Monday, April 13, 2015

Boston Marathon Bombings’ A Gross Travesty of Justice: A must read!!!


Boston Marathon Bombings’ Guilty Verdict Exposed as a Gross Travesty of Justice

Global Research, April 11, 2015
boston_bombing_Tsarnaev
With the official government narrative of the 9/11 attack filled with a plethora of lies that have since been subsequently exposed, the next biggest “war on terror” event on US soil that the feds failed to stop was the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. And now the lone living suspect from that horrific crime that killed three people, left 17 limbless and injured 264 victims (though that number’s been accused of being purposely inflated) has now been found guilty of all 30 counts after the jury’s 11 hour deliberation earlier this week. As we mark the second anniversary of this tragic event and the second and final phase of the trial beginning on Monday that will decide the fate of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – whether he’ll live out the rest of his life in prison or be put to death, a critical review of preceding events and developments surrounding his high profile, extremely significant case seems both timely and much needed.
Despite Dzhokhar Tsarnaev pleading not guilty to the 30 counts (17 carrying the death penalty) he was charged within a week after the April 15th bombings in 2013, his lead defense attorney Judy Clark several days ago conceded to the jury that her client was guilty in her closing argument. Apparently blaming the dead brother whose due process was denied became Dzhokhar’s only defense strategy. The defense team insisted that he was coerced and bullied by his older brother into committing alleged acts of terrorism. Considering no real solid proof other than photos placing Dzhokhar and older brother Tamerlan both wearing backpacks at the scene of the crime where the two bombs exploded was even presented at the trial, no justice for either the Tsarnaevs nor the many victims can possibly come from this guilty verdict.
If the purpose of the US judicial system in criminal trials is to ensure that all factual evidence surrounding an alleged crime or crimes be accurately and fairly presented so that the jurors can properly assess the best semblance of the truth as presented by both prosecution and defense in order for the jury to adjudicate and decide a defendant’s true guilt or innocence, this trial was a complete travesty of justice. And if a basic tenet of the justice system in the United States holds that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, then again this verdict outcome is an obscene farce and a shameful joke exposing America’s justice system for its gross injustice. Just as the 9/11 commission failed to adequately address and answer dozens of questions that its official narrative failed to deliver, and years earlier the Warren Commission failed JFK and America, so does the prosecution’s case of evidence of Tsarnaev’s guilt fail to be convincing, much less provide definitive and unequivocal proof that the 21-year old Chechen American with his brother committed the Boston Marathon crimes.
And the prime reason why is that so much of the testimony and so called evidence was based on the FBI and local law enforcement’s dishonest versions of events that were based near exclusively on the government’s one star witness’s faulty, changeable, non-credible accounting of events. The identity of this sole witness who we don’t even know other than by his fake name “Danny,” claims that the deceased brother Tamerlan confessed that he and his younger brother were responsible for the Marathon bombings as well as the murder of the MIT campus policeman. Yet “Danny” never even testified as a witness at the trial. When the strength of the state’s evidence relies solely on one anonymous witness who’s never even sworn in to testify at the trial nor subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the accused, how can the trial verdict in any way be considered legitimate or fair? Virtually the entire guilt or innocence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev rested on what this one alleged witness claimed, yet he kept changing his story on numerous occasions.
The other so called incriminating evidence used against Dzhokhar was a bogus, totally unbelievable written confession that he is purported to have written in the dark on the inside wall of the boat he was hiding out in. Dzhokhar was supposedly laying there nearly bleeding to death from the alleged gunshot exchange with police a few hours earlier. Yet on video footage the young man is seen emerging unassisted from the boat appearing bloodless and uninjured only to be admitted minutes later to the emergency hospital room in critical condition suffering from a deeply sliced neck wound that prevented him from speaking for weeks. How did that happen while in police custody? And that came after a swarm of police shot a slew of bullet holes into the boat while Tsarnaev supposedly lay there gravely injured.
Just as the French authorities made sure that no prisoners were allowed to be taken alive in the alleged Hebdo Paris crime spree in January, nor in Osama bin Laden’s alleged execution in Pakistan in 2011, nor in the JFK assassination, that barrage of gunfire into that boat by FBI and/or local police was also intended to kill the only suspect. That way the government’s complicity, criminal involvement and subsequent cover-up would have conveniently been eliminated – wiped clean of any messy complications in the form of a suspect trial and the truth inadvertently leaking out. So the US government proceeds with a pseudo-trial that kept the defendant silent and unable to ever present his side of the story. In effect, he may as well have been silenced by the bullets intended to kill him.
Another of the dozens of discrepancies in this case is over how and when older brother Tamerlan actually died. A series of photos of a naked and handcuffed Tamerlan were taken as the police placed him into custody and inside a patrol car. Both CNN and the Boston Globe reported that Tamerlan was alive in police custody. Yet the feds’ official line was that after the brothers robbed a 7-Eleven, Tamerlan was killed in the Watertown shootout with the police while Dzhokhar backed the car over him as he made his temporary getaway. It can only be one or the other. The photos don’t lie. Cops do.
For so many incredulous inconsistencies to actually be accepted as convincing “evidence” while so many discrepant facts directly contradict state evidence, and then the “no questions asked” defense and mainstream media throughout the trial passively swallowing it hook, line and sinker in its rush to convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (trial being over in less than a month with 95 witnesses) is utterly preposterous and again, a complete and total miscarriage of justice. For nearly two years all the potential defense witnesses were constantly harassed, deported, jailed, and even killed, thus, virtually silencing any chance of a fair defense for Dzhokhar.
But then the propaganda lies built into this case from the start were designed to convict the brothers as the patsy fall guys all along. Going back to the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald, every false flag operation has its unwitting stooges who are used by the feds as props to take the sole blame. From President Obama to the FBI to their propagandist presstitutes, they were all publicly weighing in their guilty verdicts no sooner than the release of the photos that within days of the bombings identified the two brothers as the only prime suspects, thus prejudicing the entire case, effectively swaying Americans into believing that the one suspect still alive was guilty long before his trial ever began. And we know based on both Obama and the FBI’s track records that they both are constantly lying through their teeth and obviously cannot be trusted. The overwhelming majority of American citizens per last August’s CNN poll, an all-time high of 87%, of Americans simply do not trust their own government, knowing that they are constantly being lied to every day. And with so many blatant holes in the state’s case, anyone half aware and informed of what’s been allowed to go down in the Boston Marathon bombings case would be near 100% certain that the government is once again producing an over-the-top false narrative designed to hide its own criminality. But then the US federal government’s become a militarized dictatorship, part of an international crime cabal that uses state propaganda as effectively as the Nazis ever did.
All kinds of unexplained anomalies are rampant throughout this case. A number of paid mercenaries from Craft International, a paramilitary private security contractor out of Texas (not unlike notorious Blackwater/aka Xe/aka Academi) were also spotted in photos wearing those same black colored government-issued-like backpacks. The question of whether any of them laid their backpack and its contents on the ground never quite came up in the trial. Apparently these guys were part of a Homeland Security training exercise that just happened to be training at the exact same time and place as the so called terrorists on that Boston Marathon day. Think about those odds, kind of like America’s entire national air defense on 9/11 conveniently being absent, purposely diverted to training exercises in the Atlantic just so the 9/11 false flag could be executed as planned. In Boston the unmistakable heavy presence of the military and special ops personnel assembled en-masse instantly on the scene after the marathon explosions is yet another giveaway indicating that the feds had something if not everything to do with this tragedy.
Clearly it was a training exercise alright, Bostonians was used as a guinea pig litmus test for assessing how a large US urban population of over a million people would react to a first practice, simulation dry-run of martial law in America, conveniently prepping us for what’s to come. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act upheld by the US Supreme Court a year ago now permits the US military to invade our homes without warrant, arrest us without charges, and imprison us indefinitely without trial, legal representation or due process. After the marathon bombings the feds’ stand down order issued over an expansive, densely populated metropolitan area to remain in their homes while a massive police state-army dressed and armed for war against its own people without warrants entered thousands of homes with automatic weapons drawn in the largest, monster-scale manhunt in US history searching for one teenager from a family with whom the feds were already very familiar.
