NOT a “threat to national security”

The Conservative government is out of control. The Guardian UK newspaper confirms what environmentalists have already suspected (since the Conservatives have openly accused them previously): This Conservative government regards environmentalists as a threat to national security. It’s offensive, absurd, and an extreme step into authoritarian police-state behaviour.

UofR
-(UofR image, to keep this blog post from appearing boring.)

“We’re aware of this” said Greenpeace Canada’s executive director Bruce Cox, who met the head of the RCMP last year. “We’re an outspoken voice for non-violence and this was made clear to the RCMP,” Cox said.

He said there was real anger among Canadians about the degradation of the natural environment by oil, gas and other extractive industries and governments working for those industries and not in the public interest. Security forces should see Greenpeace as a “plus”, a non-violent outlet for this anger, he argued. “It is governments and fossil fuel industry who are the extremists, threatening the prosperity of future generations.”

Has there been a report of Greenpeace violence lately? Ever? How about the RCMP, how’s their record for violence lately? Rape. Taser death. Etc.

The reason the Conservatives view environmentalists as a threat to national security, is because Harper thinks he is the nation, and his secure grasp on power is threatened by peaceful protests that spread the truth about his support of environmental and economic collapse for the crude gain of his wealthy backers.

In a Canadian Senate committee on national security and defence meeting Monday Feb 11 Richard Fadden, the director of CSIS said they are more worried about domestic terrorism, acknowledging that the vast majority of its spying is done within Canada. Fadden said they are “following a number of cases where we think people might be inclined to acts of terrorism”.

I’m someone who was once under investigation by CSIS, in order to get a job I had a while ago. It was like an advanced CRCheck, except by our national spies instead of local police. I don’t say this in jest, and my family and friends will confirm it if you ask them. I was (obviously) deemed no threat to Canadian national security, because I’m a loyal Canadian, and a peaceful person. I am also an environmentalist. I am not a terrorist. I care deeply about our country and its people. I have no good way to tell if I’m presently under targeted state observation, but assume I am. This does not make me paranoid, it makes me aware of my surroundings and news reports, and does not significantly change how I go about my life.

If CSIS, the RCMP, and the Cons had announced that since they were aware of “a number of cases” where Christians they were monitoring had been threatening violence, they’d since begun monitoring all Christian groups as possible threats to national security, can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then? How is that different from monitoring all environmental groups because some violent people happen to support protecting natural ecosystems (and apparently not people)?

The Conservatives are literally making you pay for spies and police to monitor grandmothers and children who attend peaceful gatherings, in order to eliminate them as potential threats to Canada. That’s pretty messed up, and it describes what has been going on. Are you going to put stopping it at a lower priority than other things you care about next time you vote?

About these ads

45 responses to “NOT a “threat to national security”

  1. Some time ago Harper created a pipeline secret police task force comprising members of the Edmonton and Calgary police, the RCMP and CSIS to monitor and track Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan critics. What are they, a Canadian STASI? Is Harper the Shah and they’re his SAVAK? Andrew Weaver recently denounced the Harper government’s suppression of DFO scientists as reminiscent of the KGB.

  2. You know , we’ve seen parties jockeying for a long time . But it’s always the same ones . How bout creating and manning a 24-7 online government , with tactical alternatives suggested , And A vote date set for all those interested .
    I’m positive big old boy parties are done , we don’t need them .

  3. When Government becomes this paranoid of its citizens and their motives it can only be because at some deeper level Government realize their actions are near criminal in nature and unlikely to be condoned by the vast majority.

    • That seems like a reasonable assumption Richard. I do know of someone who I met on a train almost two years ago who was pursuing a way to charge or sue Harper’s government with crimes related to their environmental destruction. Obviously to this point they’ve been unsuccessful, but maybe they and others like him are making waves at the top where Harper’s cabinet realizes they are treading dangerous ground and are highly defensive of their destructive acts.

      For instance, we know Harper and Oliver lie and hide information:

      http://o.canada.com/2013/02/17/oilsands-tailings-leaking-into-groundwater-joe-oliver-told-in-memo/

      • Oh Canada!!! THAT’S funny!!!! From your cite “It (the study) concluded that some acids from the tailings ponds “may be reaching the river, but only in very small amounts (non-detectable).””.

