [or destroy?] our justice system to ensure greater accountability for offenders and to place victims in the central role they rightly deserve. This was the impetus for the groundbreaking new Victims Bill of Rights, and the expansion of the incredible work of youth and child advocacy centres, all of which are positively recalibrating our justice system [into Harper Hell].
Over the last decade [The Dark & Sinister, Law Violating Harper Years?], the Supreme Court has often seemed at odds with elected governments over legislation designed to emphasize enforcement of the rule of law and reflect the public demand for greater accountability.
The protection of the public from dangerous and repeat offenders has long been a subject of discussion and criticism in our criminal justice system. Through a democratic and consultative process, the previous government passed measures focused on deterring weapons related offences, violence, and sexual assaults, particularly on children. Many share the view if you commit offences such as these and others which are damaging to our community, there should be a mandatory minimum period of incarceration to send the message of our shared abhorrence of such behaviour and to recognize the impact that this crime has on child victims and all of us. A floor of a minimum sentence sends a message from society to would-be offenders and preserves our respect for victims. These minimums were certainly not an invention of the previous government. Indeed, they have been around as long as the criminal code itself and are used by many jurisdictions in our sister democracies.
Mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences do not discard the role of judges. Instead they prioritize certain valid sentencing considerations, including denunciation, general deterrence, and appropriate punishment. Mandatory minimums democratically set a stable sentencing range for an offence, permitting members of our communities to understand in advance the severity of the penalties that will be handed out if they commit a certain crime.
As the dissenting justices expressed last week, “mandatory minimums are a forceful expression of governmental policy in the area of criminal law,” and “Parliament is owed substantial deference in crafting mandatory minimum sentences.” Longstanding Court precedent holds that is only on “rare and unique occasions” that a minimum sentence will infringe an individual’s Charter rights to be free from cruel and usual punishment.
Such a high threshold for overturning mandatory minimum sentences is grounded in sound democratic values. It forms part of Parliament’s fundamental role to decide, within constitutional limits [How often did the Harper-MacKay duo intentionally write laws violating Canada’s Constitution?], which sentencing objectives to prioritize in relation to certain offences that deeply impact our communities, including gun crimes and repeat drug trafficking.
The court certainly must strike down unconstitutional legislation [THEN WHY WASTE MILLIONS OF TAX PAYER FUNDS INTENTIONALLY WRITING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS?], but some of its decisions have been described as judicial activism that goes beyond the court’s constitutional role and diminishes the role of democratically elected members of Parliament. These decisions have undone legislation that was front and centre during election campaigns and rigorous legislative and consultation processes.
As Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Moldaver has said, “Under the rule of law, it is not our function to create laws, nor do we have the right to direct governments on matters of policy. Under the Constitution, we have been given the authority to determine the legality of laws passed by Parliament and the legislatures … In fulfilling that role, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are being asked to strike down laws that had been enacted by a democratically elected majority of parliamentarians.” [REFER TO COMMENT ABOVE]
Indeed. And yet, recently, the Court ruled, while upholding the actual one-year sentence, that mandatory minimums for repeat drug traffickers amounted to cruel and usual punishment. The decision overturns Criminal Code reforms under the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which set the minimum end of the sentencing range at one year for people convicted of more than one drug trafficking offence within a 10-year period. And to be clear the offender in this case will likely serve less than half that time and be subject to early release.
Lost in the activist celebration [JEALOUS MUCH PETER?] in some circles are the basic facts. Recidivism rates in some areas of our justice system are on the rise and public confidence in our system is waning and turning victims in particular away from reporting.
In a separate ruling the same week, the Court ruled that a convicted criminal who has been denied bail at the pre-trial stage because of prior convictions should receive credit for time served before sentencing. Under the previous government’s Truth in Sentencing reforms, introduced in 2009, if the decision to deny bail was based on the accused’s previous convictions, that person could not later get credit at sentencing for the time they spent in custody awaiting trial. I believed then, and now, that this approach exhibits consistency and appropriate recognition of prior bad behaviour.
These companion decisions mark another so-called victory for those who believe the Supreme Court should regularly override or ignore the essential democratic pillar of our democracy. But most Canadians expect that if you continue to commit further offences, the penalties go up. If an offender demonstrates that rehabilitation does not work for him, it is folly to try the same sentence as for the first crime, and expect a different result.
This is not a “tough on crime” argument as much as it is an issue of properly recognizing the rule of law, the separation of powers, and parliament’s democratic mandate to protect the public, including in response to the evolving needs in areas such as child exploitation, human trafficking, and the effects of drug trafficking and internet crime on our children.
Today one branch encroaches on another over mandatory minimums or truth in sentencing. Let the next activist victory [Pissy mood much Peter?] not be at the expense of society’s most vulnerable.
Peter MacKay is a senior partner at Baker & McKenzie, and formerly served as federal justice minister and attorney-general of Canada. [In 2015, the Harper government’s Attorney General filed notice to intervene in the Ernst vs AER hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. After the Harper Government lost the federal election, the attorney general that replaced Peter MacKay withdrew from intervening in the Ernst vs AER hearing.]