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!


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.


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


Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Edward Snowden Compares Canadian Bill C-51 to US Patriot Act


Edward Snowden says Canadian spying has weakest oversight in Western world

NSA whistleblower compares pending Canadian anti-terror Bill C-51 to U.S. Patriot Act

CBC News Posted: Mar 04, 2015 3:35 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 05, 2015 3:11 PM ET

U.S. National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden says Canada has one of the "weakest oversight" frameworks for intelligence gathering in the Western world.

Snowden made the comments during a teleconference discussion hosted by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Ryerson School of Journalism, moderated by CBC Radio host Anna Maria Tremonti. He was speaking via video link from Russia.

Snowden said he wouldn't specifically weigh in on the government's new anti-terror legislation, saying that whether it is good or bad is ultimately up for Canadians to decide. But he likened it to controversial U.S. laws, calling it "an emulation of the American Patriot Act."
Bill C-51 provides for a sweeping range of measures that would allow suspects to be detained based on less evidence and lets CSIS actively interfere with suspects' travel plans and finances.
Critics say the legislation is too broad and lacks oversight.
The government, however, says the powers in C-51 are necessary to keep Canadians safe. It points to the requirement for judges to sign off in advance of CSIS breaking Canadian law, arguing that is adequate oversight for the new powers.

 Don't let Canada Turn into a Dictatorship!!

In Vancouver, a rally is planned for the West Georgia Street side of the Vancouver Art Gallery. Meanwhile, another protest is scheduled for Industry Minister James Moore's riding office at 2603 St. Johns Street, Port Moody. Both events are slated to take place Saturday between noon and 2 p.m.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Big Brother comes to Canada!

From: Avaaz,
Breaking news: A new RCMP report identifies the environmental movement as a threat to the petroleum industry. This could open the door to being suspected of terrorism under the new Big Brother bill, ramping up surveillance for protesters, so share this with everyone!

Dear friends across Canada,

PM Harper wants to create a new law that would let spies get permission to break into our homes. But there's time to stop this Big Brother bill if we show our politicians we won't stand for it -- click now to take action:

They won’t be able to kill or harm us, or “violate our sexual integrity” -- but the Prime Minister just introduced a new anti-terrorism act that could let CSIS do just about anything else. Unless we make this Big Brother bill politically untouchable.

And worse, Stephen Harper is using the fear of terrorism to give our spy agency crazy new powers like letting them get secret warrants to break into our houses, copy or take documents, and even install monitoring devices. But we can still show him we won't let trumped up fears override our freedoms.

The Conservative and Liberal parties are planning to vote for the bill -- and the only way to stop it is to show them that Canadians value freedom more than fear. 
When 50,000 join we’ll build a non-partisan coalition of freedom-loving Canadians, and use every tactic in our toolbox to persuade MPs and Senators to split from their parties. Click now to join:

In 2006, PM Harper warned that “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through with it”, and now he’s making that promise come true. Under this bill, peaceful protests that break a law and challenge Canada’s economic stability -- possibly even protests against a tar sands pipeline -- could be considered terrorism. Harper’s poisonous fearmongering threatens our freedoms, but we can make this bill political poison to any MP supporting it.

Harper’s implied that the horrific attacks in Ottawa and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu make this bill necessary. But experts say that our security agencies already have the powers needed to stop terror attacks, and there’s no proven link between these lone killers and terrorist groups.

This is an election year, and analysts say that leaders who oppose this law risk being seen as soft on terror. If we can show our politicians that this isn’t true -- that our basic freedoms can not be traded for fear -- we can win. Click now to take action:

Prime Minister Harper is always telling us that we’re at war, and now he’s trying to turn this fear against us and trample on our rights. Our community is bigger than this fear. Let’s stand up to the government and show them that when it comes to our freedoms, Canadians stand united.

With hope,

Danny, Jo, Ari, Ricken, and the rest of the Avaaz team


Parliament must reject Harper’s secret policeman bill (Globe and Mail)

Anti-terror bill: Experts worry about sweeping powers for CSIS (Ottawa Citizen)

Security bill risks too much (Winnipeg Free Press)

Canada Seeks to Strengthen Spy Agency After Attacks (New York Times)

‘Anti-petroleum’ movement a growing security threat to Canada, RCMP say (Globe and Mail) is a 40-million-person global campaign network
that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.