Perhaps the most respected independent news team that’s been diligently investigating the Boston Marathon bombings the last two years – WhoWhatWhy – has asserted that older brother Tamerlan was most likely an FBI informant. Through court motions last year Dzhokhar’s defense team submitted evidence that the FBI had approached the older Tsarnaev brother in an effort to recruit him to spy on his fellow Boston Chechen and Muslim community. The US intel community has a verifiably long history both here and around the globe of seeking out troubled youth and young people like the Tsarnaevs as informants in its worldwide clandestine operations.
The FBI and CIA’s common misuse of paying informants to entrap others globally into joining plots of terrorism was well documented in researcher-author Trevor Aaronson’s book The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. Between 9/11 and 2011 he confirmed that 508 defendants were recruited by informants paid up to $100,000 in multiple sting operations. In fact, in all but only three high profile cases were the FBI and their informants not involved. Again, this demonstrates that the US government’s calling card around the world reads “Terrorism-R-US,” just another M.O. for squandering hard earned taxpayer dollars to keep its invented “war on terror” very much ongoing and alive forever.
What seems most probable are efforts by the FBI to recruit Tamerlan to become a snitch in the neocons’ self-serving war on terror. Yet this piece of crucial evidence has been purposely withheld from all court proceedings and MSM’s dubious, half-ass coverage. 26-year old Tamerlin was a down on his luck, unemployed boxer whose dream of Olympic gold had been shattered, married to a nurse’s aide working 60 hours a week to make ends meet. YetWhoWhatWhy states that just two days prior to the bombings, Tamerlan could afford sending his mother in Russia $900 cash along with paying for the backpacks (or were they government issued?), ammunition and bomb-making materials. Yet this critical piece of information was also prohibited from further inquiry during the trial.
Of course the FBI predictably denied any Tsarnaev solicitation to become an informant. Prior to last month’s trial, the US Circuit Court judge presiding over the case explicitly ordered that the brother’s involvement with FBI not be allowed to enter his courtroom during the trial. It remains to be seen if Judge George A. O’Toole will permit the defense to present this critical information during the upcoming sentencing phase. Because the government has so much to hide and has failed to address so many discrepancies in the case for obvious high stakes reasons, it probably won’t be included, which of course only reinforces what many of us already know, that this trial is but a sham for police state propaganda and truth suppression.
Of all the receipts for typical everyday items purchased, the only receipts found in Tamerlan’s pockets were receipts for his self-incriminating bomb-making materials. That’s almost like finding the unblemished passport belonging to the lead 9/11 box-cutter a couple blocks from the towers’ ashes the day after, or the Hebdo gunman’s wallet with ID left carelessly on purpose in the cab so those terrorists could instantly be identified. This calling card pattern smacks of yet another inside job rendition with the same shabby, grubby fed fingerprints carelessly smudged all over it.
Another inconsistent weakness in the prosecution’s case was the sophistication required for making the “pressure-cooker” bombs used at the marathon. Supposedly Tamerlan learned off an al Qaeda internet website where the article’s authors mention the directions being beyond the scope of a novice. Throughout the trial, the prosecution team would go back and forth promoting the notion of the bombs’ complexity whenever it served their purpose. For example, as the reason used to justify the FBI interrogating Dzhokhar for two days straight without reading him his Miranda rights, the FBI suspected that others were also involved, partially based on the bombs seeming more than homemade-like. Yet whenever it would come up as a reason to mitigate seeking the death penalty, the notion of lone wolves would get drummed home every time.
The traces of bomb materials in Tamerlan’s apartment underwent the same flip floppy logic as a transparent prosecution ploy used to convict the younger brother. Three times the feds changed their tune on traces of the bomb material being found in the apartment and whether the brothers had outside help or not. These discrepancies consistently went unchallenged by the defense during the trial as if pre-scripted to let the shady government off the hook in its back and forth rendition of “truth,” protecting the feds’ cover-up lies of discrepancy in order to allow the US government to get away with its incriminating part.
The one thread of unfailing consistency throughout this entire two year story is the constant inconsistencies and the countless conspicuously avoided bottom line questions that smack of inside cover-up. Initially the Tsarnaevs were not the suspects. Apparently once the photos of the Tsarnaev brothers at the Boston Marathon were made public asking for help in identifying their names, overheard on a Boston police scanner and then scooped up immediately by social media network sources, the names Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Trapathi were erroneously identified as the suspects. The fact that the FBI knew who the two men in those photos were because they had previous dealings with them enough to place them on a no fly list, the FBI willfully lied to America pretending it needed the public’s assistance to identify them. And then the police put out false names of innocent people as suspects. Mike Mulugeta reportedly was shot dead though any actual accounts confirming his death are completely absent. However, East Indian American and Brown University student Sunil Trapathi who had been reported missing since mid-March was found floating face down in pond water in Providence, Rhode Island about a week after the Marathon explosions. What little information about his suspicious death was released through his family and the question of whether the death resulted from foul play is still largely unknown.
More bogus, planted propaganda against the brothers shortly after they were identified as the prime suspects was the FBI claim linking them to the triple murder case in Waltham, Massachusetts that took place on September 11th, 2011. Only during the trial did it come out that there existed absolutely no evidence that Tamerlan was involved. Yet the systematic damage of misinformation supporting the brothers’ guilt was already done, ensuring that in the court of public opinion the Tsarnaevs were guilty as charged right from the get-go.
Here the Tsarnaev brothers were supposedly on a no fly list acting as more evidence supporting prior contact with intelligence agencies, yet Tamerlan was permitted to fly to known terrorist hotbed Chechnya and neighboring Dagestan from January 21, 2012 to July 17, 2012. His family members insist he spent his entire time with family, among them a distant cousin who heads a non-violent organization critical of Western policies toward Islam. Yet his visit was used by prosecution as so called evidence that the older brother was “radicalized” there and came home an inspired terrorist seeking revenge on America.
A New York Times article dated April 20, 2013 suggests that Tamerlan was first approached by the FBI in January 2011 after a return trip from Russia. Russian intelligence services that monitored phone calls in Chechnya warned the FBI in March 2011 that Tamerlan was becoming a potential threat. Thus two plus years well in advance of the bombings, the FBI was already cognizant of Tamerlan’s extremist leaning activities. Yet the FBI allowed him to travel yet again to Russia despite being on a no fly list and less than nine months after his return from that final trip abroad, the Boston Marathon bombings occurred. This damning piece of government evidence makes the feds minimally guilty of criminal gross negligence if not actually a criminal accomplice.
Yet another despicable chapter to this tragic saga is the FBI’s murder of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s friend in Florida. Within weeks after the Boston bombings, an unarmed Ibragim Todashev was shot by an FBI agent previously reprimanded for excessive force as an Oakland police officer. Initially the FBI lied about the circumstances, falsely claiming Todashev wielded a knife. The victim’s family is suing the FBI for $30 million. Even after admitting the lie about the victim brandishing a weapon, the Justice Department (overseeing the FBI) and a Florida prosecutor cleared the murdering FBI agent of any wrongdoing. The official government’s response that in effect supports such egregious acts of violence toward innocent civilians strongly indicates that the victim knew too much and the crime syndicate’s answer for people aware of the feds’ evildoing is to systematically assassinate those who might incriminate the federal government. Neutralizing perceived threats is standard operating procedure.
As an aside, the Tsarnaev brothers’ uncle who went public shortly after the bombings blasting his nephews as “losers” was married for several years in the 1990’s to the daughter of well-known CIA career officer Graham Fuller. Fuller is the CIA architect for creating the Mujahedeen movement that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the same outfit whose leader Osama bin Laden emerged as the so called 9/11 al Qaeda mastermind. Fuller was a committed advocate for using Islamic fundamentalists as US proxy war mercenaries. Another coincidence that the CIA VIP’s son-in-law and his nephews came from Chechnya, a hotspot for separatist Muslim terrorist activity?
Once again the United States government appears to be at least complicit in another state crime against its own citizens… and then applying a media blackout to any real investigative reporting that would ask the dozens of questions to get to the truth. Even the defendant’s legal representation abandoned Tsarnaev’s right to a fair trial, and by co-opting to act in accordance with the government’s “no questions asked” implicitly applied gag-rule, it too is complicit in this heinous crime for neither seeking the truth nor any real justice for either the defendants or the scores of victims. The US crime cabal and its fabricated “war on terror” is perpetuated globally, both on US soil and around the world as an ongoing crime against humanity. The truth behind 9/11 is in-our-face, and so is the truth behind these Boston bombings. The criminals in Washington must pay for their crimes.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/.