        The unicorns and pixies were also “undetected” but no doubt they were there also?

  4. This post goes a step beyond deceptive. The Guardian article’s ‘proof’ is in fact a Globe and Mail article about Canadian domestic involvement with al-Qaeda!!! NO environmental group or situation was even mentioned by the Globe!!!! What WAS mentioned was Canadian citizen involvement in the hostage-taking and murders of civilians in Algeria and Bulgaria. Real deaths, not self-aggrandizing persecutions. Somehow you have a problem with this?

    In a further deception, Richard Fadden’s comment “acknowledging that the vast majority of its spying is done within Canada.” is in fact said about, once again, al-Qaeda… not enviro-groups.

    Amazing how, in less than 2 degrees of separation, a story can be so missrepresented.

    The rest of the story is simply a Queen’s University student’s opinion. The Grauniad journalism at it’s best.

    • As usual, your comment is less than worthless, RedJefff. While claiming I’m being deceptive, you are of course the one who is being just that.

      You bring up the G&M as a RedJefff Herring(tm) to obscure the fact that the evidence is from the government’s own public statements about how they consider environmentalists, as well as “analysed security documents released under freedom of information laws.”

      “Canadian security forces seem to have a “fixation” with Greenpeace, continually describing them as “potentially violent” in threat assessment documents, said Monaghan.”

      al-Qaeda is a RedJeff Herring(tm) for you to misrepresent this news.

      http://www.ctvnews.ca/gov-t-calls-green-native-groups-oilsands-adversaries-1.759162

      “The Canadian Press
      Published Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012 9:27PM EST

      The federal government considers environmental and aboriginal groups “adversaries” when it comes to the oilsands, according to documents obtained under access to information laws.

      Environment Minister Peter Kent is distancing the government from the documents.”

      Hmm, just like RedJefff is trying to do here. Are you willing to state again that you don’t work for the Conservatives? Why do you always have their back, even going so far as to lie for them?

      http://www2.canada.com/feds+list+first+nations+green+groups+oilsands+adversaries/6054920/story.html?id=6054920#ixzz1kZZHHpOd

      “OTTAWA (26 Jan 2012) — Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has labelled aboriginal groups and environmentalists as “adversaries,” ”

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/27/pol-cp-radical-environmental-groups.html

      • Yes,yes, your story source is a “RedJefff Herring(tm) to obscure”. Your source. Yeah. About al-Qaeda. That and a Queens student. Brilliant.

        Not to be deceptive, but it’s quite a stepdown to now regard the GaiaSuperheroes(tm) as “adversaries” rather than “terrorists”.

        At least you didn’t start the lie, unlike Andrew Frank. “In a sworn affidavit released Tuesday to The Canadian Press, Andrew Frank says he was told by his supervisor at ForestEthics that a PMO official had referred to their organization as an “enemy of the state.” The affidavit describes how staff were told their jobs were at risk after the official told Tides Canada, which supports the work of ForestEthics, that the government would “take down” all of the agency’s projects unless it cut ForestEthics loose.” http://www.ctvnews.ca/affidavit-accuses-pmo-of-threatening-environmental-group-1.758063

        Andy got canned.

      • Andy MacDougal is no longer with the PMO, is that who you refer?

        It’s a really interesting link, thank-you for it. Interesting that you also choose to stress Frank’s employment status as being relevant to his affidavit that is in line with this:

        “Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has accused “environmental and other radical groups” of trying to use money from “foreign special-interest groups” to hijack the Northern Gateway hearings.”

        You’re not fooling anyone, RedJefff, except maybe yourself.

        A Ph.D student is certainly qualified to analyze government documents. The documents are the source, not the student you’re choosing to disparage.

      • Andy got canned for lying! :) !

        And a university student. Sociology no less.