Tuesday, February 10, 2015

No Hillary it's called LYING!!!

"I remember landing under sniper fire," Mrs Clinton, 60, had said in recalling the March, 1996 Bosnia visit.
"There was supposed to be some sort of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

When this was pointed out to the then Senator she said she misspoke and said “So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I’m human, which for some people is a revelation.”

NO! Hillary! It's called lying! You know like "I did not have sexual relations with that women" But then again I can see how you might see it as just a mistake, it appears the whole family considers lying as just "oh I'm sorry, I must have been mistaken"


But on the brighter side, that does qualify you for the presidency! You should fit in just fine girl, (if I'm not mistaken:)

My point here?

If Brian Williams deserves to be fired for lying about the facts just to gain public opinion then so does everyone else, Including Obama, the Bushes, (the father and the restarted one) your dear and ..uummm almost faithful husband and anyone else that works for and is paid by the American people to tell them the Truth, so that they can make an educated decision when it comes to who they trust to run their country in the best interest of the people!!!

And that my dear lady (if I'm not mistaken) is, the truth!


Children and poems – not snipers and gunfire.

The problem with lying is, one lie leads to another and then to another and before you know it your whole life is just one big lie! and if your living a lie, I really don't want you deciding what is best for the country and/or the world!!!

Just my opinion but you know, I'm Canadian and I can still have one.....for now!

Monday, February 9, 2015

Noam Chomsky day, "December 7th" (The Day of Enlightenmen)


The Enlightenment advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion. which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality.

That was taken from here:

Go there and read the page, I think you will agree that everything about Noam Chomsky, his life, his undying devotion to truth and his fellow man, screams out everything that the Age of Enlightenment stands for!

For that reason, I'd like to declare December 7th as Noam Chomsky day, The Day of Enlightenment.

 Noam Chomsky: Born Dec. 7 1928

If you don't know who Noam Chomsky is (shame on you!) but understandable because of the Main Stream Media that has suppressed his work for over 50 years!

Go here, listen, read and learn the Truth about our world history (our past, present and our future) a dirty truth that the elite don't want you to know!

Thank you Noam for all you have done for Mankind!!!!

One World! One God! One Race!
The Human Race!
Standing together to make a better world,
For All Mankind!

Love Always
Forever Peace


Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Coca-Cola Faces Growing Opposition

Having trouble viewing??? Click here to view online
Coca-Cola Faces Growing Opposition
Newsletter February 4, 2015
  1. American Federation of Teachers Bans Coca-Cola Products
  2. 400 Park Slope Food Coop Members Vote to Ban Coke Products
  3. Spain: Trabajadores de Coca-Cola Denuncian el Desmantelamiento de la fábrica
  4. India: Coca-Cola seeks to Subvert Constitutional Process
  5. English/Spanish Video from SINALTRAINAL President Javier Correa
  6. Soda Industry & Medical Organizations Blasted by Doctors for Conflicts of Interest
  7. Oregon Hospital System Bans Sugary Drinks
  8. Harvard Study Shows Link Between Fizzy Drinks and Cancer in Girls
  9. Coca-Cola Settles California Unpaid Overtime Class Action
  10. Mexico's Fight Against Sugary Drinks & Coca-Cola
  11. New Book—Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism

1. American Federation of Teachers Bans Coca-Cola Products
"American Federation of Teachers Bans Coca-Cola Products" by Editor, Corporate Crime Reporter., November 24, 2014
Read Article
The American Federation of Teachers has passed a resolution banning all Coca-Cola products from its facilities and events.
In the resolution, the union called on affiliates to "participate in campaigns to remove Coca-Cola products from their schools, colleges, hospitals and other places in which they work..."
"You can always count on the American Federation of Teachers to stand up for children, labor and human rights," said Ray Rogers, lead organizer, human rights advocate and director of Corporate Campaign, Inc. and Campaign to Stop Killer Coke.
"Teachers Toss Coca-Cola!" by Joe Maniscalco, Labor Press, December 1, 2014
Read Article
"Grabbing a can of Coca-Cola at your next union meeting might be out of the question now that the American Federation of Teachers has decided to dump the soft drink giant citing a plethora of disturbing anti-labor practices dating back decades and stretching around the globe....
"Contrary to Coca-Cola's cheerleaders, Rogers says that the AFT's action is 'very significant' and follows the loss of numerous school contacts, and a growing number of other labor unions banning Coca-Cola products.
" 'I hope and expect that the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) will take similar action to protect the well-being of children and advance human rights everywhere,' Rogers added."
"1.6 Million-Member American Federation of Teachers Bans Coca-Cola Products Citing Child Labor and Human Rights Record" by Corporate Campaign, Inc., November 18, 2014
From Newsletter
PRWeb Press Release
"Corporate Campaign, Inc. applauds the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, AFL-CIO) for its historic move to ban all Coca-Cola products from its facilities and events, based on Coke's human rights record. The Union calls on affiliates to 'participate in campaigns to remove Coca-Cola products from their schools, colleges, hospitals and other places in which they work.' "
2. 400 Park Slope Food Coop Members Vote to Ban Coke Products
Brooklyn, New York's Park Slope Food Coop (PSFC), one of the largest co-ops in the U.S. with 16,200 members, again voted to continue its boycott of Coca-Cola products.
On October 28, 2014, about 400 participants in the General Meeting voted to keep the PSFC Coke-free of Coca-Cola products, including Honest Tea, Odwalla, Dasani, Minute Maid ...
Coop member and Campaign to Stop Killer Coke representative Lew Friedman began his presentation with a short history of the campaign. Then Friedman brought the Campaign up to date and pointed out the donations that Coke had laid out to stop GMO labeling, described the continuing struggle of Coke workers in Spain dismissed from their jobs, the new resolution passed by the American Federation of Teachers to ban Coke products, and that Coke has had two plants shut down in India and was forced to recently abandon a $25 million newly-built bottling plant in Mehdiganj as a result of demonstrations against the company.
At one point when Friedman brought up the dangers of excessive sugar in Coca-Cola beverages and noted that artificial sweetener aspartame may even be more dangerous than sugar, numerous heads began nodding in agreement.
The November 13, 2014 issue of The Linewaiters Gazette reported on the meeting and the outcome of the vote:
" The October General Meeting...decided nearly unanimously to continue the boycott of Coca-Cola products...
"...The Coop also voted to continue its longstanding boycott of Coca-Cola products, a response to that company's documented union busting, child labor and destructive environmental practices around the world. Readers can learn more at and"
3. Spain: Trabajadores de Coca-Cola Denuncian el Desmantelamiento de la fábrica (Workers of Coca-Cola Denounce the Dismantling of the Factory)
Watch on YouTube
E-mail from Coke worker and union activist Dani Sobrino:
"This happened on January 15, 2015. Police protected people inside the factory who were dismantling the factory. We took those people out and got inside the factory twice. You can see in the video that the police used violence against us. They used the sticks on our faces and heads — mine was one of them. But we stopped the dismantlers."
Background from our August 30, 2014 newsletter
In Spain, Coca-Cola workers, as of August 28, have been on strike for 209 days. Sales of Coca-Cola in Spain are reported to have slumped by half, in the wake of a call for a boycott over an attempt by the company's Spanish bottler to lay off workers.
The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke received the following note from striker and union organizer, Dani Sobrino: "Thank you, very much to promote the news against Coke in Spain. I've been in contact with you before and I'm one of the 236 people that are fighting against the capitalist Coke Company. We have at the moment been on strike for 158 days [209 days as of 8/28] and we have beaten the company in the courts, but we are still waiting to get our jobs back because Coke went to the Supreme Court. We just can say thanks for all your help and we are still promoting a Coke boycott in Spain until we get our jobs back."
