Tuesday, August 03, 2010

 

LOCAL EVENTS WINNIPEG:
PANEL ON G20 AND CIVIL LIBERTIES:
Thursday, August 19...a panel discussion on the recent g20 summit in Toronto and its effect on civil liberties. Here's the blurb.
WWWWWWWW
G20 Perspectives:
A Panel Discussion on Civil Liberties and Global Justice
Time August 19 · 7:00pm - 9:00pm

-------------------------------
Location Carol Shields Auditorium, Millennium Library, 2nd Floor
251 Donald St.
Winnipeg, MB

-----------------------------
Created By Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 (Winnipeg Chapter)

-----------------------------
More Info Join us for a panel discussion on issues pertaining to the recent G20 Summit in Toronto.

The panelists will be:
-David Camfield: Member of the editorial board of New Socialist webzine
-Joan Grace: Professor of Politics at U of W specializing in civil society and policy advocacy, state architecture and political engagement.
...-Chris Powell: Professor of Sociology at U of M
-Dan Lett: Political Opinion columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press
-Robert Chernomas: Professor of Economics at U of M and board member of the Council of Canadians

The above list is subject to change.

Labels: , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 10:02 PM 0 comments

Saturday, June 26, 2010

 

CANADIAN POLITICS TORONTO:
G20 PROTESTS BEGIN:



After the conclusion of the G8 summit in Ontario cottage country the G20 summit in downtown Toronto has begun. From what I can glean from the media the G8 summit was a non-event. The media seems much more interested in covering protests than they do the photo-ops and weaselly statements of the assembled leaders of the G8. In any case there has long been speculation that the G8 is outmoded. What this means is pretty plain in that the host country Canada is far less of a major players in the world economy than many non-members who will be at the G20. An era has passed. Anything concrete would have to come out of something like the G20.


The assembled G8 missed the Québec/Ontario earthquake to my great chagrin. I would have loved to see coverage of the spooks (security) running around in a panic shooting each other in the ass thinking it was some sort of mega bomb. Ah well we can hope for aftershocks.


Meanwhile demonstrations that have been ongoing in Toronto were ratcheted up a notch yesterday as the Toronto Community Mobilzation Network held their preliminary demonstration. The Mobilization Network also has a facebook page where you can get a lot of the news that won't be in the mass media. The Toronto Media Co-op also has a specific subpage, the G20 Alt Media Centre, where news of the protests is updated practically to the minute. Please check out these resources if you want the latest coverage on what is happening...from the protesters' point of view.



In any case a 'large crowd' marched in downtown Toronto yesterday. If you want the definition of 'large' I cannot provide it. Generally the best way to come close to the truth of these things is to take the largest estimate and divide it by two. Then take the low estimate and double it. Average the two and you get close to reality. Yes, the sides that I might personally be in favour of are just as prone to manipulating numbers as the "opponents". That's life. Whatever the numbers may have been it was enough for the bosses in charge of security at the meeting to jump the gun and impose the security zone lockdown of the summit area a day earlier than planned.



It was also large enough that it convinced the bosses to push the "go button" and begin targeted arrests of the leadership cadre of the various groups protesting (see later). The scoops showed that the police/csis actually have very good intelligence. It's one thing to be able to identify "individuals of concern" in open-to-the-public groups where identity has never been concealed. That is almost as easy as identifying clandestine groups who think they are incredibly sneaky even when they have multiple informers implanted in them. In those cases the spooks keep much better paperwork. What impresses me is not the who who were arrested but the where as it seems that the police keep pretty good tabs on the movements of the individuals they have targeted. It's something to be considered, though I know that there is ideological opposition to considering such things.


In any case here's a report from the mass media (CTV) about what occurred yesterday.
TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
Police get special arrest powers for duration of G20
Date: Fri. Jun. 25 2010 8:31 PM ET

Police temporarily shut the gates to the G20 security perimeter early Friday evening, as they attempted to head off the largest in a string of demonstrations to protest the international meeting.