Copyright © 2015 Global Research

GLOBAL RESEARCH | PO Box 55019 | 11 Notre-Dame Ouest | Montreal | QC | H2Y 4A7 | Canada

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Wold is Watching YOU COKE!!!!

The World Responds to Coke's Lies & Abuses
Newsletter March 30, 2015
Share
Contents
  1. Coca-Cola Boycott for Spanish Parliament?
  2. Coca-Cola Forced to Shut Bottling Plant in India
  3. Coke Not Living Up to Promises on Land Grabs
  4. When Coke & Nazis Went Hand-in-Hand
  5. Coke's Money Damages Groups' Credibility & Integrity
  6. Harvard Study: Coca-Cola Puts Girls at Cancer Risk
  7. Lies & Deception: Coca-Cola & Sugar Industry Behave Like Tobacco Companies
  8. 10 Dangerous Sweeteners in Coca-Cola that Can Harm or Kill You
  9. From UK: One Can of Fizzy Drink [Coca-Cola] Increases Heart Attack By a Third
  10. Coca-Cola: Global Face of Obesity
  11. Coke Makes Joke of National Press Foundation
  12. Will Connecticut Be the First State to Enact a Sugar Tax?
  13. Gates Trust Doesn't Trust Coke!
  14. Coke Avoids Risk & Responsibility to Make Loads of Money