        At least he’s not taking Qatari oil-money like you-know-who!!!! ;)

  5. Here is an actual interview with an eco-anything-but-terrorist talking of stopping Keystone “by any means necessary”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nKlU55QjNk&feature=player_embedded

    Transcript:
    Interviewer- “you’re not endorsing… a physical violation of the law or any kind of eco-terrorism are you?”
    Keystone Activist- “It depends on the circumstances.”
    Interviewer- “you mean it’s a possibility?”
    Keystone Activist-”By any means necessary, we mean by any means necessary. We would support it.”

    Yet no threat. It’s one thing to be willfully blind, it’s another to be willfully stupid.

    Seems in Leftardia the left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing! Right?

    PS… Let’s not forget Organisation 1010 “no pressure” campaign blowing up children, WWF’s aircraft bombing New York poster on 9-11′s aniversary and of course it’s ‘Hoodie-Kid’ video warning parents “we know where you live”.

    • I certainly wish your replies were more coherent so that I could try to follow your logic and see your points. Perhaps you could work on making your writing more clear so that the layperson could actually follow all of the references you’ve been making?

      • What’s hard to follow Mac? This self-aggrandizing post purports to show that the ‘evil’ government is maliciously watching the pure, precious snowflakes in the enviro-movement. As evidence it, and it’s source the Gaurdian, use a Globe and Mail story about CSIS investigating al-Qaeda terrorists. Terrorists that have murdered innocent people in foreign countries. There is no mention in the source article about the environment. Period. That’s coherent in your mind????????

        The link (by me) shows an enviro-terrorist admitting on camera that he is willing to break the law to get his way. Break the law by “whatever means”. Should law enforcement NOT investigate someone who says he will act criminally? That’s coherent in your mind????????

        This link http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100204004/edf-and-the-eco-terrorists-what-a-shame-they-cant-both-lose/ Shows convicted eco-terrorists being sued for $7.5 million. As an added bonus, one of the 33yr old eco-terrorists parents has written a heart felt tear jerker pleading that THEIR precious snowflake not be held accountable!!!!! Har har har.

        Sounds like the parents have NEVER held little Claire accountable! Why should they start now?

        PS… is there anything specific you aren’t understanding? I will be happy to explain further.

      • Jeff: No, thanks, your points are more clear now, and while I don’t necessarily disagree, I think it was just the tone you were writing in that I had difficulty with. I honestly thought some of your comments were written by a bot at first glance. (using 10+ question marks at once, poor development of logical train of thought, etc.)

        As far as your concerns with these individual cases go, one can always find a few people who represent the worst of a movement. I could do the same with corporate greed, government corruption, or the like by picking on specific cases. I think it is wise to acknowledge your examples within their broader context. I think your examples fail to paint an entire movement with the guilt of “eco-terrorism”. Your language is further inflammatory when you suggest environmentalists consider themselves “special snowflakes” or in using words like “leftardia”. I know you’re passionate about these issues, but we have to avoid rhetoric in order to hear the concepts behind the words, rather than just getting caught up in rhetoric slinging.

        My greatest concern though, is your denial of Albertan oilsands tailing pond leakage and related groundwater pollution. The science on that issue is particularly well established, and you have chosen somehow to dismiss the issue by relating it to “unicorns”.

        So from a public policy point of view, which I think John’s article is getting at, how do we effectively balance fear of “terrorism”, which I think is unproven in the case of environmental activists, with the value our society has for privacy? How would we do this reasonably? I don’t think the majority party labeling environmentalists as threats to national security is reasonable nor in keeping with this balance i’m asking about. I also don’t feel like you’ve substantially address the heart of this issue as I’m asking.

      • Thanks for the response Mac! Sorry for the tone, but as a rare conservative around here a lot of abuse comes this way ;) ! Add to that I have been given ‘special house rules’ that others don’t have to live up to and sometimes I may not be as polite as I should be. I will make note ;)

        Specific cases exemplify the points I make. They contradict the narrative being promoted in the article. You are absolutely correct when you say “with these individual cases go, one can always find a few people who represent the worst of a movement.”, the corollary is equally true, that one can also find a few good cases… those cases don’t represent a movement any more than the bad ones.

