Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBanned from Canada for War Protest
On the invitation of six members of the Canadian Parliament to speak October 25 on Canada's Parliament Hill as a member of a panel called "Peacebuilders Without Borders: Challenging the Post-0/11 Canada-US Security Agenda," I arrived at the Ottawa airport in the morning of October 25 to be met by three members of Parliament and to hold a press conference at the airport.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink Women for Peace and Global Exchange, was also invited by the Parliamentarians, but had been arrested the previous day for holding up two fingers in the form of a peace sign during the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified on Iraq, Iran and Israel-Palestinian issues. The October 24 committee hearing began with Codepink peace activist Desiree Fairooz holding up her red paint stained hands to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and shouting "The blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands!" As Capitol Hill police took her out of the hearing of the House of Representatives' Committee on Foreign Affairs, Fairooz yelled over her shoulder "War criminal! Take her to the Hague!" Shortly thereafter two Codepinkers were arrested for just being in the room and brutally hauled out of the hearing by Capitol police. An hour later Medea and a male Codepinker were arrested for no reason. Four of the five had to stay overnight in the District of Columbia jail. Medea was one of those and missed the trip to Ottawa.
I presented to immigration officials our letter of invitation from the Parliamentarians that explained that Medea and I had been denied entry to Canada at the Niagara Falls border crossing on October 3, 2007 because we had been convicted in the United States of peaceful, non-violent protests against the war on Iraq, including sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House with 400 others, speaking out against torture during Congressional hearings, and other misdemeanors. The Canadian government knew of these offenses as they now have access to the FBI's National Crime Information database on which we are listed. The database that was created to identify members of violent gangs and terrorist organizations, foreign fugitives, patrol violators and sex offenders-not for peace activists peacefully protesting illegal actions of their government.
The immigration officer directed me to secondary screening where my request to call the members of Parliament waiting outside the customs doors was denied. My suggestion that the letter of invitation from the Parliamentarians might be valuable in accessing the need for me to be in Canada was dismissed with the comment that members of Parliament do not have a role in determining who enters Canada. I suggested that the laws enacted by the Parliament were the basis of that determination. I added that the reason I had been invited to Ottawa by Parliamentarian was to be an example of how current laws may exclude those whom Canadians may wish to allow to enter. I also mentioned that Parliament might decide to change the laws that immigration officials implement. I also suggested that since the Parliament provides the budget to the Immigration Services, they might notify the Parliamentarians awaiting my arrival that I had been detained. The officers declined to do so citing my privacy, which I immediately waived. The Parliamentarians were never notified by Immigration that I had arrived and was being detained. Only when my cell phone was returned to me by Immigration officers four hours later was I able to make contact with the Parliamentarians.
After nearly four hours of interrogation, I was told by the senior immigration officer that I was banned from Canada for one year for failure to provide appropriate documents that would overcome the exclusion order I had been given in early October because of conviction of misdemeanors (all payable by fines) in the United States. The officer said that to apply for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for entry for a specific event on a specific date, I must provide to a Canadian Embassy or consulate the arresting officer's report, court transcripts and court documents for each of the convictions and an official document describing the termination of sentences, a police certificate issued within the last three months by the FBI, police certificates from places I have lived in the past ten years (that includes Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia), a letter acknowledging my convictions from three respected members of the community (the respected members that I will ask to write a letter all been convicted of similar "offenses") and a completed 18 page "criminal rehabilitation" packet.
Additionally, besides obtaining the Temporary Resident Permit, since I was being banned for a year from Canada, I would have to obtain a "Canadian Government Minister's consent." The officer said that the TRP and the Minister's consent normally took from 8-10 months to obtain. In the distant future, to be able to enter Canada without a TRP, I would have to have to be "criminally rehabilitated" and be free for five years of conviction of any offense, including for peaceful protest.
The senior immigration officer took my fingerprints for Canadian records, escorted me to the airport departures area and placed me on the first plane departing for Washington, DC. In the meantime, the members of Parliament conducted the press conference and the panel without my presence but certainly using the example of what had happened to me and previously to Medea Benjamin as incidents that the Parliamentarians are very concerned about, specifically their government's wholesale acceptance of information on the FBI's database, information that appears to have been placed there for political intimidation.