" 'Boycott Coca Cola,' say Spanish workers" by Barry Weisleder, Socialist Action, August 3, 2014
Read Article
"I spoke to Comisiones Obreras (CCOO) union organizer Daniel Andres Sobrino about the issues in dispute with the soft drink giant. He told me that Spain's national labour court overturned Coca Cola's dismissal of 1190 workers in that country. The decision was a big boost for the union-led campaign against four factory closures in that depressed economy. The Audiencia Nacional also called for the workers' reinstatement and payment of lost wages."
4. India: Coca-Cola seeks to Subvert Constitutional Process
Dr. S. Faizi, Expert Member, Plachimada High Power Committee issued a media release in January 2015 highly critical of Coca-Cola's continued efforts to undermine the Constitutional and judicial process in India. Coca-Cola continues its decade long efforts to avoid responsibility for the damage it did to people's lives, livelihoods, land and water in Plachimada, Kerala.
The Coca-Cola factory in Plachimada, after a firestorm of investigations and protests, was forced to shut down in 2004. It has not been allowed to reopen.
The International Environmental Law Research Centre issued a report in 2007 that stated, in part, "The deterioration of groundwater in quality and quantity and the consequential public health problems and the destruction of the agricultural economy are the main problems identified in Plachimada. The activity of The Coca-Cola Company has caused or contributed a great deal to these problems...The availability of good quality water for drinking purposes and agriculture has been affected dangerously due to the activity of the Company. Apart from that, the Company had also polluted the agricultural lands by depositing the hazardous wastes. All these point to the gross violation of the basic human rights, that is, the right to life, right to livelihood and the violation of the pollution control laws."
In 2009, the government of Kerala set up the High Power Committee to Assess the Extent of Damages Caused by the Coca-Cola Plant at Plachimada. The Committee "recommended that Coca-Cola be held liable for Indian Rupees 216 crore (US$ 48 million) for damages caused as a result of the company's bottling operations in Plachimada."
For years, Coca-Cola has continued to use its economic and political clout to avoid paying for the damage it has inflicted on Plachimada and its residents. Meanwhile other Coke plants have been forced to shut down and the protest movement against Coca-Cola's flagrant injustices across India continue to grow.
Dr. Faizi calls on the State Government not to "further delay initiating criminal proceedings against the recalcitrant company for which show cause notice was given by the Pollution Control Board in 2007, under the Hazardous Wastes Management and Handling Rules."
Contact Dr. Faizi:
5. English/Spanish Video from SINALTRAINAL President Javier Correa
SINALTRAINAL President Javier Correa sent a video of an interview with James Quincey, The Coca-Cola Company's Europe Group President (formerly president of the South Latin Division and president of the Mexico Division) by Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman on the British Broadcasting Company.
Watch James Quicey squirm at Paxman's tough questions, such as "What good does Coca-Cola do you physically?" and it gets much tougher from there.
NEWSNIGHT Paxman shows Coca Cola boss how much sugar is in a supersize cup ps3
Watch onYouTube
6. Soda Industry & Medical Organizations Blasted by Doctors for Conflicts of Interest
"The Not-So-Sweet Relief: How The Soda Industry Is Influencing Medical Organizations" by Richard Bruno, MD and Kevin Burns, MD, Union of Concerned Scientists, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, October 15, 2014
Read Article
"With increasing scrutiny over the dire health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverages, soda manufacturers have turned to obscuring the science, confusing the consumer, and sponsoring medical organizations whose recommendations influence both providers and patients. Unfortunately these corporate partnerships are conflicts of interest that undermine the credibility of the organizations and stymie reform.
"Most notably, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has had a corporate partnership with The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) since 2009, which has resulted in educational materials and underwriting of their patient information website A striking example of how the partnership undermines the family physician's credibility occurs on the page for 'Diabetes,' which recommends a healthy diet, while nestled neatly next to an advertisement for Coca-Cola and a footnote acknowledging TCCC as 'partial underwriter' for the page."
7. Oregon Hospital System Bans Sugary Drinks
"Oregon hospital system Providence bans the sale of sugary drinks" by Tom Hallman Jr., The Oregonian/Oregon Live, January 6, 2015
Read Article
"...Providence Health & Services...will no longer sell or stock sugary drinks in Oregon hospitals and business offices as part of what's called a healthy dining initiative.
"On Monday, the organization removed the drinks at its Northeast Portland business office.