        In this case government response to al Qaeda terrorism is being intentionally juxstaposed with the environmental movement even there is no link whatsoever.

        In no way do I want to paint an entire movement as eco-terrorists. Neither do I want to paint them as saints, which is the tenor of the post. The eco movement must self regulate illegal acts and distance itself from such actions. Law biding protest is paramount in a law biding country. Not just when you feel like it.

        As for “special snowflakes” and “leftardia”… that is nothing compared to the swearing and name calling directed my way. Not once has a single person spoken up condemning such abusive and ignorant, ad hominim language, rather, even the site owner chips in!

        In the reference cited above, the report clearly states ““It (the study) concluded that some acids from the tailings ponds “may be reaching the river, but only in very small amounts (non-detectable).””. The exact same thing could be said about unicorns. No proof is no proof. If you want to believe, that’s your perogative.

        Then again I think ‘the majority party labeling environmentalists as threats to national security’ is just as reasonable as saying ‘the Conservative government is out of control… and an extreme step into authoritarian police-state behaviour.’

        But what’s a lil’ rhetoric between pals!! ;)

      • As usual RedJefff, your comment contains falsehoods and deception. I’ve stood up for commenters who are sweared at, but gave up in your case, because your comments are so bad and so numerous, that defending you from verbal abuse would be a really stupid undertaking. I’ll defend my valued commenters, no matter their political leanings, but not you.

        I’d like to see RedJefff’s small traces of “unicorns” that he refers to. Actually, I wouldn’t. I wish he was a unicorn, because then he wouldn’t be here (plus he’d have a horse’s ass, to match his repugnant personality).

      • 1. “As usual RedJefff, your comment contains falsehoods and deception”. It just doesn’t seem that you can name even one.
        2. “I’ve stood up for commenters who are sweared at”. No you haven’t AND you can’t provide a single instance where you have.

        In addition, you allow people to impersonate commenters.

        As for the “small traces of unicorns” you are looking for… don’t hold your breath, the study said they were “non-detectable”. For the math is hard crowd, there is a difference.

        PS… do you feel that “falsehoods and deception” were in play when you intentionally pretended that the government officials were talking about environmentalists, when in fact they are quoted talking about al Qaeda terrorists?

      • Redjefff, unfortunately for you I’m going to waste my time demonstrating how you’re again wrong, and deceptive.

        First of all, if the traces are undetectable, how do they know about them? It’s a rhetorical question. Tell me, did you also see the rabbit on the other side of the hill over there?

        Next,
        “In this case government response to al Qaeda terrorism is being intentionally juxstaposed with the environmental movement even there is no link whatsoever.”

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/29/pol-radical-environmentalism-growing-intelligence-report-warns.html

        (“There is a “growing radicalized environmentalist faction” in Canada that is opposed to the country’s energy sector policies, says a newly declassified intelligence report.”)
        That answers your deceptive claim.
        “Then again, I think ‘the majority party labeling environmentalists as threats to national security’ is just as reasonable as saying ‘the Conservative government is out of control… and an extreme step into authoritarian police-state behaviour.’”

        Oh. So glad you agree with me. They’ve all taken place, and the majority party taking that stance is as reasonable as an extreme step into authoritarian police-state control.

        “when you intentionally pretended that the government officials were talking about environmentalists”

        I’ll wait for your apology. Until then, perhaps you should find a more friendly place to peddle your deception. My limited patience for you has about worn through again.

        As for allowing impersonators, I never have. I out impersonators. You can’t prove otherwise, and you should offer evidence for making a scurrilous claim like that.