Anti-poverty demonstrators had attempted to march south towards the security zone where the G20 summit will take place. But they were turned back when police with shields blockaded University Avenue.

Instead the protesters backtracked, marching east towards the park where the demonstration originated, trailed by police in full riot gear.

"I'm not a hell-raiser but I want my voice to be heard," one woman told CP24, adding that she decided to join the demonstration in response to the large number of police on the city's streets. "I thought I lived in a democracy and I don't think I do any more."

The protests led the Integrated Security Unit to close the security fence around the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where the G20 summit will be held. A gate was later reopened at Yonge Street and Wellington Street, apparently to allow residents and business-owners inside the security zone to pass through.

As the march wound down, organizers said they would set up a collection of tents in Allan Gardens, camp there overnight, and join another large G20 protest to be held at Queen's Park on Saturday afternoon.

The demonstration attracted some 2,000 people at its peak, in spite of a heavy police presence and news that Ontario had quietly passed legislation that allows police to question and arrest anyone walking within five metres of the security fence in the city's financial district.

The crowd was the largest in a string of demonstrations in the lead-up to the G8 summit, which began Friday in Huntsville, Ont., and the G20 summit that starts Saturday in Toronto. But by 7 p.m., the number of protesters in the march has since dwindled to a few hundred people, CTV Toronto's Naomi Parness reported.

One image showed a group of people clad in black masks among the demonstrators. Reports had suggested that a radical group may split off from the main demonstration and move towards the security fence around the Convention Centre, but that never occurred.

Another image showed a sizable group of helmeted police, standing six officers across, and stretching back down a shaded alley.

The demonstration was for the most part peaceful, aside from one incident in which a protester was reportedly arrested by police.

An immigrants' rights group called No One is Illegal also reportedly released red and black balloons into the air, in an apparent attempt to challenge restrictions on the city's airspace during the summits. (Authorities have banned kites and hot air balloons in the vicinity of the Convention Centre.)

Organizers used social media sites such as Twitter to post updates as the demonstration unfolded.

The Toronto Community Mobilization Network, a collection of protesters from different groups, said that police were searching people as they entered Allan Gardens park where the demonstration originated.

John Clarke, with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, called the large police presence "offensive."


TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
Here's a report from G20 Alt Media Centre about the arrests that followed the demonstrations yesterday.
TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
House raids, warrants and arrests
by Tim Groves

Three house where G20 protesters have been staying were raided last night; activists staying at the houses were arrested. Six or more arrest warrants were issued and at least four of the people named in the warrants have been arrested and charged with conspiracy.

"The people arrested were involved in Indigenous sovereignty organizing, environmental organizing, and anti poverty organizing," said Mac Scott, a member of the Movement Defence Committee, which provides legal support for activists. They "believe this is an abrogation of Section 2 of the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom]," which guarantees Canadians' fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of thought.

Police arrived at a house where 15 activists were staying at approximately 4:45am.

"They did not have a warrant, we asked for a warrant. They asked for identification, they asked us questions, we refused. People were detained, people asked to call legal council. We were refused to be allowed to call legal council," said Niki Thorne, a resident of the house. Even when a warrant was later provided, those being arrested were not allowed to fully read the warrant before it was taken away from them. "They were kicking people out of bed, kicking people awake," she added.

"I was in a tent in the backyard. We got woken up by two cops and put in cuffs, and there were probably at least six or eight police in the house," said Marya Folinsbee, who was staying at the house and is a friend of the man who was arrested. "They were trying to identify people. They had a big stack of papers with names and face of activists, some were organizers and some were people just doing child care for the protests."

The upstairs neighbours, a family with a young baby, were also visited by police.

"The neighbours who were not connected to the protest had a gun held to his head when he woke up. It's so fucked it's so fucked," said an shaken Folinsbee. "They put neighbours who lived in the building in cuffs."

One of the activists staying in the house was taken in his underwear into a paddy wagon waiting outside. The others in the house gathered on the front porch and sang loudly so that he could hear.

Another house had its door kicked in and a warrant left on the table. Two activists who live in the house have been arrested and a third person staying at the house was also been arrested, according to sources at the Toronto Community Mobilization Network.

Another unit in the same building also had it door kicked in.

Two other activists have been informed that there are warrants out for their arrest, and it is believed that they will be turning themselves in to police.

According to a tweet from the Movement Defence Committee the arrests were of "key organizers."

"We have a message to all those today: rights have never been granted or given, they have won," said Scott on behalf of the Movement Defence Committee.

Supporters of those arrested will gather outside the Toronto Film Studios starting at noon to provide solidarity. The film studios have been converted into a temporary jail. They are located at 629 Eastern Ave.
TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
Finally here's an item from the Ontario platformist site Linchpin about the aftermath of the massive security overkill at the G20 and what it means for civil liberties in Canada in the future.
TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
G20 prompts expanded police power... permanently

By Paul M.

The global protectors of capitalism will descend on Toronto this June to discuss how to best increase corporate profit rates while simultaneously selling belt tightening measures to societies already ravaged by a global recession. Imperialist wars, global poverty, and environmental destruction are massive problems that affect billions of people across the globe. How can we be sure that such important people as the leaders of the G20 will be protected from the vindictive mob of labor activists, environmentalists, immigration rights and anti-poverty organizations who will seek to hold them accountable?

Well, apparently the recession hasn’t put a dent in the security budget - now pushing $1 billion - needed to protect our vaunted leadership from the baser instincts of the public at large. Security fences, á la Quebec circa 2001, have been erected. RCMP, OPP, and Toronto Police, have been supplemented by thousands of officers from forces across Canada as well as the military. Together they form the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) in a spectacle of state power meant to effectively manage and/or crush all dissenting voices. A fenced-off film studio ostensibly geared towards mass detentions lends credence to a police strategy bent on enforcing a ludicrous free speech zone few will likely obey.

What seems to be clear is that this massive show of force will leave lingering marks on our civil liberties and a stronger police state in its wake. One obvious intrusion is the much talked-about 77 new CCTV police cameras installed in downtown Toronto, which city and police officials assure will be “mostly” taken down after the summit leaves town. Toronto Public Space Committee spokesperson Jonathan Goldsbie put it well when he rhetorically asked the Globe and Mail why anyone would spend countless thousands for high-tech cameras only to let them “languish in a storage area.” The Toronto Police Service’s claim to the CCTV cameras’ temporary nature sounds oddly similar to statements made by the Vancouver authorities in the run up to the Olympics, in which they announced that they would sell off CCTV cameras after the Games. The cameras used in Vancouver are now part of the city’s permanent “redeployable” arsenal - available at police discretion.

Certainly public scrutiny of police funding is a clear casualty of the summit, with the Toronto police taking the opportunity to update to encrypted radios at enormous taxpayer expense. In addition to their $35 million price tag, the radios mean journalists and concerned citizens will lose the capacity to monitor police activity. At the very least, some level of public oversight made cops more honest in the application of unjust laws - but now racial profiling, the surveillance of social justice groups, and continued harassment of the poor will fly under the radar of concerned citizens.

New abuses are also in store for summit protesters, who are now slated to become guinea pigs for the latest in police technology. Toronto Police have acquired four Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) - more appropriately dubbed sound cannons – for the summit, which are known to cause moderate to serious hearing damage, including permanent loss of hearing. These weapons are being categorized as “communication devices”, but the unwillingness of police to disable their dangerous “alert” function at the request of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) demonstrates their real intention come summit day, and beyond. The willingness of the cops to use this dangerous weapon can perhaps be gauged by LRAD use during the last G20 summit in Pittsburgh, or, for that matter, by the general level of concern that cops always show to social activists. Ear plugs don’t cut down the decibel level enough to protect you from prolonged exposure to the cannon, but might buy you time to get out of range - and you can call me paranoid if you want, but I’m buying some.