A participant on the Parliamentary panel that I was unable to attend was Monia Mazigh, the wife of Canadian citizen Maher Arar who was sent by US authorities when he transited New York's JFK airport, to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for 10 months. The day before I arrived at the Ottawa airport, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the United States had "not handled his case properly." But Rice did not apologize to Arar on behalf of the Bush administration during testimony to the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. The previous week during a video conference, both Republican and Democrat members of Congress offered apologies to Arar. Arar, an Ottawa telecommunications engineer, still has a lawsuit pending against American officials. Arguments are scheduled for Nov. 9 in New York.
Many countries have succumbed to the behind the scenes 9/11 pressure of the Bush administration to enact extensive and expansive anti-terrorism laws to increase "harmonization" and integration of security measures among countries. Unfortunately, the Canadian government is mirroring the Bush administration's use of security measures to increase control over dissent in their country-and in other countries.
Most of the new security measures are done through administrative agreements, international joint working groups, regulations and the use of international organizations such as the G-8 and the International Civil Aviation Organization. By using administrative regulations, the U.S. and Canadian governments avoid opening up the proposed restrictions of personal privacy to public scrutiny and debate by preventing such regulations from being enacted in the Congress or Parliament.
Through these agreements with Canada and other G-8 countries, the Bush administration is setting up a global infrastructure for the registration and surveillance of populations worldwide, looking at every person as a suspect and a risk, whom must in their opinion, as a precaution, be identified and tracked. Ordinary legal protections fundamental to democratic societies such as the presumption of innocence, rights against unreasonable search and seizure and rights against arbitrary detention and punishment are greatly threatened by these precautionary measures.
Countries are accepting the "precautionary principle" and are gathering and sharing information not only to track suspected "terrorists" but to stop dissidents from flying and/or entering other countries, to stop activists and intellectuals at borders (the Bush administration has refused visas for numerous academics from all over the world who have been invited to teach at American universities but whom have spoken and written against the Bush war in Iraq, torture and other violations of international law), to detain persons without reasonable grounds and to send persons to third countries and prisons operated by the US government, where are detained indefinitely without charge, tortured and are sometimes murdered.
The Canada-U.S. Smart Border Agreement and Action Plan, an administrative agreement signed in December 2001, is the master document for security integration between Canada and the United States. The agreement calls for biometric standards for identity cards, coordinated visa an refugee policy, coordinate risk assessment of travelers, integrated border and marine enforcement teams, integrated national security intelligence teams, coordinated terrorist lists, increased intelligence sharing and joint efforts to promote the Canada-US model internationally.
After 9/11 the Bush administration, under the National Security Entry-exit Registration System (NSEERS) registered and took biometric identifiers (fingerprints) of all males age 16-45 with links to Muslim and Arab countries visiting or traveling though the United States. Next, persons applying for visas to visit the United States had to submit biometric data (fingerprints) that will be stored in a US database for 100 years through the new U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication Technology (US-VISIT) program.
The Bush administration expanded its biometric round-up on a global scale in 2002 by requiring all countries that want to retain their visa waiver status with the U.S. to require by 2004 biometric passports through the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. In 2004 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) set a face recognition standard with fingerprint and iris scans as optional standards. Beginning in 2005 the United States and Canada have biometric passports with facial recognition.
We all want our countries to be safe from criminal actions. However, the unnecessary curtailment of civil liberties and purposeful targeting of those who disagree with government policies must end.
I call on the US Congress to conduct hearings to determine who ordered the FBI to place peaceful, non-violence protest convictions on the international data base and for what purpose.
It feels to me like purposeful intimidation to stop dissent-but I can guarantee you, it won't work!
To all those concerned about free speech, freedom to travel, ending an illegal war, stopping torture and other violations of domestic and international law, come to Washington and help us!!!
(For more extensive information on security agreements that unnecessarily jeopardize our civil liberties, please see "Americanizing the Restriction of Canadians' Rights-Security Overtaking Trade as a Driver of 'Deep Integration'," by Maureen Webb, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December, 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The US Department of State has delayed for over three months publication of her new book "Dissent: Voices of Conscience." It will be published whenever the State Department finishes its search for classified materials.