1. Coca-Cola Boycott for Spanish Parliament?
"Coca-Cola Boycott for Spanish Parliament?" The Local, February 16, 2015
Read Article
"A Spanish politician has requested that the nation's parliament stop all sales of Coca Cola until the company reinstates workers in a bottling plant in the capital.
"Cayo Lara, head of the United Left party, has sent a letter to the president of Spain's Congress of Deputies requesting that all sales of Coca Cola be stopped until the multinational complies with a Spanish court ruling, that the company should reinstate workers at the Fuenlabrada bottling plant in Madrid."
The Campaign received an email from Dani in Spain:
We were in the EU Parliament yesterday. We were invited by IU (United Left) and Podemos (a Left-Wing political party). We were asking justice and promoting the boycott.
A few political parties will write a letter asking Coca-Cola to comply with the law and reinstate us at work...We know there are at least five parties supporting the letter.
We also had an interview with the International Union Association in Brussels and they will also pressure Coke too, asking for union rights and they are going to support us because Coke violated the essential strikers rights.
Dani
2. Coca-Cola Forced to Shut Bottling Plant in India
"Coca-Cola Forced to Shut Bottling Plant in India" by Fatima Hansia, CorpWatch Blog, July 10, 2014
Read Article
"Coca-Cola, the world's largest beverage producer, has been ordered to shut down its bottling plant in Varanasi, India following local complaints that the company was drawing excessive amounts of groundwater. After an investigation, government authorities ruled that the company had violated its operating license."
3. Coke Not Living Up to Promises on Land Grabs: Cambodia, Mexico India, Brazil, Swaziland
"No Relief for Evictees One Year on From Coca-Cola Visit" by Zsombor Peter & Aun Pheap, The Cambodia Daily, February 14, 2015
Read Article
"Nearly a year after beverage giant Coca-Cola sent a team of re­searchers to Cambodia to probe al­leged human rights abuses by the sugar producers that help sweeten its drinks, NGOs and the families that have lost land to those suppliers' plantations say little to nothing has changed.
"The researchers spent more than a week in late February and early March 2014 visiting families forced off their farms by plantations owned by the Thai companies that supply Coca-Cola. The visit followed the beverage firm's high-profile pledge the year before of 'zero tolerance' for land grabbing by its sugar suppliers."
As previously reported by the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, Coke's land grab policy does not live up to Coke's stated rhetoric:
"Fernando Ponce, a development magnate and chief of Coca-Cola distribution company Bepensa of Merida, Mexico is drawing the ire of Holbox Island residents, visitors and environmentalists for trying to grab local land to build a high-end resort in a pristine area that 'is largely untouched, replete with mangroves, barely navigable and located in a nature reserve.' "
" 'Coca-Cola's land grab in India, as confirmed by government authorities, makes a mockery of their so called "zero tolerance" commitment towards land grabs. If Coca-Cola is serious, they should immediately return the community-owned land to the village council, as demanded by the government authorities,' said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning group."
"Coke's new policy led Survival International to urge Coca-Cola to stop buying sugar from U.S. food giant Bunge, which buys sugar cane from land stolen from Guarani Indians in Brazil. A Guarani spokesperson told Survivor International, 'Coca-Cola must stop buying sugar from Bunge. While these companies profit, we are forced to endure hunger, misery, and killings.' "
"This promise must also extend to a country like Swaziland. All Africa published a commentary titled, 'Swaziland: Coca-Cola Abandons Swazi Workers' saying, 'Coca-Cola has denied that it intends to take any lead in protecting the rights of workers in Swaziland from land-grabbing...where land is taken from poor people in developing countries without their consent...In Swaziland, King Mswati III, who rules as sub-Saharan Africa's last absolute monarch, controls all publicly-owned land, and his chiefs do his bidding in ejecting people from the land they live on and cultivate if they disobey him or them in any way. Manqoba Khumalo, General Manager of Conco Limited (trading as Coca-Cola Swaziland), told the Sunday Observer...that Coca-Cola was taking a leadership role across the world in protecting land rights of farmers and communities, but this did not apply to Swaziland...' "
4. When Coke & Nazis Went Hand-in-Hand
"Coca Cola company advertisement celebrates Fanta by giving the feeling of 'the good old times' of 1940's Germany," Daily Mail, March 12, 2015
Read Article (Video in German)
"Cola-Cola has gotten rid of a Fanta advertisement that referred to the 1940s, the time period in which the drink was first produced in Germany, as 'the good old times.'
"The advertisement, which was broadcast in German, was in honor of Fanta's 75th anniversary and promoted a new drink recipe."
5. Coke's Money Damages Groups' Credibility & Integrity
"Coke Pays Nutrition Experts To Say Soda Can Be A Healthy Snack," by Candice Choi, AP, 03/16/2015
Read Article
"Coca-Cola is working with fitness and nutrition experts who suggest its soda as a treat at a time when the world's biggest beverage maker is being blamed for helping to fuel obesity rates.
"In February, several of the experts wrote online posts for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or soda as a snack idea. The pieces — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — offer a window into the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.
"The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a professional group for dietitians, says in its code of ethics that practitioners promote and endorse products 'only in a manner that is not false and misleading.' A spokesman for the academy, Ryan O'Malley, said he couldn't say whether the posts on mini-Cokes meet those guidelines because there is a formal process for submitting and reviewing such cases.
"Meanwhile, a group called Dietitians for Professional Integrity has called for sharper lines to be drawn between dietitians and companies. Andy Bellatti, one of its founders, said companies court dietitians because they help validate corporate messages."
"Needs of Undocumented Children Tops AAP Resolution List" by Melissa Jenco, AAP News, March 20, 2015
Read Article
"AAP leaders deemed the needs of undocumented immigrant children their top priority for the year at the Annual Leadership Forum (ALF) last weekend.
"They also called for action on issues such as sugar-sweetened beverages, marijuana exposure and telehealth.
"The top resolutions were culled from more than 100 that AAP chapters, committees, councils and sections around the country submitted and then debated at this year's forum."
Among the Top 10 list:
1. Addressing the Legal and Mental Health Needs of Undocumented Immigrant Children
2. AAP Terminate Sponsorship(s) on HealthyChildren.org of Companies that Produce Soft Drinks and Sugar-sweetened Beverages
6. Sugar-sweetened Beverage Company Sponsorship of the AAP
"Coca-Cola's hypocrisy and attempted deception with respect to children's well-being is further evident on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) "healthychildren.org" website. There Coca-Cola posts its "LIVE POSITIVELY Coca-Cola" ad [no longer on the site], which is totally inappropriate and disgusting. Shame on Coca-Cola and shame on the irresponsible, money grubbing AAP whose tagline "DEDICATED TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN" which accompanies its logo would be more appropriate if it read "DEDICATED TO PROFIT, CHILDREN BE DAMNED."
Coca-Cola is currently a member of the AAP's Corporate Friends of Children Fund in the $50,000 and above category.
Will Coca-Cola's corrupted AAP leadership change and choose integrity over Coke's money?
6. Harvard Study: Coca-Cola Puts Girls at Cancer Risk
"Fizzy drinks cause early puberty and increases cancer risk in girls, study finds
"A Harvard study has shown a link between fizzy drinks and cancer in girls"
The Telegraph, By Agency, January 28, 2015

Read Article
"Girls who frequently drink fizzy sugary drinks are putting themselves at risk of breast cancer, research warned. Drinking just one-and-a-half cans a day causes early puberty and that increases their cancer risk.
For each year they mature earlier, it is estimated breast cancer risk increases by five per cent.
"The Harvard Medical School study of 5,583 girls aged nine to 14 found those who drank more than 1.5 servings of sugary drinks a day had their first period 2.7 months earlier than those who drank two or fewer drinks a week...
"This research shows that it's even more important that children switch to water."
7. Lies & Deception: Coca-Cola & Sugar Industry Behave Like Tobacco Companies
"Tooth decay: sugar industry behaved like tobacco manufacturers" by Markus MacGill, MNT, March 11, 2015
Read Article
"When the science first established that sugar was the damaging component in tooth decay — and when the sugar industry saw there was this unquestionable harm — its trade organizations ignored dentists' calls for restricting intake, and instead deflected the debate elsewhere, influencing public health research in food producers' favor. Those are the allegations of researchers who have trawled a previously unexplored source of industry documents from the 60s...
"...documents suggest that the industry, simply put, decided to focus on ways to reduce sugar's harms instead of answer the scientific charge that the damage to teeth was so clear and direct that the best way to reduce it was to restrict the addition of sugars to foods."
8. 10 Dangerous Sweeteners in Coca-Cola that Can Harm or Kill You
"10 Dangerous Sweeteners in Coca-Cola," Examiner.com, This article was originally published on Stefan Pinto's blog, PintoFactory.
Read Article
Read this article to find out the horrible health risks in Diet Coke and other of Coke products due to the artificial sweeteners:
"Sold in over 200 countries, Coca-Cola is one of the most familiar brands of beverages in the world. As Coke is flavored mostly with caramel and sugar, the latter being such a controversial ingredient, the makers of Coke have long since began using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar.
"Studies continue to show that these artificial sweeteners can cause weight gain, disruption of sleep patterns, sexual dysfunction, increases in cancer, MS, Lupus, diabetes, and a list of epidemic degenerative diseases. How ironic that a product originally intended for medicine can actually make you sick."
1. Aspartame (phenylalanine)
2. Acesulfame-K (acesulfame potassium) or Ace-K
3. Neotame (dimethylbutyl)
4. Saccharin
5. Cyclamate or sodium cyclamate
6. Sucralose (E955)
7. Maltodextrin
8. Sucrose
9. High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS 55)
10. Alitame
9. From UK: One Can of Fizzy Drink [Coca-Cola] Increases Heart Attack By a Third
"Just ONE can of fizzy drink a day increases heart attack risk by a third and could lead a STONE of weight gain over a year" by Sean Poulter, Daily Mail, February 16, 2015
Read Article
"Drinking one can of a sugary drink a day increases the risk of dying from heart disease by a third, health campaigners warn. Heart health experts have launched a hard-hitting poster campaign to challenge the damage they claim is caused by the likes of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. One poster highlights the risk of heart disease, while a second warns that drinking one can of full sugar fizzy drink a day could lead to weight gain of 6kg — over a stone — in a year...
"Recent research by the University of Liverpool claimed that added a 20p tax to the drinks would save thousands of children from diabetes, cancer and heart disease...
10. Coca-Cola: Global Face of Obesity
"Message about sugar-packed soft drinks gets through at last, says nutritionist" by Beau Donelly, The Sydney Morning Herald, February 17, 2015
Read Article
"Coca-Cola Amatil posted its lowest profit in eight years, with a 25 per cent drop in net profit to $375.5 million in 2014...
"Rob Moodie, professor of public health at the University of Melbourne, said consumers realised they had been 'duped'. '[Coca-Cola] is the biggest advertiser and most recognised brand and seen as one of the global faces of obesity.' "
11. Coke Makes Joke of National Press Foundation
"Another conflicted journalism training event by the National Press Foundation" by Gary Schwitzer, Health News Review, March 10, 2015
Read Article
The announcement by the National Press Foundation states:
"Any journalist who wants to improve her or his work on scientific topics will benefit from this webinar. It will highlight common challenges in communicating science and offer specific tips to enhance the fidelity and richness of [bogus] scientific reporting.
The speakers in the webinar were David Allison Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham and Andrew W. Brown, Ph.D., Nutrition and Obesity Research Center & Office of Energetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
As it turns out, The Coca-Cola Company underwrites this Webinar.
"The first speaker...David Allison...has extensive ties to Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and the American Beverage Association.
"...Brown...published a paper in April, 2013 in which he argued that all kinds of popular public-health interventions to prevent obesity can have unintended consequences, making the obesity problem worse. He argues against such things as taxing sugar-sweetened beverages and labeling calories on vending machine drinks...
"...why on earth is a journalism organization allowing Coke to use its cred to legitimize this webinar? This is a scandal."
12. Will Connecticut Be the First State to Enact a Sugar Tax?
"Sugar tax a slurp closer for Connecticut" by Bill Cummings, Stamford Advocate, March 10, 2015
Read Article
" A bill which would make Connecticut the first in the nation to slap a penalty tax on sugary soda products passed a legislative committee Thursday and moved a few inches closer to becoming law...
"State Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington and the children's committee chairwoman, said even if the bill does not become law — she acknowledged similar efforts failed in New York City and California — the discussion helps educate the public about the dangers of surgery drinks.
"'The more we put this out there I think we are educating the public because we are highlighting the issue,' Urban said, referring to obesity and other diseases linked to surgery food products."
13. Gates Trust Doesn't Trust Coke!
"Bill and Melinda Gates' trust sheds Coca-Cola, adds UPS to holdings" by Christopher Seward, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 17, 2015
Read Article
"The Gates Foundation Asset Trust, which manages the assets of the $42.3 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has sold its [almost $2 billion] holdings of Coca-Cola stock and added UPS to its portfolio, according to a Bloomberg report, citing filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission...
"A spokesman for the Gates trust reportedly did not provide a reason for the change in investment strategy. Coca-Cola declined to comment.
"Coca-Cola recently reported that its fourth-quarter profit fell 55 percent from the year-ago period. The company said 2015 will be a transition year and initiatives to strengthen its business will take time to materialize..."
Coke's Biggest Cheerleaders: Warren Buffett and Bill & Melinda Gates (from 'Buying Respectability...')
[We have been critical of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett for their investments and the way they have personally promoted Coca-Cola. Perhaps the Gates finally realized that concerns they have shown for children's health and well-being worldwide conflicted with their investments and their personal promotions of Coke.]
"The interests of Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and The Coca-Cola Company are intimately linked... The Gates Foundation and Coca-Cola would seem to make strange bedfellows in that the Foundation promotes the image of purity and concern for the welfare of children worldwide. One has to wonder why Bill and Melinda Gates promote The Coca-Cola Company so much and invest so heavily in it. For decades, Coca-Cola has done, and continues to do, great harm to the health and well being of children on a global scale in the name of profit. The Gates/Buffett/Coca-Cola altruism image has many serious contradictions and flaws."
14. Coke Avoids Risk & Responsibility to Make Loads of Money
"Killer Coke: Coke is indeed 'the real thing' if reality is about shrewdly offloading risk and responsibility in order to make loads of money."
(Review of "Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism" by Bartow J. Elmore)
By Nicholas Freudenberg, The American Interest, February 3, 2015

Read Article
"A central theme of Citizen Coke is that Coke has created a brand of capitalism that increasingly dominates the global economy. What are the essential elements of Coca-Cola capitalism?
"First, Coke capitalism looks to protect profit by outsourcing expensive or risky operations to others...
"Second, Coca-Cola avidly pursues government subsidies...
"Third, Coca-Cola has lots of local partners who look out for the company's interests...
"Finally, Coca-Cola capitalism is well-suited to the age of globalization...
"So what's wrong with Coca-Cola capitalism?...Elmore's detailed examination of Coke's history highlights some of the problems. It turns out that what's good for Coke's bottom line is not so good for American or global health, the environment, democracy, or most typical workers. Furthermore, as Elmore shows, the support that governments and taxpayers provide Coca-Cola allows the company to ship and sell more products and, in the process, deplete public goods such as water and land that could grow healthier crops. This in turn generates more diet-related disease and solid waste that consumers and taxpayers must pay to remedy."
"If we lose this fight against Coke,
First we will lose our union,
Next we will lose our jobs,
And then we will all lose our lives!"
--Sinaltrainal Vice-President Juan Carlos Galvis--
 

Friday, March 13, 2015

Bill C-51 what it will mean to YOU! and your freedom!

This is the best explantion of what Bill C-51 will mean to you and your feedom!

From: http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/bill-c-51-anti-terrorism-act-2015

Bill C-51: Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

What Happened

Since the fall of 2014, the Harper government has introduced two significant bills to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other national security related legislation, identified as Bill C-51 and Bill C-44. At the time of writing, Bill C-44 has been passed by the House of Commons and is awaiting approval by the Senate while Bill C-51 (introduced in Parliament in January 2015) is entering its second reading in the House. The amendments proposed, especially through Bill C-51, represent the most sweeping changes to the powers of CSIS since its inception in 1984 and create far-reaching, vague and controversial changes to anti-terrorism legislation that potentially criminalize now lawful activity, create new vaguely defined speech crimes, and increase the scope for CSIS to engage in secret judicially-approved counter-terrorism actions in Canada as well as in foreign countries.