"During the next two months, the drinks will phased out at all eight of Providence's Oregon hospitals, clinics and businesses offices, said Sandy Miller, the organization's director of Health and Nutrition.
"Miller said studies have shown the average person in the United States consumes 48 gallons of sugary drinks each year. She said a 20-ounce bottle of soda contains as much as 18 teaspoons of sugar. Studies have shown, she said, that sugary drinks play a significant role in obesity, Type 2 diabetes and tooth decay.
8. Harvard Study Shows Link Between Fizzy Drinks and Cancer in Girls
"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, January 29, 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...
"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."
9. Coca-Cola Settles California Unpaid Overtime Class Action
"Coca-Cola Settles California Unpaid Overtime Class Action " by Peter S. Lubin and Vincent L. DiTommaso, Business Litigation Lawyer Blog, January 27, 2015
Read Article
"A recent class action wage and hour lawsuit filed against Coca-Cola in California, alleges that the soft drink company had a 'use it or lose it' vacation policy, in which employees were not paid for any vacation time they did not take. According to the recent lawsuit, such practices are illegal under California labor law. Coca-Cola argues it has already revised its vacation policy and paid out all earned, unused vacation time dating back to 2008.
"The lawsuit further alleges that Coca-Cola refused to pay employees for time spent driving between job sites during the day, including driving to the first job site of the day and driving home from the last job site of the day. According to the lawsuit, employees were driving Coca-Cola vans during these commutes...
"Despite these arguments, Coca-Cola has agreed to settle the class action lawsuit for $750,000. The class covers current and former customer service technicians who responded to and repaired problems reported by Coca-Cola fountain soda machine customers. All told, the class consists of 86 class members who worked for the company between July 31, 2009 and the day the court approves the settlement. If a judge approves the settlement, Daniel Ambriz, the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, will be awarded $10,000 as an incentive award for filing the lawsuit. After his award and attorneys' costs and fees, each class member will receive about $7,500..."
10. Mexico's Fight Against Sugary Drinks & Coca-Cola
"As Mexico's Sugary Drink Tax Turns 1 Year Old, US Health Proponents Hope It Can Sway American Voters" by Maria Gallucci, International Business Times, January 11, 2015
Read Article
"Mexicans are guzzling fewer sodas, juices and flavored waters since a nationwide sugary drink tax took effect in 2014. The policy aims to help curb rising rates of obesity and diabetes in Mexico, which recently overtook the U.S. as the world's fattest country. Now public health proponents north of the border say they're hoping Mexico's positive start can sway U.S. voters to adopt similar taxes...
"Proponents of taxes on sugary drinks, including public health researchers, say raising the price of sweetened beverages is an effective way to reduce consumption and, in turn, lower health risks. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto approved the action in October 2013 after years of interest from national health experts, who saw the tax as one antidote to Mexico's alarming diabetes rates. As many as 10 million Mexicans have diabetes, or roughly one-sixth of the population, according to government data. Nearly a half-million people died from diabetes from 2006 to 2012, a rise of nearly 60 percent from the previous six-year period...
"A year later, preliminary data suggest consumption rates are falling, though it's too early to say precisely how much...The institute's earliest results suggest in the first three months of 2014, purchases of sugary drinks dropped by 10 percent from the same period in 2013...
"This Mexican ad blames Coke for the country's obesity epidemic" by Svati Kirsen Narula, Quartz, Dec. 10, 2014
Read Article (The English translation of the video, Haz feliz a alguien, is in this article)
"In a powerful new public service announcement, the public health advocacy group El Poder del Consumidor seeks to turn even more Mexicans off soda. It borrows Coca-Cola's "Haz feliz a alguien" ("Make someone happy") tagline, but instead of depicting people raising Coke bottles in festive cheer, it features families whose Christmases have been saddened by complications of Type 2 diabetes...
El Poder del Consumidor also orchestrated a demonstration against Coca-Cola in Mexico City to coincide with the launch of this ad, according to the nutrition activist and New York University professor Marion Nestle.
Haz feliz a alguien (Video — You don't need to understand Spanish to understand the ad.)
Watch on YouTube
11. New Book—Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism: "How Coca-Cola built a sugary empire, by outsourcing as much as possible"
"Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism: 'How Coca-Cola built a sugary empire, by outsourcing as much as possible'" by Bartow Elmore, Fortune Magazine, Nov. 25, 2014
(Bartow Elmore is a professor of U.S. history at the University of Alabama and is the author of Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism.)