57 Comments so far
Show AllI don't get it. If she had wanted to really make a point, Ms. Wright should have tried to claim refugee status. Her presence on the FBI list and the nature of the reasons why she's on the list make a very good prima facie case for the legitimacy of the claim, and would highlight very nicely the political uses that list is put to. Furthermore, that kind of stuff is exactly what the refugee process is for.
In general, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency doesn't second guess other country's claims of the criminality of their citizens. If a particular person (such as Ms. Wright) wants us to do so for her case, claiming refugee status is the way to do it, as she is suffering from persecution in her home country. When someone makes that claim, that immediately starts an entire process, open to the public, that examines the veracity of the claim, and is permitted broad latitude for the examination, including the calling of witnesses. This would be an excellent tool to help expose the bad actions of the current US regime, and would undoubtedly have garnered international press attention: think about it, headlines screaming "U.S. peace activists seeks refugee status in Canada! Claims legal persecution by the U.S. justice system for her political activities!"
It would have been the right thing to do.
Galen - I think they've been slaughtered - a lot of them. The whole thing smells much much worse than what we have been told. It is as if that whole area has gone off line. Anything we know has been smuggled out.
Paulbh1977, severely pissed off would be a better word for what you are feeling than outrage. You are not that naive or innocent if you are placing bets. Outrage is an innocence brutally and abruptly thwarted. You are too sardonic and jaded for it to be outrage - at least not any more.
And, for the record, I don't believe "Doris" either. If "Doris" isn't talking about how we are all descended from the inbred grandchildren of Adam and Eve, he usually is lying. But is it "Doris's" lie of did Harper put those words in his mouth and tell him to move his lips.
paulbk1977 says: This is a step towards the kind of government we do not want or need, maybe 1938 Germany
But not the first step or the third or tenth or fiftieth.
There is bill C-36 and then there was bill C-55. When was bill C-36 intruduced? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
Sacrificing Civil Liberties
by Parker Barss Donham
October 17, 2001
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?sh_itm=1f48fe80730acba3920a7feebeb65562&rXn=1&
The Rush to Pass Extreme Legislation
>by Parker Barss Donham
October 28, 2001
(Seems like he liked it even less over time)
Enemy of the State?
>by Shane Schick
June 25, 2002
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=b8b7a44a69849eeac541db7e0d51cd6b&rXn=1&
At the time this article was written, diplomats were considered to be protected persons. I guess ex-diplomats don't have that luxury any more.
... What we need are some Bhuddist monks... like they have in Burma/Myanmar...
Vaudree I read where Stockwell day said the guards at the border used their own discretion, if I believed that, I would be ready for that swamp land in Florida. This was a government decision I am betting, and outrage is what I am feeling that she and those like her are now being denied entry because of a "list" the government has received from another so-called democracy. This is a step towards the kind of government we do not want or need, maybe 1938 Germany, or later Russian, or even lately Chinese, but not here. Yes this same garbage has been repeated over and over throughout history, it is nothing new, but it still makes me wonder, and angers me....who do these people think they are and where do they think they are living?
You mean how would Leonard Asper (of CanWest Global) take it?
Probably the same way Izzy would. You know his planned Human Rights Museum? I think that the atrocities against Palistinians are kept in the broom closet with the mop and pail.
I mean that when you have outrage or indignation and it is not from an editorial, it is a pseudo news article. It is ok if you can interview people who are outraged, but it seems more legitimate if you let the people you interview express the outrage.
I don't mean from us - we aren't censoring our thoughts here very much.
Outrage is often slightly fake, though, because it presumes that what happened is unexpected and new. We knew this was happening. We are pissed off that it is happening. And we want to know how bad it really is. We are not shocked by it. We are beyond shocked - it is more of a jaded terror.
Harper was working behind the scenes when Preston Manning started out. Harper has been around for a while. We know how he thinks. We know the kinds of things he said in the past. We have a good idea what kinds of things he wants to accomplish in the future.
And, if we have any doubts what Harper is about, the Fraser Institute has been around for a while. We know the type of extreme make over they have in mind.
What we don't know how to do as well is twofold:
1. Slow down Harper's destruction of Canada.
2. Repair the damage.
And that is what we need Ann Wright for. What I think that Ann Wright will accomplish with the Freedom of Information request is how they are doing it and what needs to be done to undo it. Unless she has that information, she can't fight it. And, as important as the information they hand over is the information they block out.
So what is the right going to do to discredit Ann Wright - call her a phony soldier! Her credentials give her a respect that most of the people this is happening to won't get.
Beaters not being allowed across the border because of a pot conviction 30 years old isn't newsworthy. An ex-diplomat and retired general not being allowed to cross the border - that peaks interest. It is the same bullshit causing both - or is it?
Was there a special tag on Wright's name that there wouldn't be on many in her situation? Or is that which happened to Wright what is happening to everyone who gets arrested at a protest? This we need to find out.
If they are tagging the names of certain individuals because of their potential profile, we need to know. If what happened to Wright is standard procedure, we need to know.
Outrage and indignation are phony? You must see many of the people on here as phony then? I see a lot of people outraged by many things going on in North America, and for good reason, it is the breakdown of our rights and freedoms, what the free democracies are supposed to represent to the rest of the world.
Reverse the situation Vaudree, say it was an Israeli speaker who was to be denied entry into Canada, what do you think would be the response in the media?
Many times the news is an editorial, but very subtley in the words used, in the construction of the article it can very easily become an editorial, and you would not be expecting it.
Beaters - A pot conviction in 1973? That was quite a long time ago! Well, they won't let you into Canada, but they want us to send Marc Emery into the United States against his will. If we extradite Marc Emery to the States, he is likely to spend the rest of his life in jail and you know what they will be using to convict him - his tax returns!
Marc Emery is a politician and a business man.
I know before that the US were threatening that if we didn't get tougher on pot that they were going to severely slow down traffic across the border so that those trucking goods into the States would - well, if you are waiting at the border for hours and hours it does drive the costs up. I think Belinda Stronach (when she was running against Harper and Tony Clement) said it most openly that she was against decriminalizing pot because it would have a negative impact of the portions of the economy which ship a lot of their products to the US.
Personally, I am a bit more concerned with the cocaine and guns coming into Canada from the US.
vaudree, I believe the Herald ran a small sidepiece reporting the Oct 4 incident when Medea Benjamin & Ann Wright were not allowed into Canada. Regarding the latest incident where Wright was detained and then sent back, I've only seen the one story which I linked to above.
The fact that the Herald credits the story to the Canadian Press story indicates that it was available to all the papers. I would like to know how many ran it.
Certainly, the story is under-reported. I think a lot of Canadians would be upset that this is happening.
Outrage and indignation is usually phony - which reminds me - Question Period should be on soon. And there is a difference between covering the news and giving an editorial (where those two qualities are the main stay).
To be more powerful, a news article lets the facts speak for themselves - which makes it important which facts they include and which they leave out.
1. How much this event is covered by the news source
If the source only had one article on it (1) then it is something they covered perfunctery (sp?) so that no one can accuse them of bias but are really hoping that no one is paying attention to the story.
2. Whether or not they mention Ann Wright is a Colonel
5. Whether they mention that Wright and/or Benjamin are former diplomats
Both these qualities make Wright seem more credible and less like a yahoo trouble maker. If the articles tend to leave these things out, it seems to the reader that we are not getting the whole story about the activities of these two women and the reader tends to assume that they are downplaying the seriousness of their past activities.
3. Whether or not they note that the arrest was for "peaceful, non violent" protesting
This point, if left out, tends to make one assume that what they were arrested for is more serious than they are letting on.
4. Whether they mention that the Canadian border guards are using FBI information
The idea that Canadian border guards are using FBI information tends to rub Canadians the wrong way, whatever they think of Wright or Benjamin. Leaving this point out is hiding the whole issue.
6. Whether they mention that Wright and Benjamin were invited by the NDP
The fact that they were invited by Politicians indicates that they are more credible than if they just tried to cross the border to get some Kraft chip dip, salt and vinigar chips, and Good Host Ice tea. It also smells of government interference and makes the reader wonder whether it is their ideas or their activities that kept them out of the country.
And Wright uses the word "Parlimentarians" which means that those who invited her were not fringe but actually able to win elections - it was not like she was invited by an unelected politician, like Marc Emery.
And to think, there is something on youtube when Wright spoke in Canada in August (SPP) and it has had very hits. The fact that Wright was not allowed to speak makes her message seem all the more important - as long as people inside of Canada keep the story going and, it seems, the NDP plan to.
Jake, the only one of the criteria I can't vouch for with the Herald is (1) but that may be because they only keep articles for seven days.
About the Three little pigs and big bad wolf. The more I look at the story, the more I come up with two different interpretations.
First, the three houses represent three types of civilization with the brick houses representing European Empiralists and the others the people they conquered. Think of it, the Native Peoples Columbus slaughtered never feared the wolf (which is a personification of mother nature). Yet, if you are getting rich exploiting nature, you have to present yourself as in the best situation to defeat nature and nature as evil.
Second, in the original story, the first pig dies, the second pig dies and the wolf dies - the only survivor to tell the story is the third pig - whose to say he wasn't a mass murderer?
Third, remember when they had a bit of snow in Hogtown. In our Letter to the Editor section some guy was asking people to donate their used snow shovels for the underprivileged Torontonians who did not have any.
Ms Wright wrote:
"...I was told by the senior immigration officer that I was banned from Canada for one year for failure to provide appropriate documents that would overcome the exclusion order I had been given in early October because of conviction of misdemeanors (all payable by fines) in the United States. The officer said that to apply for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) for entry for a specific event on a specific date, I must provide to a Canadian Embassy or consulate the arresting officer's report, court transcripts and court documents for each of the convictions and an official document describing the termination of sentences, a police certificate issued within the last three months by the FBI, police certificates from places I have lived in the past ten years (that includes Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia), a letter acknowledging my convictions from three respected members of the community (the respected members that I will ask to write a letter all been convicted of similar "offenses") and a completed 18 page "criminal rehabilitation" packet."
It's a shame she's being treated this way. From what I read it's far from uncommon, though. Thanks to the Bush admin sharing the big brother database wholesale with other countries, there are plenty of people who are now effectively stuck in the US. I'm one of those lucky ones (in my case it's a 1973 pot conviction). The Canadian government will very kindly consider rehabilitation for folks like me. Unfortunately it involves paying a $2000 fee to apply which is non-refundable in the event of disapproval. So much for the Canadian vacation plans. I gather the situation is fairly similar for other countries.
Welcome to the club, Ann! The dues are high, but membership has its rewards. And, it's for life. We should make up key pendants an so forth like some of us have in other exclusive societies.
Vaudree that is funny about the stawhouse, and yes Hogtown is more afraid of Bush than Manitoba and elsewhere too. I am not sure why you asked those questions about reporting this event in the news. What it is, is a violation of a citizen's rights, in another free democracy to voice her condemnation of a war, and how she and her friend were treated by our country, a so-called democracy. I read that it was the guards decision to disallow their entry, bs, it was a government decision I bet, it was going to be very public meeting, and the government of our country blocked their entry. This is something more suited to a police-state than a democracy. We are not a police-state yet, but tiny little steps, one at a time, and before we know it, we will loose too many freedoms and rights, all in the name of what? We have lost enough already to those who could care less about what the public really feels or wants. The press uses words in nuances to highlight what they find detestable, there where no such words I saw in the articles.
Only the facts were reported, which shows their bias, and a free press would have been outraged at such a travesty of a person's rights.
Here's a link to an article in the Chronicle Herald which is Halifax, Nova Scotia's 150 yr old (approx) privately owned daily.
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Search/974685.html
I think the tone of the article is nicely critical of both governments' actions and offers a fair presentation of the peace activists' positions.
I find the Herald to be quite a balanced newspaper. It has some right wing columnnists who drive me crazy but the paper carries a lot of international news relative to newspapers I see in other cities, and the commentary and editorials are often thoughtful and not ideologically based.
Why do they tag certain posts for "moderation" and usually the ones you spent a great deal of time on? Cut and pasted it this time incase it's deleted and, if I don't get a reason why, will put it back up.
kazzamm says: I've read two articles this week alone in the Canadian press which I found rather disturbing. One called Dion (the Liberal Oppositon leader) a "flip-flopper" and the other said the Liberals were "soft on terror". Both terms were used by Harper's Conservatives.