Background

In 1984, CSIS was created as a response to the McDonald Commission, which recommended a separation between national security policing and intelligence functions. National security intelligence would be limited to information gathering, and CSIS’ performance of its duties and functions would be subject to the review of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). Unlawful disruption tactics, including barn burnings, property destruction, break-ins, thefts, and abusive investigation techniques by the RCMP were strongly condemned. In the aftermath of the McDonald Commission Report, the government created CSIS as a legally more constrained, domestic, civilian intelligence collection service. Indeed, later in that decade, an important reform removed the controversial area of “subversion” from the RCMP’s mandate.
In November 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States, Parliament amended the Criminal Code of Canada, by creating the offense of terrorism and criminalizing specific acts involved in the proliferation of terrorism. At the same time, legislators attempted to carve out a zone for lawful protest through the exclusion of activities such as “advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work,” barring they do not cause serious bodily harm through the use of violence, they do not endanger a person’s life, nor do they put the health and safety of the public at serious risk.
Two pivotal national security commissions of inquiry, the Air India Inquiry (2010) and the Arar Inquiry (2006), provided important recommendations which criticized national security investigations, as well as domestic and international information sharing by both the RCMP and CSIS. These inquiries revealed serious problems in intelligence collection and sharing, which had real and far reaching impact on the lives of Canadians, and called for much more robust oversight mechanisms for national security investigations. Similar cautions on the adverse impact of intelligence sharing were echoed by the Iacobucci inquiry regarding the deportation of three Canadian men who were subsequently tortured in Syria.
Despite the concerns raised by the McDonald Commission and subsequent case-specific national security inquiries, on January 30, 2015, the Harper government proposed sweeping changes designed to broaden the scope both of CSIS' activity and the service's legal authorization to actively disrupt suspected terrorist activities. These changes are part of a larger and more vague definition of threats to the security of Canada.
Summary of Bill C-51
The Bill is divided into five parts:
  • Part one enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, authorizing the disclosure throughout and within the government of Canada of information regarding activities that “undermine” Canadian security;
  • Part two enacts the Secure Air Travel Act, which creates listing mechanisms and prohibitions for persons who may pose a threat to air transportation or who may travel abroad to commit terrorism offenses;
  • Part three amends the Criminal Code in significant ways including the creation of propagation crimes criminalizing the expression of ideas related to terrorism and its propaganda;
  • Part four broadens the mandate of CSIS to operate both inside and outside of Canada (also in conjunction with Bill C-44) and to this end to be authorized to seek judicial authorization on a number of matters that may otherwise violate Canadian law and the Constitution; and
  • Part five relates to amendments to immigration security certificate legislation allowing, in part, the government to withhold information from the specially appointed, national security approved Special Advocates retained to represent a detained person in confidential and closed national security hearings.
Parliamentary Response to the Bill
The federal Liberal Party leader, Justin Trudeau, has declared that his party will support Bill C-51, while subsequently advocating for greater oversight, but the Bill will be opposed by the NDP and the Green Party.
Expert Response to the Bill
Legal scholars Craig Forcese and Kent Roach have provided extensive, in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the implications of Bills C-44 and C-51 and have published their findings online. They describe the implications of the new amendments as “radical” and “extremely concerning” and outline a number of serious operational and administration of justice concerns raised by the proposed amendments.
The Forcese-Roach analysis argues that the proposed amendments run counter to the rationale for CSIS’s formation and foster a more active, invasive and dangerous sphere of activity of CSIS that risks criminalizing lawful conduct, and justifying surveillance and disruption tactics towards Canadians for mere regulatory violations. In effect, these changes threaten a return to the very behaviours of the '70s that the McDonald Commission so thoroughly condemned.
More than 100 Canadian professors of law and related disciplines have signed an open letter, which runs more than 4,000 words and is a detailed legal analysis that covers “some (and only some)” of the bill’s alleged defects, and calls for the government to scrap C-51 on the basis of “its potential impacts on the rule of law, on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, and on the health of Canada’s democracy.”
Public Response to the Bill
The public unveiling of Bill C-51 occurred at a press conference in late January at which Prime Minister Harper linked mosques to the radicalization of young Muslims. NDP leader Tom Mulcair charged that Harper had stepped over the line and that his comment was a form of Islamophobia. The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers' Association (CMLA) said in a press release that they are "deeply troubled" that Harper "implicated Canadian mosques as venues where terrorism is advocated or promoted" and demanded an apology.
In its briefing note, the CMLA takes the position that C-51 “grants the Government of Canada extraordinary, vague and unnecessary powers that pose a risk to the civil rights and privacy rights of Canadians,” which are “contrary to the recommendations of the Arar Inquiry, as echoed by the Privacy Commissioner’s 2014 report, especially with respect to information sharing, independent review and accountability.” The CMLA also goes on to point out that “while the extraordinary powers of Bill C-51 put the rights of all Canadians at risk, experience tells us that Canadian Muslims will be disproportionately affected.” The Canadian Association of Muslim Women in Law has further noted in a statement that “Bill C-51’s binaristic approach to 'mainstream' versus 'extremist' values reflects a fixation with, among other things, policing Muslims’ diverse and often divergent religious, cultural, and political practices.”
While recent opinion polls suggest that a majority of Canadians support Bill C-51, a significant percentage (69%) believe that greater oversight is needed. Former Canadian Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin, Clarke and Turner, as well as five former Supreme Court justices, seven former Liberal solicitors general and ministers of justice, three past members of SIRC, two former Privacy Commissioners, and a retired RCMP watchdog have urged for a stronger oversight role of security intelligence in Canada in view of current Parliamentary debate on Bill C-51. Despite the government’s assurances that SIRC plays a robust oversight role, SIRC reviews past activities and does not engage in oversight as it is not involved in operational or political decision-making. Up until the office was cut in 2012, the office of the inspector general of CSIS acted as a watchdog, actively overseeing the activities of CSIS. Critics also note that SIRC’s limited resources further compromise its capacity to act as a check on the spy agency. The government has also stressed the oversight role of judges who must approve CSIS’ disruptive activities. However, judicial “threat disruption” warrants are only needed in cases where CSIS’ activity would be illegal or unconstitutional. All other activities would fall under the review of SIRC.
There has also been a relative dearth of any practical or expert opinion tendered by the government (or otherwise) that justifies the necessity or the effectiveness of the proposed measures of the Bill. Academics have raised questions as to whether the bill could be counter-productive to “effective policing, intelligence-gathering and prosecutorial activity,” and have instead called for evidence-based policy-making. In addition, critics have noted that the Code already prohibits direct incitements to terrorist acts, making the propagation provisions not just redundant, but over-broad.
Impact on Dissent within Canada
Serious concerns have also been raised about the impact of C-51 on Indigenous dissent, including land defenders and their allies, particularly given the Harper government's existing track record of labelling pipeline opponents as “extremists” who have a “radical ideological agenda,” of using CSIS to surveil the Idle No More movement and First Nations activists Pam Palmater, Clifton Nicholas, and Cindy Blackstock, and of monitoring people trying to voice their concerns about fossil fuel developments. The Assembly of First Nations has also expressed concern about the potential impact of C-51 on First Nations dissent, fearing it could lead to the “unjust labelling of First Nations activists as ‘terrorists.’” In addition, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the Association des juristes progressistes, Amnesty International Canada, and Greenpeace are some of the concerned civil society organizations that have spoken out strongly against C-51.
Key Changes Proposed by Bill C-51
1. Information Sharing
The bill provides authorization for the Canadian government to share broadly and internally information regarding activities that “undermine” national security. While the bill excludes “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”, “terrorism” is only one of nine examples of activities that “[undermine] the security of Canada.” The vagueness of what may undermine national security, particularly with respect to “interference with critical infrastructure,” leaves open broad parameters for collecting information on people who have not committed criminal acts, who have committed regulatory or administrative offenses, who are viewed as politically subversive or whose activities may be construed as being connected to a cause that is lawful but politically contentious.
2. Propagation and Other New Crimes
One of the more controversial aspects of Bill C-51 is its enactment of “propagation crimes” which make it an offense to advocate and promote the commission of “terrorism offenses in general.” This new offence is broader in scope than existing terrorism offences in the Criminal Code in that the speaker’s purpose or intent does not matter, and unlike other propagation offences in the Code, one can be charged for communications made in private. Because the scope of terrorism offenses is already extremely broad (relating to 14 already delineated terrorism-related offences in the Code), the number of measures that may be construed as falling within the ambit of terrorism and the facilitation of terrorism – as well as crimes that may propagate a message that advocates terrorism – have serious and far reaching effects that would curtail legitimate free expression.
The bill also lowers the Code’s threshold for preventative detention by allowing law enforcement to arrest and detain an individual if they suspect that a terrorist act “may be carried out.” The current standard in the Code is “will be carried out.” Evidentiary thresholds required to obtain terrorism peace bonds are similarly lowered from a standard of “will commit” an offence to “may commit” a terrorism offence.
3. New Powers for CSIS
The new amendments authorize an active role for CSIS, which experts have called “kinetic” as opposed to its previous role of more passive information collection and advising. The amendments will also now allow for foreign CSIS activities. While CSIS must abide by Canadian laws, it has the mandate to seek special authorization from the Court to engage in disruption tactics either at home or abroad, which may encompass limitless activities, which may never be publicly known. In the past, the Federal Court of Canada has also criticized CSIS for misrepresenting facts in obtaining a secret authorized warrant, which was used for unauthorized foreign spying. These provisions run the risk of, in effect, legalizing activities akin to the RCMP Security Service wrongdoings of the 1970s, which led to the demise of the Security Service and the creation of CSIS.
In addition, the amendments authorize CSIS to take measures to reduce “threats to the security of Canada.” The threat disruption measures may violate Canadian law or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if a Federal Court judge has approved the violations in advance in a warrant. As critics have noted, this is a dramatic departure in that judicial search warrants are normally issued to prevent Charter violations, other legal Charter rights are absolute, and rights that do have internal limitations are subject to close judicial scrutiny that balances the scope of the legislation against the nature of the protected right. While all Charter rights can be subject to the reasonable limits clause of the Charter, this legislation calls for a constitutional departure in that it pre-authorizes a violation of a right in the context of warrant proceedings that are done in secret.
4. Air Transportation Security
Bill C-51 empowers the Minister of Public Safety to put Canadians who “may” cause a threat to air transportation or who “may” engage in terrorism abroad on a no-fly list. A standard based on suspicion and speculation raises concerns about mistaken identity, racial profiling, bias or unfounded associations that may lead to listing on a no-fly list. Similarly, delisting procedures are opaque and have been criticized as being procedurally unfair by virtue of the fact that listed persons may not be aware of their listing or, if so informed, they may not know the basis of their listing.
5. Security Certificate Amendments
Individuals named on a no-fly list can appeal the minister’s decision to a judge of the Federal Court, however the process borrows from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s security certificate regime. At the request of the minister, the Court can hold part of the delisting hearing in secret, meaning that the individual challenging his/her designation and his/her lawyer can be excluded from the court and not be privy to the evidence presented against them.
The bill also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, authorizing the government and CSIS to withhold information in cases where individuals are held on security certificates. In the context of security certificates, the Supreme Court of Canada has already deemed secret trials unconstitutional and to this end has upheld the implementation of a Special Advocate role for assisting the concerned detainee by advocating on his behalf in closed court sessions. Lawyers have criticized this regime as being unfair and one-sided. Despite such criticism and the delicate balance that the Court has recognized in the role of Special Advocates, the government is seeking to completely side-step Special Advocates upon a confidential request by the Minister to the Federal Court. Again this is a blatant attempt by the Harper Government to undermine the judicial critiques of earlier CSIS and Communications Security Establishment (CSE) actions.