      • So as to answer you…

        1. “if the traces are undetectable, how do they know about them?” Ans- they don’t. There are none detected. None found. They aren’t there.
        2. “In this case government response to al Qaeda… ” Ans- is exactly that. The Gaurdian story cites the Globe and Mail talking about al-Qaeda. NO mention of environment. The CBC cite is a report from the RCMP. The RCMP is not the government nor any political party. Furthermore the report is a comprehensive one dealing with all aspects of maritime law. It also discusses “Overall, the 2011 RCMP-led assessment of Canadian waters found criminal organizations continue to exploit marine ports, waterways and waterside infrastructure to smuggle drugs, people and other commodities including stolen vehicles.” and fishing. Then again as Greenpeace Yossi sez “There is a difference between breaking the law and criminal activities,”. Yeah, I guess so.
        3. “‘the majority party labeling’… Oh. So glad you agree with me…” Ans- Ummmm, that’s just a play on Mac’s words concerning rhetoric. I guess you missed that :(
        4. “when you intentionally pretended…” Ans- See Guardian then Globe and Mail articles. The Globe says NOTHING about environmentalists. Nothing. Yet it’s proof of the ‘evil’ government. Even your next cite is from the RCMP.

        5. “As for allowing impersonators, I never have.” Ans- Oh yes you have. During one of my earliest comment discussions someone signed their comments RedJeff, RedJeffff and GreenJeff. It was only after GreenJeff that you spoke up, and, you let the ficticious comments stand. Yet as a computer guy you would know if they all came from the same computer, and if this was the one.

        5b. In addition, some time ago, a girl wrote that while she disagreed with me, it was a lively and informative discussion. She talked of the merits of the debate. What she got was insulted by Thwap and yourself who had a jolly time talking about “sock puppets” (I had to Google the term). She never commented again.

        Congratulations.

    • Good grief. This cite’s the same bogus Gaurdian-Globe article right off the bat! Circular reasoning at it’s finest.
      Further citations…
      -The Gazette “the RCMP believes they have the potential to become radicalized and aligned with North American “extremist” groups.” POTENTIAL is a key word here. “The RCMP reports, from 2011 and 2012, said there is a possibility of Canadian activists turning to “extremist” U.S. groups” POSSIBILITY is a key word here.
      -SSC of Queens University. Would that be the Guardian-Jeffrey Monaghan-SSC circular reasoning noted at top? Jeffery is a student.
      -The book “Making up ‘Terror Identities’: security intelligence, Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre and social movement suppression” Co-authored by Jeffery.

      Finally the observer cites the 2010-11 CSIS public report. https://www.csis.gc.ca/pblctns/nnlrprt/2010-2011/rprt2010-2011-eng_final.asp Here’s a challenge… find any mention of environmentalists. Good luck!!!!

      This newest ‘proof’ is nothing but a rehash of the Guardian/JeffMonaghan book report from the first line of the post.

  6. ******Update***** Greenpeace actions are now recognized as piracy. “The Ninth Circuit was right to reverse the district court in the Sea Shepherd Case. The district court erroneously read “private ends” as excluding political ends like saving the whales… It does not turn on whether the actor’s motives are pecuniary, political, operating under mistake of fact, or simply insane. Private ends are those ends held by private parties… The strongest refutation of the district court’s reasoning are opinions finding that attacks by rebel or guerilla groups that had not become recognized belligerents (i.e., de facto state actors) constitute mere piracy. See The Ambrose Light, 25 F. 408 (D.C. N.Y. 1885).” http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/27/yes-sea-sheperd-engages-in-piracy-under-international-law/

    Or as the judge’s opening statement of decision says “You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.” dubya dubya dubya dot cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266.pdf

    Sorry for using “talking points” but it is the District Court’s decision.

    • Good Lord, the SAME Guardian-Globe article about CSIS investigating al-Qaeda. Then the Guardian substitutes ‘environmentalists’ for al-Qaeda.

      This newest article from the (downsizing) Toronto Star is falsified even further. The title of the Guardian article is “Canada’s environmental activists seen as ‘threat to national security’” by Stephen Leahy. Yet the Starry eyed writer converts it to “I nearly fell off my chair while reading an article in the Guardian Weekly headlined “Canada’s spy chiefs target anti-frackers,” by Stephen Leahy”

      Same article. If the writer of the Star opinion piece is incapable of even telling you the honest truth of even the simplest headline, but would rather out and out lie for his own gain, you have to wonder what else he is lying about to you.

      At least now I understand how internet legends are created.

  7. redjeff’s concern for the privacy rights of Canadian citizens is as non-existent as his concern for clean elections.

    You can type your fingers to the bone if you want to stoops. All it does is convince everyone of your hackery.

  8. On the subject of national security, please give a warm welcome to Daniel McGowan on his newly integrated life back into society! (From transcript) “DANIEL MCGOWAN, former Earth Liberation Front member: In 2001, I was involved with the Earth Liberation Front, and I was involved in two separate arsons in one year.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec11/efp_09-01.html Yes yes THAT PBS!!

    Danny-boy is coming up to his 3rd month of semi-freedom at a New York half way house. “PETER JENNINGS, ABC News: You may have heard of the Earth Liberation Front. The attorney general himself says it’s a domestic terrorist organization. The FBI says it is one of the most dangerous groups in the country.”

    “McGowan pled guilty to arson and conspiracy charges in 2007. The judge (Judge Aiken applied a “terrorism enhancement” to the sentence) sentenced him to seven years in a special prison designed to hold terrorists. He is allowed limited communication with the outside world.”

    Believe it or not!

    PS… please note, Daniel McGowan has NO connection to al-Qaeda.

      • Um, no. What’s pathetic is a story on CSIS and RCMP surveillance of muslim extremists purporting to show the government treating environmentalists as terrorists. A complete distortion.

        Canadian passported immigrants are committing murders in foreign countries and the Graundian uses this to make political hay. You don’t even mention it.

        Now the Star has propagated this myth and further enhanced it by claiming the headline is “Canada’s spy chiefs target anti-frackers,” by Stephen Leahy”.

        That’s pathetic.

        Danny-boy was convicted in 2007. Greenpeace has been banned from Greenland. Their actions have been called “piracy” by a panel of 3 judges of the US 9th Circuit Court. Tree spiking, destruction of universities experiments, arson, pipeline tampering… the list goes on.

        I know of these stories because they are fact and because they show proven acts of eco-terrorism, as defined by Daniel McGowan’s lawfull conviction on charges. Your “2013 Canada” is a strawman.

  9. Well, when the harpercons fall from power we’ll implement a new agenda for CSIS. Given the deleterious effects of the Tar Sands project and the carbon economy for Canada’s environmental and economic health, it can easily be argued that people like RedJeff are actively working against Canada’s national interests.

    We’ll simply give CSIS the task of finding out who RedJeff is and, given the propensity of right-wingers to violence, it will be entirely understandable if the agency spies on RedJeff, finds out who RedJeff talks to. Perhaps RedJeff’s internet activity is funded by foreign interests with deep pockets?

    Given RedJeff’s detailed delusions about the consensus on climate science and the theory of human caused global warming, it’s at least a possibility that the implementation of carbon-reduction policies will push him right over the edge.

    I’m sure that RedJeff is in no danger of anything untoward happening. CSIS is staffed by sober professionals. So what if they falsely accused Maher Arar of being a high-level Al Qaeda operative, or harassed Abdullah Almalki and eventually had him tortured -by-proxy in Syria, for no other reason than that he was “an Arab running around”? It’s better safe than sorry with people of RedJeff’s ilk.

    • Um, no. You clearly lack even a basic fundamental understanding of how Canadian governance works.

      Canada, like all other western democracies, have legal divisions between the branches of authority. The legislative branch, or as you call it “the government”, enacts laws based on parliament. The judicial branch, the police and courts, or as you call it “the government”, is responsible for the enforcement of those laws and the administration of justice.

      These two branches are separate, distinct and AUTONOMOUS. That is they answer to themselves and ultimately the Canadian Constitution. Any political meddling in the judiciary or judiciary usurpation of Parliaments powers brings automatic sanction. These rules are codified within our Constitution and rigorously enforced. They are by definition a basic principle of western liberal democracy.

      Amazingly, yet typical for a leftist, you would rather see our nation as a police state when (even tho’ legally impossible) you “implement a new agenda for CSIS”.

      Honestly, you kids should spend a little less time watching TV and movies, a bit more time learning.

      • RedJeff, your childish naivete would be charming it wasn’t a steaming helping of self-interested nonsense.