While the rest of the public sector is being asked to brace themselves for wage freezes and service cuts, the Toronto Police have managed to turn the 5% reduction in operating costs requested by the city budget officer into a 5% increase. Doubtless the grand excuse of G20 security will be leveraged to secure special treatment for police state infrastructure, which remains the thin blue line separating the public from the wealthy minority determining their lives. The $45 million addition to the police budget is a pittance for the long term social control it affords, as poverty rises in a global recession and the propertied classes need bigger and more well-equipped guard dogs.

As the G20 begins, and activists gear up for yet another protestival, it is worth noting that the accompanying police state infrastructure is here to stay, and will certainly affect the ongoing work of day-to-day organizing so crucial for building a mass movement. The fight for a truly just and sustainable world must be fought everyday, in our workplaces and communities – lest we concede defeat to the global leadership we so rightly seek to protest.
TPTPTPTPTPTPTP
Molly has to say that the results of these protests will be interesting. The security measures that have been taken place this event in an entirely different ballpark than anything that has happened before in Canada including the Olympic Games security. The bill, however, for a mere three days is so fantastic that it is a rock solid guarantee that such things could not be repeated across the country. But, as the last item above mentions there will be a residual effect of increased police powers. This bears scrutiny.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 11:33 AM 0 comments

Friday, October 02, 2009

 

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES:
BOOK BANNING:
Molly found this choice opinion piece while browsing through the Care2 site. The following is written by an American, and, of course, deals with the situation in the USA. Lest us Canadians think, however, that we are so high-falutin' pure and tolerant I urge the reader to consult the Freedom to Read 's website HERE for a list of frequently challenged books up here in the frozen North. There is also an, admittedly very incomplete list of banned books worldwide HERE at Wikipedia. The graphic, by the way, is of author J.K. Rawling, one of the most frequent targets of the book burners because of her Harry Potter series.
CLCLCLCLCLCLCL
Banned Books Week 2009 - Books Too Gay or Too Dangerous for the Public:
posted by: Steve W.
It's Banned Books Week, an annual that, according to the American Library Association (ALA), celebrates "the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment". It aims to highlight the dangers of censorship and attempts to draw attention to any calls to ban books within the USA.
What do we mean by banning a book? The ALA categorizes it as the following:
A ban placed on a book completely removes it from the shelves of the bookstore/district library/school library where the challenge was made and in some rare occasions this can have state wide impact.
A challenge in this instance refers to not one complaint, or even just a few, but a formal protest made by a group against a specific title filed with the library or store.
No book has had a federal ban placed on it for decades now (I believe the last book to be banned in America was Fanny Hill which was banned on its release in 1821, re-released under the name of John Cleland’s Memoirs of A Woman of Pleasure and banned once again for obscenity in 1963, only for that ban to be overthrown by the Supreme Court in 1966), but challenges on certain titles persist throughout America in individual towns and school districts year after year.
So Which Books Face Calls for a Ban or Restrictions?
As you might imagine, literature featuring gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) themes is often the source of controversy.
And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Henry Cole is often one such book that is challenged. It is the story of two male penguins who raise a chick in the Central Park Zoo.
The book, aimed at children, is based on true events and, whilst not featuring any explicit affirmations of sexuality, it is often labeled as "indoctrination" and accused of "promoting a homosexual agenda". It is the ALA's most challenged book of 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Baby Be Bop by Francesca Lia Block was one of fifty-five books that were challenged by parents in Fayetteville, Arkansas. They formed a group called the Parents Protecting the Minds of Children who wanted the book removed from shelves for what they called its "graphic language" and for "promoting a homosexual agenda".
Baby Be Bop was also challenged in Wisconsin by group called the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries who wanted all LGBT interest books moved to the adult section, regardless of the nature of the book, claiming that such material filed anywhere else in the library could be harmful, and that restricting access to the books was necessary "to protect children from accessing them without their parents' knowledge and supervision".
Groups don't ask for books to be banned just for the sake of children either. The Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) filed a legal suit against West Bend earlier this year claiming that elderly library goers were "damaged mentally and emotionally" by Baby Be Bop's presence. They sort financial damages and the right to hold a public book burning.
Speaking on the lawsuit a spokesperson for the CCLU said, "We don't want it put in a section for adults. We're saying it's inappropriate to have it in the library, and we want it out or destroyed".
For a list of LGBT themed books that are frequently protested against or have received local bans, please click here.
It's not just LGBT themed books that are targeted. Often books that are considered classics by most are also challenged. The organization Focus on the Family and others like it have, in the past, wanted to restrict access to books they deem " too liberal", "satanic" (concern was raised that The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter promoted sorcery) and books that do not "represent traditional values". The traditional values they stand for include campaigning against abortion, and the perceived homosexual agenda.
"Every year, the ALA and other liberal groups use this trumped-up event to intimidate and basically silence concerned parents... the truth is, parents have every right and responsibility to object to their kids receiving sexually explicit and pro-gay literature without their permission, especially in a school setting." – Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family.
So what kind of books are often objected against? Here's just a small selection:
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.
The Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
The Color Purple by Alice Walker.
Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Beloved by Toni Morrison.
Lord of the Flies by William Golding.
Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien
His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman.
For a more comprehensive list, here is a link to the ALA's website.
I have to say, having read all of the books above, and having done so at a relatively young age, I was enriched, not harmed, by the material I found there. Was some of it disturbing? Yes. Did it scar me for life. No. I'd even go as far to say that books like The Color Purple and Beloved changed me for the better.
My parents never restricted what material I was allowed to read. They were of the mind that if I was old enough to understand a book, then I should be allowed to read it. Interestingly, the only book I can ever remember my parents censoring to any degree (and even then we only skipped certain pages) was the Bible.
Both my parents were very religious (my mother was a devout Christian and my father is now a lapsed Methodist) but felt that certain passages within the Bible were not suitable for children.
I wonder if "traditional values" proponents such as Focus on the Family, who have campaigned so heavily to restrict access to certain books, had also thought of applying the same measures to the Bible as well? After all, the Bible clearly mentions incest, rape, hellish views of what awaits some in the afterlife, infanticide, genocide and supernatural phenomena – all of which are reasons that groups have given for restrictions being placed on books in the past.
Personally, I am against censorship and am pro religious freedom, I just wonder how evenly the standard of "traditional values" should be applied?
What are your views on Book Banning Week and censoring books in schools and libraries?

Labels: , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 6:16 PM 0 comments

Friday, September 18, 2009

 

CANADIAN POLITICS-VANCOUVER:
THE OLYMPICS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES:
The following came to Molly's attention via the Olympic Resistance Network in Vancouver.
CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
Mon., Sept. 28 - Civil Liberties and the Olympics panel‏:
[Hey all - Not an Olympic Resistance Network event, but members will be speaking along with others on the impacts of the Olympics on basic rights and freedoms.]
The Right to the City:
Civil Liberties and the 2010 Olympics panel organised by Impact on Communities Coalition/BC Civil Liberties Association

Monday, September 28, 2009, 7-9pm

@ SFU Harbour Centre




As the 2010 Olympics approach, the possibility of civil liberties violations have been cited by a number of community organizations as a major concern despite assurances from VANOC, government partners and the Integrated Security Unit that rights will be protected. With 16,500 security personnel scheduled to be part of the largest peacetime operation in Canadian history, impacts are already being felt. Ticketing of residents in the inner-city, home and workplace visits of social activists by members of the Integrated Security Unit and a new bylaw passed by the City of Vancouver which places the rights of corporate sponsors ahead of the rights of citizens are only a few of the immediate impacts.
This discussion will take a critical view of the policies and framework which have been established and contextualize these processes as part of broader urban development schemes in the inner-city and methods of criminalizing dissent. [Good speakers lined-up, and one dork in a hoody - come out and guess which is which! ;) ]
David Eby, Executive Director, BCCLA
Matt Hern, Writer
Stefanie Ratjen, Board Member, IOCC
Harsha Walia, Social Activist
Alissa Westergard-Thorpe, Olympic Resistance Network
Jeff Derksen, SFU professor
David Dennis, President-Elect, United Native Nations (UNN)
Moderated by Am Johal, Chair,
Impact on Communities Coalition FB event info: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=134688553657&ref=share

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 8:24 PM 0 comments

Saturday, August 08, 2009

 

CANADIAN POLITICS-VANCOUVER:
THE OLYMPICS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES:
The following article was originally published in the Vancouver Sun. It comes Molly's way via the No2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land website. Read through and see just how eager the Vancouver authorities are to sign away your rights for the fool's gold of hosting the Winter Olympics.
CPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCPCP
IOC Contract Binds City to Olympic Rules:

Contract binds Vancouver to play by IOC rules or not play at all
 Elites of the Olympic movement and former mayor sealed deal to bypass Canada's constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
By Daphne Bramham,
Vancouver Sun
August 7, 2009
It's easy to understand why the International Olympic Committee would want any disputes with host cities decided by its own "court," so that it is beyond the grasp of courts in countries whose judicial systems are dodgy.

But why on earth did Vancouver's former mayor Larry Campbell sign the host city contract governed by Swiss law and agree that "any dispute concerning [the contract's] validity, interpretation or performance shall be determined conclusively by arbitration, to the exclusion of the ordinary courts of Switzerland or of the host country?"

The sports court -- the IOC's arbitration process -- deals with issues of athletes' disqualifications due to doping or other infractions. It has rarely, if ever, dealt with the myriad other issues from sponsorship agreements to taxes to financial disbursements that are covered in the Vancouver agreement.

Signing off Vancouver's right to access Canadian courts in the event of a dispute with the IOC is just one of the troubling pieces of the 61-page contract signed in 2003 and obtained by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association under B.C.'s Access to Information Act.

The contract's preamble declares that the IOC is "the supreme authority of and leads the Olympic movement."

And the Olympic ayatollahs required that the city stage the Games in full compliance with the Olympic Charter and that it agrees to "conduct all activities in a manner which promotes and enhances the integrity, ideals and long-term interests of the IOC and the Olympic Movement."

I've added the emphasis because in a pen stroke, Campbell signed away the real responsibility of democratically elected mayors and councillors to promote, enhance and represent the long-term interests of their citizens.

There is no mention in the contract of human rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Instead, it stipulates that the city must abide by the Olympic Charter and be in "full compliance with universal fundamental ethical principles, including those contained in the IOC Code of Ethics."

In effect, the city and the IOC have attempted to contract their way out of Canadian legal jurisdiction and beyond the reach of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

It's something that the civil liberties association is considering challenging in court. Another group, Impact on Communities Coalition, filed two complaints with the United Nations High Commissioners of Human Rights last week. One deals with civil liberties and the city's omnibus bylaw, while the other is about inadequate tenancy protection.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon has already ruled that as a government agency, the Vancouver organizing committee is subject to the Charter.

However, she also decided that despite Vanoc having to be Charter-compliant, there was nothing Vanoc could do to force the IOC to include a women's ski jumping event.

It's the Olympic Charter that now-Senator Campbell signed on to obey in 2003. He bound the city (and his Vision party successor Gregor Robertson) to its provisions limiting free speech and agreed to even stronger restrictions in the contract.

Contrary to the Canadian Charter's guarantee of free speech and peaceful protest, the Olympic Charter says: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any of the Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

(Despite the word's negative connotations, propaganda's dictionary definition is a statement of principles or beliefs.)

Under the Vancouver contract, no propaganda or advertising material can be within view of spectators at the venues or television cameras covering the sports or "in the airspace over the city and other cities and venues hosting Olympic events during the period of the Games."

To meet its contractual obligations, Vancouver's council recently passed an omnibus bylaw amending dozens of existing laws.

Among the changes are the creation of so-called free-speech zones and blocks of the city (including David Lam Park, the main library's precinct and the Vancouver Art Gallery) where no political pamphlets, leaflets, graffiti or "non-celebratory posters" will be allowed.