Important Dates

  • 1981: McDonald Commission publishes its final report and recommends that national security policing and intelligence functions be separated.
  • 1984: Parliament passes the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act creating CSIS. The agency would be overseen by the CSIS inspector general’s office and reviewed by the newly created Security Intelligence Review Committee.
  • 2001: Parliament passes the Anti-Terrorism Act (2001).
  • 2012: Harper government shuts down the office of the CSIS inspector-general.
  • January 30, 2015: Bill C-51 is introduced in the House of Commons.
  • February 23, 2015: Bill C-51 passes second reading in the House of Commons with a vote of 176-87. The Bill is now in committee.

Role or Position

Not applicable

Implications and Consequences

Democracy and Equality: Muslim communities in Canada feel that the new amendments are targeting them as purveyors of terrorism or terrorist ideas. The implementation of the amendments has tremendous potential for being disproportionately wielded against Muslims as implied by Harper’s statement on mosques in Canada as being linked to the promotion of terrorist ideas.
Democracy and Dissent: Groups in Canada, including Indigenous organizations, environmental groups and activists engaged in political dissent will likely find themselves targeted, on watchlists, and the subject of national security surveillance and information sharing based on non-criminal peaceful activities. The use of such information may be subject to abuse, improper sharing, more invasive monitoring or active disruption activities not based upon any discernible threat to national security.
Democratic Process: The government’s attempt to fast-track the bill at the committee stage by limiting days devoted to expert testimony compromises the capacity to engage in thorough parliamentary scrutiny and review. Given the scope and scale of the proposed reforms, public scrutiny is essential in order to strike a balance between civil liberties and national security.
Freedom of Expression: The articulation of “propagation crimes” of terrorism in the context of an already vague and expansive definition of terrorism will criminalize certain forms of lawful expression opining on issues relating to terrorism. The impact of such provisions may have the effect of seriously chilling lawful speech and activity in Canada.
Abuse of Power: The creation of virtually limitless powers of CSIS to conduct both domestic and foreign activities that may receive judicial authorization to violate the law places inordinate pressure on the Courts and CSIS to self-regulate. In such an environment, after the fact review cannot prevent abuse. The abuse, strikingly, may be mandated by judges. Indeed even historical scrutiny may be prevented by these provisions.
Arbitrariness: The definition of propagation offenses and the scope of activities that CSIS may investigate as a basis for creating lists to prohibit activity expands the scope of surveillance and criminalization of otherwise lawful activity. How one is listed and how one becomes delisted is mired in the confusing and vague language of the new amendments.
Procedural Fairness: The Minister may collect information and place individuals on lists for air transportation security without notice to the person. Delisting after the fact becomes very difficult if not impossible where the basis of the listing may also be shrouded in national security privilege.
Procedural Fairness: CSIS’s right to seek judicial authorization for virtually any activity to disrupt activities that may “undermine” national security may be done without notice to the concerned person. The objects of surveillance of disruption may never become aware of CSIS’s role nor have the opportunity to challenge abuse of process of unlawful conduct of CSIS.
Procedural Fairness: Allowing the Minister to circumvent Special Advocates in Security Certificate proceedings undermines the integrity of the entire regime, which is already highly contentious and criticized based on its pervasive use of evidence not disclosed to the concerned person.
Rule of Law: By allowing CSIS and Federal Court judges to become the mechanism for authorizing and implementing activities that are without control, fetter or effective oversight directly undermines the entire Canadian legal system and the expectation of being treated in accordance with and under protection of the law.
Democracy: The proposed amendments threaten the most fundamental civil liberties that are identified under the Charter, freedom of expression, security of the person, freedom from unlawful search and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Where such violations may be systemically authorized, particularly in a manner with differential and adverse impact on specific communities, democratic freedoms and minority protections will be eroded.

Published: 5 March 2015
Image: Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

Sources