I am more concerned with the "soft on terror" reference - I think that is a neocon sound-bite on both sides of the border and is a variant of the old "soft on crime". Oh, did you hear the other day Peter Van Loen's reaction when the combined opposition mentioned that the prisoners the Canadians turn over to the Afghan government are being tortured? (Americans, Van Loen makes Bill O'Reily seem soft spoken):
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we were expecting allegations like this from the Taliban. It is their usual modus operandi. In any event, we have put in place mechanisms to ensure that transfers of Taliban prisoners by the Canadians are supervised and monitored.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to caution the hon. member on taking as the truth incomplete statements such as a few comments from unattributed sources and anonymous individuals about unnamed prisoners, alleging some torture, especially when we are talking about combating the Taliban, whose major business was trampling the human rights of Afghans. We are there to protect the human rights of Afghans and to support our troops in doing that.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=308791...
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is the nature of the Taliban to make such allegations. We should not assume that all of these allegations are based in fact. Nevertheless, in accordance with the agreement signed with the Government of Afghanistan, whenever such allegations surface, the government investigates.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Geneva convention is designed to protect prisoners of war and avoid reprisals. Does the Prime Minister realize that because of his government's failure to meet Canada's international obligations, not only is he exposing Canadian soldiers to the risk of prosecution for non-compliance with the Geneva convention, but he is also endangering soldiers by exposing them to retaliatory measures?
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=308966...
kazzamm saying: So it would appear that the Conservatives are now taking their talking points straight from the U.S. warlords. Very disturbing…
Hey, Blair, Bush, Harper and John Howard (Australia) are all on record talking about solving Climate change by reducing "emission intensities." Note that in the Throne speech that the words "emission intensities" were missing but that Harper referred, instead, to two recent speeches where he had used the terms.
kazzamm saying: I always lie on polls and say I'm going to vote for Harper… hoping they'll get overconfident and "pride goes before a fall".
You are just scaring NDP supporters into voting Liberal.
since1492 says: There are a lot of good Germans working for the Canadian Immigration Services.
The Mennonites were traditionally German - and they are the biggest peace activists around! They are the ones who provided us with much of our information concerning the use of sanctions in Iraq. Whether Saddam cared or not, there was no way he could fix the water treatment plants - the Americans insured that. Diareah is dangerous during the first two years of life (though harmless after that) and the kids were dying from untreated water. There are Catholic, Lutherin and Atheist German peace activists as well.
Saila says: If there is another war of choice necessitating the reinstatement of the draft, you won't be able to run to Canada as a draft dodger any more. Mexico? Don't even think about it. The wall that Bush built was not intended to keep the immigrants out, but to keep the future draft dodgers in.
It is already that way and, if they sneak into Canada and avoid the Border Guards trying to keep them in, they can stay until the exhaust all the legal challenges and then go back and spend two years in jail.
terryb saying: would it not be possible to bring this issue to the fore, by a teleconference of some sort, with the M.P.'s she had originally planned to meet with.
Until they get the "Freedom of Information" from the FBI, Wright and Benjamin don't know what their files say. The story is the border issue and having a conference would take away from that. I am sure that there will be a teleconference when they get their files from the FBI - much like when Maher Arar addressed Congress.
"P.S. I always lie on polls and say I'm going to vote for Harper… hoping they'll get overconfident and "pride goes before a fall".
How the hell does this help? Wasn't Dion's and the liberal's decision to not call an election probably based on such polls and a misplaced fear that the conservatives would only gain seats?
NorthATheBorder says: My only other observation is that anyone who knows anything about Stockwell Day should feel profoundly UNsafe with him as "Minister for Public Safety."
Americans, if you want to understand "Doris" just think Frank Burns (MASH) in a wet suit as Minister for Public Safety. "Doris" gets freaked out by the thought of being doused by homogenized milk (he is very homophobic).
paulbk1977 says: I went to Google news, and googled Ann Wright, and read a lot of the Canadian media's reporting of this event. Did not see one article that condemned this action
Did you read any news articles that condone the action? What I am looking for is:
1. How much this event is covered by the news source
2. Whether or not they mention Ann Wright is a Colonel
3. Whether or not they note that the arrest was for "peaceful, non violent" protesting
4. Whether they mention that the Canadian border guards are using FBI information
5. Whether they mention that Wright and/or Benjamin are former diplomats
6. Whether they mention that Wright and Benjamin were invited by the NDP
You pick a source and I'll pick one.