Despite that, Robertson insists all of Vancouver remains a free-speech zone. He defends the bylaw as a balance between safety and security and respecting citizens' rights.

But asked whether he would have signed the contract in 2003, Robertson hedged.

"I would like to know if the city could have negotiated something different," he replied.

Meanwhile, Vanoc has asked other municipalities along the 44,000-kilometre torch relay route to pass bylaws ensuring that no political messages be distributed or visible.(Now THIS is interesting-Molly )

It's not clear how many have agreed, nor is it clear whether the IOC will ask that the torch route be altered if they refuse.

That's the sword of Damocles that the secretive elites of the international Olympic movement hang over the heads of enthusiastic sports bodies, organizing committees and politicians.

Play by our rules or not at all.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 1:13 PM 0 comments

Friday, July 24, 2009

 

CANADIAN POLITICS-VANCOUVER:
SECURITY GAMES:
Molly has expressed her opinion on the upcoming Vancouver/Whistler Winter Olympics many times before on this blog. It is first and foremost nothing but an open invitation to corruption, as huge wads of government money are thrown at construction, organization and security, with the inevitable consequence that certain private interests benefit while the taxpayer is left holding the bill. It is very rare, perhaps nonexistent, that a city that hosts an Olympic event actually benefits from it in the long term. The greatest Canadian example is Montréal where the debt was finally paid off decades after the event- just in time for pieces to start falling off the Olympic venue. Love those "honest contractors". A little more sand in that concrete please. It's cheaper than lime after all. Vancouver, of course, hardly needs recognition on the world scene, and the fillip to the city's tourist industry will be brief and ephemeral. It's not like Vancouver is Moose Jaw, Sudbury, Prince George. Hosting an Olympics will make little difference to Vancouver's long term tourist draw. It will give a temporary fillip to hotels and restaurants, but the major beneficiaries of the Games will be the construction industry with its "meeting in the can of the local club" way of doing business with politicians. Such is life.
I have also commented previously on exactly how much the "security" precautions" of these games have been concentrated on suppressing public dissent rather than on trying to intercept the truly horrendous possibility of the 'Abdul Al Hazred Brigade'( H.P. Lovecraft fans know what I mean) pulling a dramatic stunt at the Games. Perhaps this is a longshot, but if it does happen there will be the egg of 10 million chickens on the faces of those who thought that public protesters were the actual "threat". Here is more about how the runup to the Games has provoked suppression of civil liberties out there on the "Rainshine Coast". The following came to Molly's attention via the No2010 website. It was originally published in the BC online newsjournal The Tyee.
CPCPCPCPCPCPCP
2010 Security Overkill: Why so Afraid of Protest?:
 The 2010 Plan to Crush Our Freedoms
Olympics security overkill: Why so afraid of protest?
By Rafe Mair, July 20, 2009, TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/07/20/2010Freedoms/
Less than two weeks ago, Bud Mercer, head of the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit looking after security for the 2010 Olympics, raised with Vancouver City Council the specter of the violent clashes that rocked World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle and Quebec City.

To combat these forecasted dangers, the taxpayer is spending one billion dollars, at last count, and using 16,000 police and armed forces personnel!

To support this gross overkill, Mercer said, "I can assure council as I stand before you here today, that locally, provincially, nationally and internationally, there are groups that are considering or planning to engage in criminal protests during the 2010 Games. North America and Canada are not strangers to criminal protests during major events -- the 1999 Seattle WTO, 2001 in Quebec City or the Stanley Cup riot. There are things that will happen during a major event that we have a responsibility to plan and prepare for..."

Mercer added that such precautions include more than 900 cameras to guard the perimeters of Olympic venues, the creation of "free speech" zones where protesters can legally demonstrate, and a 2010 security force of 7,000 police, 5,000 private security officers and 4,500 members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mercer didn't define just what a "criminal protest" was but one suspects it is much different than my definition and that of many readers.
Urge to protest isn't intent to kill
 Mercer and authorities ought to know, but evidently don't know, that protesters waving banners and shouting insults don't assassinate people. They annoy the hell out of the establishment, which some might say is an excellent reason for encouraging them, but they don't assassinate. (I'm not talking here of the huge riots we've seen, alas, in other lands. But Mr. Mercer clearly isn't thinking of them either.)

The Americans have had four presidential assassinations: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. All these men were killed by a single fanatic. Indeed, Lincoln, in the midst of a civil war, moved easily in large crowds, as did Kennedy in his day at the height of the Cold War.

Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were killed by individual assassins and not by picketers. Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a single mad man, and Archduke Ferdinand, whose assassination in July 1914 triggered the First World War, was killed by an anarchist(FULL STOP HERE-The assassin of the Archduke was a Serbian nationalist- the furthest thing imaginable from an anarchist. This sounds like "commie history"-there is nothing so remote from truth as communist statements-, as I have never seen this claim made in any objective history book of any persuasion that I have ever read-Molly) .





Mohandas Gandhi, and the unrelated sharers on his surname, Indira and Raj,were killed not by protesters but by individual terrorists; in the case of Mohandas and Raj Gandhi, by Hindu fanatics; and in Mrs. Gandhi's case, it was two of her bodyguards.

Lord Louis Mountbatten died when IRA members planted a bomb on his yacht. There have been at least three unsuccessful attempts on the lives of U.S. presidents: Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. None were by protesters.
Democracy needs dissent
 Mr. Mercer and others of his persuasion would do well to read the law which both here and in the United States is in clear, unadorned English.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states in section two,

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association."

Article three of the U.S. Bill of Rights states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither."
Pepper spray or Tasers?
Yes, these are perilous times but the truth remains. Large crowds waving banners and shouting slogans unto the obscene do not kill people. What they do is make it embarrassing because, in the words of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, they offend "those set in authority over us."

It's interesting to note that policeman Mercer talks about special places for protesters just as they have third amendment sites for free speech in America. What the hell point is there in making people protest in places where the objects of their attention are out of ear shot and thus invisible to the media?

Does it take 16,500 cops and soldiers to ferret out potential assassins and locate them? That, plus denying honest citizens their right to associate and protest?

Of course not.

This is 1997 APEC revisited, where one radical youth was put in jail several days before the parade and only released if he promised not to go to the scene; where a young law school student was jailed for carrying a cloth banner saying "Democracy" and "Free Speech" and where protesters were hit with pepper spray for no greater sin than saying nasty things about the nasty heads of state and heads of government that our authorities didn't want embarrassed.

It was pepper spray then. Will it be Taser guns this time?
Modern day Potemkin villages
 This billion dollar extravagance has, I suspect, a lot less to do with perceived terror than giving off to the international media the image of sweetness and light in a place where never is heard a discouraging word. This is akin to the Potemkin villages, which were shacks with beautiful façades created so that the visiting Tsarina, Catherine II, would believe that this village she was visiting was a prosperous with loyal and happy subjects.(This invention of my mother's countrymen was taken to astronomical heights under the Communist dictatorships that used to occupy a third of the world and now are restricted to Cuba and North Korea. Not villages but whole countries had their reality disguised, as it is today in Cuba and North Korea-Molly)

VANOC, under considerable pressure from governments, doesn't want the image of Canada, Vancouver or Whistler tarnished with evidence that not everyone wanted the Olympics and that a great many people see them as bad for society for one reason or another.

The classic reason to protest is to ask others, especially those in charge, to see and hear the messages portrayed. Whether these protests are against a war in Vietnam, against separate facilities for blacks, or against heads of countries whose stated commitment to freedom is not matched by reality, they are perfectly legal and, in fact, the quintessential expression of the freedom which connotes a free society.

If, God forbid, there is an attack on anyone, you can be sure that it would have happened with or without demonstrations.

VANOC's position is untenable in a free society, expensive out of all proportion to the risk of serious harm and a huge waste of our money to boot.

Labels: , , , , , ,


# posted by mollymew @ 9:44 PM 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?