        Supposedly the autonomous professionals in CSIS just decided to harass and torture innocent Muslim men at the same time that our witless governments decided to jump on the “war on terror” bandwagon.

        Now that the harpercons have decided to turn us into a lawless petro-state, these same autonomous professionals are targeting First Nations and environmentalist groups opposed to them.

        All we would have to do is appoint a director more in line with our style of thinking, encourage certain directions of surveillance with praise or simply a “hands-off” level of supervision, and criticize or de-fund the institution when it seeks to return to harassing decent, law-abiding citizens, as it did under previous governments.

        You know; the same way that Stockwell Day, stephen harper and other assorted human garbage have defended CSIS again and again as they wasted resources and violating the rights of Arar, Abdelrazik, Almalki, Charkaoui and Harkat.

        Be afraid RedJeff. Be very afraid. The regime that you are presently hooting and hollering (like a baboon) in support of, will be replaced, and the forces unleashed against innocents and patriots will be turned upon you.

      • Um, no. Self-interest is rewriting a story about security intelligence on al-Qaeda, editing out all references to al-Qaeda and inserting “environmentalists” in it’s place.

        Just as self-serving is the simple and blatant fact that the people you have mentioned were arrested AND released prior to any Conservative government except Harkat who was released 4 months into Prime Minister Harper’s tenure and Abdelrazik who was on a UN blacklist, designated a terrorist by the US Treasury and arrested in Sudan.

        No, what I’m talking about is the murders of 6 people in Bulgaria, including a pregnant woman, and the murders of 39 people in Algeria. From wikipedia: Burgas “On 5 February 2013, it was reported that the suspect was a dual Canadian-Lebanese national living in Lebanon.” Algeria “The Algerian Prime Minister said 32 terrorists were involved in the attack, and that one-third were Algerian while the rest were made up of eight nationalities, including 11 Tunisians, 2 Canadians…”

        Feel free to look at the names of the dead. Perhaps you would like to write their families explaining your recommendation of “simply a “hands-off” level of supervision”. Perhaps it’s time you grew up and realized what “forces unleashed against innocents” really means. Right now you display a depth of immaturity and ignorance beyond what would be considered rational.

      • RedJefff, maybe you’re right about me not standing up for my valued commenters enough. So, if you don’t apologize to Thwap for suggesting he’s immature, irrational, and ignorant, then you can leave. You’re clearly distorting the situation into one involving actual terrorists instead of the non-terrorists that are being stalked and harassed by the RCMP and CSIS. I really can’t stand your dishonesty today, and won’t settle for it appearing here any longer unless you start losing your arguments more graciously.

      • Um, “childish naivete” “you are presently hooting and hollering (like a baboon)”

        “suggesting he’s immature, irrational, and ignorant”

      • Um, good bye. It wasn’t a negotiation.

        RedJefff won’t be joining us (nor should he try any longer. The Internet is plenty big, I’m sure he’ll find a more willing host for his parasitic comments.

      • RedJeff,

        I see you’ve moved on from grade school civics lessons about “How Canadian Torture Themselves” to deliberately distorting people’s arguments.

        I didn’t say that harper and his stooges presided over the entire sordid CSIS-sagas of Abdelrazik or Almalki.

        But harper was quite active in denying Abdelrazik his Charter right to return to Canada, wasn’t he?

        http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.ca/2009/06/abdelrazik-stunning-setback-for-harper.html

        And then doing nothing as SIRC (led by a harper appointee) failed to investigate the debacle.

        And harper continues to protect CSIS officials and his own government from the efforts of three Canadian citizens tortured in Syria and Egypt to obtain justice:

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/19/supreme-court-torture-cases.html

        “The men are suing federal agencies for compensation, but the government has denied any responsibility despite the conclusions of the inquiry in 2008.”

        (Here’s a thought: Perhaps if the donut-chomping desk-jockeys at CSIS weren’t criminally wasting resources spying on environmentalists and random Arabs running around, they’d have more resources to spend on stopping the genuine terrorists!)

        Idiot.