CBC - "U.S. peace activists barred from entry into Canada" (Oct 4) mentions that Wright and Benjamin are requesting their files from the Freedom of Information Act (something a person with something to hide would not do) and 1,2,3,4.
"Barred U.S. peace activists to test border policy again" (Oct 24)doesn't stress 3 (calling it trespassing - which is a loaded word that can mean a few things) - though they have an immigration lawyer saying it is groundless, they have a border service officer down playing it substantially and 1,2,4, 5, 6
"U.S. peace activist detained at Ottawa airport en route to meet MPs" (Oct 25) gives Alexa more time than "Doris" which only slightly mitigates the "series of misdemeanors" comment that could cause hesitation of support for Wright and Benjamin, alernatively the FBI not agreeing to be interviewed makes it sound as if they have something to hide and 1, 2, 4, 5 6.
"Give Peace a Chance? How about Give Peace the Boot." (Oct 25) - mentions that Wright is a "former soldier" but not colonel and 1,6.
"NDP calls on government to allow entry to American peace activists" (Oct 23) and 1,2,4,5,6.
mofo says: Even the immigration officials who were very nice thought this was ridiculous. I am white American, can only imagine how much worse I'd have been treated if I appeared to be Muslim or was from a Muslim country.
There was a story of an old Muslim woman with canes who was stripped searched in the paper a while back. What strikes me as important is the immigration official's reaction - which indicates that, while the rules haven't changed, there has been changes in the way the border guards are instructed to enforce them.
canuckchuck: do they realize that the USA can listen in on any Canadian converstaion at any time without a warrent? Have the posts I make to this site are blocked and probably copied to the FBI
Probably. And not just the FBI but businesses as well since there was an article a bit back about electronic monitoring of cell phones sold by a certain company to give you advertising related to your conversations. I wonder if you gossip about the neighbour's affair or say that your boyfriend is acting like a big baby whether you get adds for porn cites and diapers! The US tends to contract out and their contractors sell the info to corporations. You remember how the drug companies were getting records from the pharmacies to find out which doctors were prescribing their products the most?
cccccc
paulbk1977 says: Vaudree I agree the Liberals would have done the same thing, and probably the NDP too, I am betting. I get the feeling that politicians view George as the big bad wolf, and if we don't obey, he will huff and puff, and blow our door down.
Probably not a fair comparison, in your case - how "Liberal" are your BC Liberals? I think they have more in common with the other PC parties (and it is probably best to think of them as one).
Federally, the NDP has a reputation for sticking up for human rights - even when it was not popular to do so. Tommy Douglas's stand against the War Measures Act is a case in point. And, according to the Wik "The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights preceded the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations by 18 months" - and other sources indicate that the wording of the two are quite similar.
Provincially, where the Liberals are weak, the NDP and the PC tend to fight over the Liberal vote so that does move them a bit more to the right - or, at least, make them move more cautiously, so as not to scare off the Liberal voter. That said, Doer (who negotiates like Chico from Chico and the Man), was not so afraid of American reaction to Internet Pharmacies, nor so willing to let Henry Morgantaller set up a private clinic in his province (he bought it out and it is now non-profit). That said, he tries his best not to be labeled "tax and spend" so proceeds a bit more cautiously on things than one would like at times.
As far as the Big Bad Wolf goes, University of Manitoba built a straw house which withstands all weather - they are more afraid of Bush in Hogtown.
How is this any different than the old Soviet Union and the Iron curtain?
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -
Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
as a canadian, i too am embarassed by this situation. having said that, would it not be possible to bring this issue to the fore, by a teleconference of some sort, with the M.P.'s she had originally planned to meet with. it would probably get some coverage, which would at least make the public aware of the situation.
Talk about the police state! 1984 was never as scary or technologically as proficient as the Police States of America.
If there is another war of choice necessitating the reinstatement of the draft, you won't be able to run to Canada as a draft dodger any more. Mexico? Don't even think about it. The wall that Bush built was not intended to keep the immigrants out, but to keep the future draft dodgers in. A draft dodger will thus be left with only two choices: Jump in the ocean and swim away from the Police States of America, OR agree to be dispatched to the war zone, then run away and hide.
There are a lot of good Germans working for the Canadian Immigration Services.
Hoa binh
I've read two articles this week alone in the Canadian press which I found rather disturbing.