Read Article
"...What made Coke great, in other words, was not really what it did, but what it didn't do. It proved incredibly adept at getting independent businesses and local governments to bear the majority of the costs of producing and distributing its products."
"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--


Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Canada’s New Anti-Terror Bill, is not for YOU!

Canada’s New Anti-Terror Bill Is Everything You Hoped It Wasn’t
January 30, 2015

 By Justin Ling

Photo via Pixabay
Under the broad anti-terror legislation tabled Friday, Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), will be given broad new powers to investigate and "disrupt" terrorist plots. Canada's police services will be able to go after online terrorist propaganda.

When the bill was tabled on Friday afternoon, the Prime Minister vowed to prevent attacks like the ones that hit Ottawa and Quebec in October.

The powers included in Bill C-51 come with little new oversight or transparency. The core of the provisions will allow CSIS to disrupt attacks the organization believes may occur in Canada or abroad.

The government calls them "disruption warrants," and they will let Canada's spies do just about anything. According to the legislation those warrants authorize the spies to "enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing," to copy or obtain any document, "to install, maintain or remove any thing," and, most importantly, "to do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures."

To use the new measures, once passed by Parliament, the spies will need to apply to a judge to authorize operations to stop a terrorist attack. The legislation doesn't offer many caveats on that power, instead enabling the spies to take whatever measures they feel are necessary, in Canada or abroad. So long as a judge agrees, it's all fair game—even if it's illegal.

The word install appears to be an indication that CSIS should have powers to install malware and keyloggers, which the government has already moved toward legalizing.

On top of that, the bill offers no new oversight for CSIS. Currently, it is policed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which has been lambasted for being woefully inadequate and staffed by political appointees.

The opposition NDP have already raised concerns about these new powers and the corresponding lack of oversight.

"This is obviously a serious addition to the powers that CSIS would have, and it requires some serious questions," said NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar.

The proposed "disruption warrants" are good for up to 120 days, and can be renewed twice. The legislation is explicit that authorities can ignore the laws of Canada and any foreign state while operating under such a warrant.

Also included in the bill are new powers for the government to put Canadians on the no-fly list and keep them there, and to share information about possible security risks with airline carriers and other departments.

The proposed law allows people placed on the no-fly list to appeal the decision. But the bill also gives the minister new powers to ensure that it's harder for people to get off the list—including, as C-51 lays out, the power to introduce evidence "even if it is inadmissible in a court of law." That could include evidence obtained illegally.

What may prove the most controversial part of the bill is the provision allowing police to order what the government deems terrorist propaganda taken off the internet, and allowing the authors of websites calling for terrorist attacks to be arrested and hit with significant jail time.

Police will be able to issue takedown notices, subject to the approval of a judge, to force website hosts based in Canada to destroy comments, blogs, or webpages that are found to promote or glorify terrorist organizations or attacks. People who have posted such material will be allowed to appear in court and defend their postings, although they will open themselves up to self-incrimination if they do so. If they don't appear in court, the judge can decide to order the information to be deleted anyway.

Promoting terrorist attacks on a website could also net you up to five years in prison. The bill says that if someone intentionally advocates or promotes terrorism, "knowing or reckless as to whether it would result in terrorism," it is a crime.

The legislation also allows both Public Works and Citizenship and Immigration Canada to share information proactively, without being asked, to national security agencies, if they believe there is a terror threat.

Immigration handles Canadians' passport information, while Public Works maintains the Controlled Goods Program. The utility of information they might share was laid out in briefing documents provided to reporters: "During a routine inspection, officials discovered that 10,000 large-caliber NATO ammunition rounds were unaccounted for. What's more, a foreign delegation recently visited the facility. Following this visit concerns were raised about potential links to a terrorist organization."

In that hypothetical scenario, the document says, Public Works could contact public safety agencies independently.

Concerns will obviously be raised that, without any legal protections or oversight, letting bureaucrats share individuals' personal information on a whim infringes on privacy. This government has already made it possible for tax agents to share Canadians' personal information if they believe a crime has been committed. These measures essentially encourage bureaucrats to surveil Canadians, even if it's well outside their mandate.

The legislation also seeks to lower the threshold allowing police to investigate and arrest suspected terrorist planners and hold them without charge while they investigate the possible threat.

Police will only need to prove to a judge that an attack "may be carried out," as opposed to establishing that the attack will be carried out, as is currently necessary.

Under the same changes, police can detain individuals for up to seven days without charge. They will also be able to apply for a 'terrorism peace bond' which will allow them to surveil, track, and limit the travel of individuals for up to five years. Police will be able to forbid that person from having a passport, and can even limit their travel to a specific geographic area.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the new legislation in Ontario, alongside Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and Justice Minister Peter MacKay.

He brushed aside criticisms that the bill adds no new oversight while vastly expanding CSIS' powers. He even went so far as to chastise opposition parties for suggesting that security and civil liberties are mutually exclusive.

"[Canadians'] freedom and their security, more often than not, go hand in hand," Harper told a crowd of supporters, continuing that "it was a jihadi terrorist that took away our freedoms," not police officers.

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter.