Canada as we knew it is gone

[A_Britishcolumbian]

so, the rcmp/feds, whoever, can call you a 'terrorist', or say you are somehow connected to a 'terrorist', secret you away without right to counsel, force you to 'talk', restrict your movements, restrict your liberties, punish you for failing to abide, and then should they someday ever convict you, then they want the ability to strip you of your citizenship.

http://www.canada.com/filibuster+bill+s ... story.html

[hobbyguy]

While we need to have the tools to deal with the threat of terrorism - particularly jihadist terrorism, if we give up our rights, then we the jihadist terrorists have won. Due process is not the problem, the end of the process is the problem.

The case where we did not deport the suspected terrorist, nor pursue deportation of those who have been ordered out is the problem. Fix that first, and the bulk of the problem is resolved - without a need to weaken the rights of Canadians.

Why worry about this if you aren't a terrorist? Well, you may trust the current government not to seriously abuse it, but things can change very quickly. Nobody seemed too worried in 1930's Germany...I know, that's a bit extreme - but a cautionary tale just the same. Perhaps striking union members become classified as "economic terrorists", and pensioners protesting cuts to OAP get classified as "geriatricist terrorists", and the maybe if you vote for anyone but the government in power - you are an "anti-government terrorist".

Hmmm...that wouldn't happen would it? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/06/307521/turkey-pm-blames-terrorists-for-unrest/

All too easy.

By the way, I've always thought of it as "our government", and I don't recall previous prime ministers ever publicly calling it anything but "our government". Mr. Harper, in his speech before the U.K. parliament, called it "MY government".

[A_Britishcolumbian]

because stephen harper says so...

On Oct. 15, 2001, the federal government introduced, and Parliament later enacted, a bill designed to beef up Canada’s defences against terrorism. The initiative was triggered by the September 11 terrorist attacks, which had occurred a few weeks earlier. Until that date, no one could have imagined anyone deliberately crashing an airplane into New York’s majestic World Trade Centre. But this, of course, is exactly what happened. The perpetrators of 9/11 had to be prepared to annihilate, not only scores of innocent strangers, but also themselves.

These frightening events created an impulse to immediately increase this country’s ability to defend itself against similar threats. So the government acted with uncharacteristic speed. As a result, our laws now provide for somewhat broader powers of preventive detention, a duty to testify at new investigative hearings, a new power to brand individuals as terrorists without convicting them of any crime and a new prohibition against many financial dealings with those who are labelled as terrorists.

Most of the public debate focused on the wider powers of preventive detention and compulsory testimony. Under the law, the duration of the pre-bail confinement for preventive detentions could not exceed three days. While not trivial, it is considerably less than the 21 days originally mandated under the 1970 War Measures invocation. As for compulsory testimony, it’s true that witnesses could traditionally be forced to testify at trials and inquiries. And, while investigative hearings could be broader and less focused, the resulting intrusions would not invariably be much greater. Moreover, these new proceedings had to involve a judge, enhanced protections against the use of such compulsory testimony and the assistance of lawyers.

Not surprisingly, these two provisions were the only ones chosen to expire automatically if not renewed by Parliament within a specified period of time. But why, I have repeatedly asked since then, were all of the other measures so comprehensively ignored? After all, they represented much more novel, intrusive and durable infringements of our traditional civil liberties.

Consider, for example, the government’s power to publish the names of those suspected of being involved in terrorism. No hearing is required and, therefore, no evidence need than be produced.

While the targets can subsequently launch a court challenge over the reasonableness of the listing, they could suffer much damage in the meantime. Note that individuals, as well as organizations, could wind up on the list. While organizations have limited functions to perform, individuals have ordinary lives to lead. Thus, the disruptive potential of this power becomes apparent. And, in view of the shortage of timely, viable safeguards, the innocent, as well as the guilty, could readily be caught.

Consider the case of Liban Hussein, a Canadian citizen from Somalia. He had built up a business that supported himself and many of his relatives. Without any advance warning, he suddenly found himself on the government’s terror list — his assets were frozen, he was jailed, he was the target of extradition proceedings and it became a crime for Canadians to have certain financial dealings with him.

Nevertheless, a few months later, he was just as suddenly cleared of all wrongdoing. The government admitted that it had nothing on him. But, according to his lawyer, he had lost his business and his life was in shambles. The government had unilaterally transformed Mr. Hussein into a virtual pariah — without any independent adjudication or any semblance of a fair hearing.

Yes, there were rumours that Mr. Hussein was later compensated for his losses. But rumours are not proven facts and, even if there was some payment, we have no way of knowing how adequate it was. More importantly, there has been no relevant amendment to the law. Innocent individuals remain vulnerable to imposed impoverishment by an arbitrary government decree.

I am unable to recall any significant debate regarding the need for this power. Those slated for the list would likely be already under intense surveillance. This should make it easier to anticipate and, therefore, to intercept the person’s behaviour. In any event, why not require the scrutiny of a court before the listing power can be used against anyone?

There is little indication that Parliament or the public adequately considered such questions when the anti-terror law was being enacted. All in all, Canada has a dubious human rights legacy, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

National Post

A. Alan Borovoy is general counsel emeritus at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... rism-laws/

[Xia33]

As one "expert" said on the national news Sunday,something to the effect " we use the police, RCMP, local, city, etc, to do the surveillance and find out who these people are, get them "help" to turn them around then use them to help us"....then he had another brilliant solution....when we find out who these young people are, we tell them we have set up a meeting with their parents and best friends and ask them to join us. LOLOL. I laughed as hard at that as I did Russell brand's rant.

[Rwede]

because stephen harper says so...

quote]On Oct. 15, 2001, the federal government introduced, and Parliament later enacted, a bill designed to beef up Canada’s defences against terrorism.

Yeah, Steven Harper had what, exactly, to do with a 2001 bill? And what, exactly, did Steven Harper have to do with Liban Hussein's arrest on November 7, 2001?

Get real. Get your facts straight. Did you think someone would just accept your entirely false accusations? Steven Harper didn't form government until 2006.

[GordonH]

because stephen harper says so...

quote]On Oct. 15, 2001, the federal government introduced, and Parliament later enacted, a bill designed to beef up Canada’s defences against terrorism.

Yeah, Steven Harper had what, exactly, to do with a 2001 bill? And what, exactly, did Steven Harper have to do with Liban Hussein's arrest on November 7, 2001?

Get real. Get your facts straight. Did you think someone would just accept your entirely false accusations? Steven Harper didn't form government until 2006.

Exactly Rwede, looky who was PM at the time A_Britishcolumbian: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/node/33782

[johnp3]

Just because Harpo is a coward and hides in the closet, does not mean I am willing to give up my rights.
If Harpo is so scared then they can haul around a porta potie, and he can hide in it when he gets scared.
Once you give up your rights you never get them back.
We already have police that are exempt from the law, they sure as heck do not need to have anymore reasons to play their little games with people's rights.

[Fancy]

Just because Harpo is a coward and hides in the closet, does not mean I am willing to give up my rights.

Nonsense - hardly a coward if he was willing to leave with the rest of the crew.

[BelieveNothing]

Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 4:30:37 AM
Subject: CSIS involvement in politics

January 2011

Dear Senator:

Would it affect your vote if you learned that the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper was a CSIS operative in the late 1980s and early 1990s?

This interesting-but-not-scandalous information (as once described by Jeff Sallot, a noted journalist and now teaching media at Carleton University) has been deemed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as an item of “national security,” and I, in turn, was deemed as ‘prejudicial to the safety and interests of the [Canadian] state’ under the Security of Information Act (SOIA).” My career was ruined as a result.

So, congratulations! you are now privy to a national-security secret.

If, after a moment of contemplation, you find something fishy about this “secret,” as if Canada’s security wouldn’t change one iota if it were broadcast around the world, you are privy to what this package is really about: the lack of judgment by CSIS, their dirty tricks, harassment and above all, their denial of basic justice to innocent Canadians.

The Liberal Party of Canada is aware of this information, but according to a letter from Michael Ignatieff’s office (copied to the Evidence directory), the Liberals are not interested in this issue. The reasons for the Liberal’s lack of interest may include the fact that CSIS may have also protected a Liberal Prime Minister from another “national security secret” i.e., a brief affair with a Peterborough woman in or around 2005, by harassing her to an extreme degree. Read the article about her ordeal at the hands of CSIS in the Evidence directory (#23a and b).

This package is a book proposal seeking a publisher. Four chapters and an introduction tentatively entitled Life Under CSIS Rule are included, as well as a book synopsis and letter to a prospective literary agent. A series of magazine articles are also feasible, as is internet publication. The Gangstalker Directory contains “About Gangstalkers” to explain the role of “gangstalkers” simply, a network of louts recruited to harass a whistleblower including some photos of them in action. The phenomenon of gangstalking has been developed very well at the website, http://www.gangstalkingworld.com, to which I refer the reader. In my case, CSIS has rented apartments in my neighbourhood to house them, so I enclose some photos of those houses as well.

My resume and a photograph of my wife and I are included to identify us, as well as a Contact sheet to warn of the difficulties of communication when you are under CSIS investigation. My proposed book isn’t as important as the country. If you don’t want my experiences in Life Under CSIS Rule to be a regular occurrence in Canada, all under the excuse of “national security,” please pass my story along. Please accept my legal permission to do so.

Sincerely,

Gareth Llewellyn

[BelieveNothing]

Working Title: “Life Under CSIS Rule”

Summary:

In January 2007, I was “gang-stalked” by CSIS. According to the leaked diplomatic cables by Wikileaks, this activity was called “vigorous harassment” by the former Director of CSIS, Jim Judd, a process that involves dozens of people, vehicles and radios. At the time, I didn’t know why it was happening, and throughout 2007, despite my efforts with my superiors at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the fact I was an intelligence analyst cleared to Top Secret Special Access, one of the highest in government, I couldn’t get answers.It wasn’t until February 2008 that I learned that CSIS thought I was an American spy. I had done nothing to justify this. I complained to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), and in so doing I revealed that the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister, was used by CSIS as an operative against me previously in 1988, at a time when CSIS thought I was a neo-Nazi and a South African agent. After learning that I knew about Harper (it shouldn’t have been much of a surprise), CSIS deemed me a security risk ‘“prejudicial to the safety and interests of Canada” under the Security of Information Act (SOIA). My career was finished. CSIS mounted a campaign to force me out of my job and brand me as delusional in order to protect Harper. The SOIA has empowered CSIS to deprive the innocent of a solicitor-client privilege and patient-doctor relationship, as well as other mechanisms of justice.

This book is about errors of judgment by CSIS so massive that they involve two Prime Ministers and a former Leader of the Opposition. During the past 22 years, CSIS suspected me of being a neo-Nazi, a South Africa agent, an American spy and now a enemy of the state. They were wrong on all counts. When CSIS thought I was a neo-Nazi, they fomented an investigation into me by Internal Affairs in Revenue, from which I was cleared. CSIS thought I was funneling money from the South African embassy to Preston Manning’s campaign against Joe Clark. Here, Preston Manning was investigated. This story is told as a first/second-person narrative in chronological time with flashbacks recounting the back story.

The story doesn’t end there. Another victim is a Peterborough woman operating under the alias “Anne,” who had an alleged affair with a Prime Minister in 2005, probably the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin. Two newspaper articles have been written about her, but the mainline media hasn’t realized what has happened. CSIS abuses normal Canadians under a program entitled ‘“diffuse and disrupt” a program, in theory, that is meant to halt a terrorist attack against Canada, and formed, in the words of a former Deputy Director of Operations at CSIS, “because we had all this information and nothing to do with it.” In practice, CSIS doesn’t enjoy the competence to differentiate between the innocent and the guilty.

A brief introduction and proposed chapters 1- 4 are included. Substantial documentary evidence proving CSIS actions to some extent are provided. Photographs of gangstalkers, including the homes they use as a home base in my neighbourhood, are presented here as a stand-alone section for the middle of the book. All the names, dates and places are authentic. Some names may need to be changed for liability purposes, but not all. The central question in this proposed book is, how could a brief affair by one Prime Minister and the knowledge that another Prime Minister worked for CSIS many years ago become a “national security threat” requiring extreme extra-judicial remedies?

Chapters 1- 4

Provided (approx. 25,000 words). They present my early exposure to “gangstalking” and my work life under CSIS investigation between January 2007 and September 2008. Back story elements include my past relationship with Stephen Harper and the incidents that lead to the investigation of Preston Manning’s federal campaign in Yellowhead in 1988. Also included is their ‘“disrupt activities” against me as an alleged American spy. Illegal activities by my employer, CBSA, and CSIS are presented, and how my solicitor-client and patient-doctor relationship were abrogated. It includes how CSIS tried to brand me as “delusional” in order to protect the Prime Minister. It ends with my discovery of the plight of “Anne,” a Peterborough woman who had an affair with a PM and CSIS’s efforts to try to kill me in a traffic accident.

Chapters 5-6

Unwritten. These two chapters are reserved for “Anne’s Story,” a woman from Peterborough now in her early thirties who had a brief liaison with a Prime Minister, probably the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin. Evidence obtained from the national media indicates that the PM may have had marital problems with his wife, Sheila, at that time (or was caused by?). Information to be provided by Erin, “Anne’s” real first name.

Middle section of photographic inserts:

Provided in the “Gangstalkers” and the “Evidence” directories. This includes a proposed section called About Gangstalkers, a presentation of pictures I have taken along with captions, and includes the “safehouses” used by CSIS to monitor me and to house the gangstalkers. It may also include assorted letters provided in “Evidence” from CSIS alleging I was a “subversive” at the time I was cleared to TSSA, indicating that this status was attributed because I knew the PM was a former CSIS operative, as well as redacted documents obtained through the Privacy Act indicating I was suspected of being an American spy; photographs and documents showing a CSIS officer impersonating Michelle Shephard, a Toronto Star reporter; photograph showing the CSIS officer impersonating Lois Tuffin, a Peterborough This Week editor; a letter from my employer, CBSA, threatening my job after posting a early draft of the PM’s early activity on behalf of CSIS on the internet; a copy of the Security of Information Act; proposed pictures of CSIS officers and managers; etc. Approximate length: 40 pages.

Suggested Chapter 7

Unwritten. A proposed chapter to be written by a lawyer conversant with the origins and workings of the Security of Information Act, with a focus on the implications on the lives of innocent Canadians by CSIS actions, and a explanation of why the power under SOIA does not extend below PM level. Remuneration by the publisher could be sent directory to the lawyer.

Chapter 8

Unwritten. This chapter will show how CSIS gangstalking and incompetent investigating has damaged the lives of innocent Muslim Canadians, merging information presented here with media accounts and interviews with the subjects. Focus on one or two cases of Muslim Canadians is proposed, and specifically the ‘“extra-legal” behaviour by CSIS. This chapter might flow into a discussion on the origins of gangstalking and the “diffuse and disrupt” policy in CSIS. Some discussion of gangstalking efforts in the U.S. and in the U.K., and discussion of other books on gangstalking, etc. Research will be required.

Chapter 9

Unwritten. This chapter (or two) will continue my story relating from September 2008 to the winter of 2010-11. It will include my failure to obtain assistance by Ottawa Police; my complaint to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director; failure to obtain a lawyer through CSIS interference; efforts to contact the media; efforts to broker a deal with the government; frequent CSIS attempts to impersonate others; CSIS suborning my extended family and sister; CSIS in the legal field, media, etc.

Epilogue

Unwritten. The character of this concluding chapter depends on how the theme has been understood by the reader. It could present this story as a “danger signal” to conclude with prescriptive remedies; i.e., ideas for reform, merging human rights with national security; reform of SIRC; reform for the chain of command within the Canadian state as approached by the SOIA, particularly in situations of national emergency; ideas to define “national security.” Alternatively, the theme could be understood as illustrative of our descent into Canadian fascism, in which corroborative evidence could be presented to show how liberal Canada has died. Either way, discussions and research would be required.

Link to book: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1302 You have to scroll down a portion of the page to read the whole book if interested, its too long to post here.

[Fancy]

Epilogue
Unwritten. The character of this concluding chapter depends on how the theme has been understood by the reader. It could present this story as a “danger signal” to conclude with prescriptive remedies; i.e., ideas for reform, merging human rights with national security; reform of SIRC; reform for the chain of command within the Canadian state as approached by the SOIA, particularly in situations of national emergency; ideas to define “national security.” Alternatively, the theme could be understood as illustrative of our descent into Canadian fascism, in which corroborative evidence could be presented to show how liberal Canada has died. Either way, discussions and research would be required.

Link to book: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1302 You have to scroll down a portion of the page to read the whole book if interested, its too long to post here.

I'm kinda thinking Harper didnt' belong to CSIS

[atenbacon]

Proof that the above (Excluding Fancy's post) is false.

.

[Static]

Heaven forbid we do something about American Terrorism across the globe and Israeli terrorism against the Palistinians.

[coolworx]

Heaven forbid we do something about American Terrorism across the globe and Israeli terrorism against the Palistinians.

That's not terrorism!
That's spreading Freedumb and Dumbocracy across the globe, you commie symp.
/sarc (as if you needed it)

[FreeRights]

so, the rcmp/feds, whoever, can call you a 'terrorist', or say you are somehow connected to a 'terrorist', secret you away without right to counsel, force you to 'talk', restrict your movements, restrict your liberties, punish you for failing to abide, and then should they someday ever convict you, then they want the ability to strip you of your citizenship.

http://www.canada.com/filibuster+bill+s ... story.html

I hear people say that literally every new Act is part of the slippery slope to state fascism where you can go missing for no reason at all.

Have any of your other predictions turned out right? I mean, any of them?