      • No more responses to RedJefff will be required, (or accepted). He obviously cared dearly about this place judging by the huge number of comments from him over the last year or so, so he’ll no doubt miss it, but it’s best he move on to where his distorted view is valued.

  10. Well, for the record John, I had hoped to mention that I noticed he deflected from answering whether he was a paid internet hacktivist, and secondly, that his contention that those who say that humans cause global warming and ocean acidification are unscientific internet dweebs is sheer nonsense.

    I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure that if R.J. was the science god he said he was, that he’d be better off debating the university scientists who disagree with him than with us.

    Lastly, the dishonesty he showed when he was cornered on a subject like politics (clamming up whenever he couldn’t spin) made me think that his so-called scientific knowledge was just cherry-picking facts and spinning them.

    You can publish this or not. I’m done talking about the creature.

  11. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/21/canadas-spy-agency-may-have-illegally-targeted-canadians-watchdog

    Lee Berthiaume & Jason Fekete, Postmedia News | 13/08/21 8:21 PM ET

    “OTTAWA — Canada’s super-secret electronic spy agency may have illegally targeted Canadians over the past year, a government watchdog has concluded.

    The findings, contained in a report tabled by retired judge Robert Decary in Parliament Wednesday, are particularly explosive now given revelations prompted by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the U.S. government conducting widespread snooping of its citizens.

    Decary, who has served as independent watchdog for the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) since 2010, said he discovered the potentially illicit spying during a routine review of the electronic surveillance agency’s activities over the past year.

    “A small number of records suggested the possibility that some activities may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to the law,” Decary wrote in his report.

    But Decary said he was unable to determine conclusively whether the snooping was legal or not because “a number of CSEC records relating to these activities were unclear or incomplete.”

    “After [an] in-depth and lengthy review, I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law.”

    CSEC is forbidden from spying on Canadians no matter where they are in the world. It is also prohibited from eavesdropping on individuals within Canada.
    Related

    Canada’s spy agency kept close watch on rapidly growing First Nations protest movement: documents
    With espionage at ‘Cold War levels,’ CSIS warns travelling spies not to fall for sexual ‘honey traps’

    Decary’s report comes amid ongoing concerns about massive global communications spy networks operated by the United States and Britain that have collected huge amounts of information about their own citizens.

    Canada’s federal privacy czar has already said she is conducting a review to gauge whether spy agencies here are also targeting Canadians, and Decary’s findings will no doubt prompt louder calls for transparency and oversight of CSEC’s activities.

    Decary has also completed a study into whether CSEC has pressed its American, British, Australian and New Zealand spy agency counterparts to respect long-standing promises not to snoop on Canadians.

    That could shed light on what Canadian authorities knew about a massive telephone and Internet surveillance program in the U.S. called Prism.

    However, it was not included in his report Wednesday because of an administrative error.

    In tabling his report, Decary said he planned to step down from his position due to personal reasons, but that he would be staying on for another three months to ensure the appointment of a successor.

    I started my mandate with the expectation that the legislative amendments to the National Defence Act proposed by my predecessors would soon be introduced in Parliament, but this has yet to happen

    He indicated he planned to release his study of CSEC’s relationship with its foreign counterparts before he officially stepped down.

    Decary also slammed the Conservative government for dragging its heels on implementing what he says are badly needed changes to the National Defence Act that will fix ambiguities in the legislation.

    Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the federal government adopted the Anti-terrorism Act, which amended the National Defence Act and created legislative frameworks for both the commissioner and CSEC.

    Repeated CSEC watchdogs have said clarification is needed to terms and definitions related to CSEC’s legislated authority, which would assist them in interpreting CSEC’s mandate and reviewing how it is applied.

    “I started my mandate with the expectation that the legislative amendments to the National Defence Act proposed by my predecessors would soon be introduced in Parliament, but this has yet to happen,” Decary wrote in his report.

    “I am deeply disappointed at the lack of action by the government, which is no longer in a minority situation, to address the ambiguities identified by my predecessors and myself.

    “These amendments — as I have said many times before — would improve the provisions that were hastily enacted in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The proposals to address the issues raised by commissioners should not, in my opinion, be controversial.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s