One called Dion (the Liberal Oppositon leader) a "flip-flopper" and the other said the Liberals were "soft on terror". Both terms were used by Harper's Conservatives.
Anyone who has been paying any attention to US politics will instantly recognize these phrases as two used extensively by the neocons to discredit the Democrats (and liberals) who oppose them.
So it would appear that the Conservatives are now taking their talking points straight from the U.S. warlords. Very disturbing...
P.S. I always lie on polls and say I'm going to vote for Harper... hoping they'll get overconfident and "pride goes before a fall".
with all the American concern with warrentless wiretapping of Americans, do they realize that the USA can listen in on any Canadian converstaion at any time without a warrent? Have the posts I make to this site are blocked and probably copied to the FBI
The Fascist USA sucks big time
Imagine trying to get into the USA after getting caught smoking a joint in Canada as a teenager...you are barred for life. About a million Canadians are in that category.
I think anything that keeps Americans out of Canada is a good thing...if the peaceniks happen to get caught up with the normal US torturers and facists, so be it.
I was also detained and made to miss my connecting flight from Montreal to Paris. I had not even intended to set foot on Canadian soil, was just a layover. Because I had a misdemeanor infraction in the U.S. resolved some 4 years prior. The strange thing is , after hours of waiting and interrogation and missing my flight, they took my passport, told me to go get a Hotel and return in the morning to re book my flight. If the goal of this law is to keep out criminals or terrorists, why would they allow me to go get a hotel room. Wouldn't it be easier for them to have just not interuppted my flight in the 1st place and let me go on to Paris with my feet never touching Canadian soil ( Or should I say snow) out side of the airport. Even the immigration officials who were very nice thought this was ridiculous. I am white American, can only imagine how much worse I'd have been treated if I appeared to be Muslim or was from a Muslim country. I am not allowed to enter Canada again for 5 years from date I was turned away.
Something I forgot to mention, I went to Google news, and googled Ann Wright, and read a lot of the Canadian media's reporting of this event. Did not see one article that condemned this action, and we wonder why this crap goes on? The press is utterly and competely useless, and I think bought and paid for like a prostitute.
Vaudree I agree the Liberals would have done the same thing, and probably the NDP too, I am betting. I get the feeling that politicians view George as the big bad wolf, and if we don't obey, he will huff and puff, and blow our door down.
"mr. d. October 30th, 2007 2:39 pm
In 2003 Canada refused to support the war in Iraq. There were instant economic and political reprisals by the US against Canada.... Soon after, Canada sent troops into Afghanistan .... What's the difference? We might as well be in Iraq..."
You are a little confused with the order of things. - The war in Afghanistan started before Iraq, on October 7th 2001. Canada pledged to sent troops already on October 8th 2001.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050804/afghanistan_timeline_050804/20071004?hub=...
The war in Iraq happened after Canada was already involved in Afghanistan. on March 20, 2003
There is another big difference between the Afghanistan and Iraq.
The UN security concil authorized international security assistance force to be sent to Afganistan. The UN has never approuved the war in Iraq.
Harper is doing neo-conservatism in a Canadian way i.e. quietly. He's probably as much of an extremist as any of our American friend's neo-con politicians, he's just snuck up on Canadians and many of us don't seem to realize that he's just as bad as BushCo. His government's policies are not just friendly to America, they seek deep integration with America. True, the Liberals were getting there but I still think Harper and his cronies are more troublesome. My only other observation is that anyone who knows anything about Stockwell Day should feel profoundly UNsafe with him as "Minister for Public Safety." If any of the non-Canadian CD'ers Google these guys, they'll see some definite similarities with their gang of reactionaries.
So we are finding out how many Canadians there are posting at Common Dreams.
Strange that none of us think very much of Harper.
The Colonel's story is just beginning. I think takes a person of her credentials to take the veil off of actions which are "presumably" being done in the name of security.
And, if Kucinich supporters are posting, it might be a good idea to start holding your telephone conversations in Klingon or some other language that the wire tappers don't understand.
We all know that the wiretapping is not about getting terrorists. For one thing, even if the CIA, FBI or CSIS has someone in their pay role who understands Arabic, there is a backlog of tapes needed to be translated.
Remember what happened with Air India - they did not get the tapes translated, the bombing happened and they had to erase the tapes to avoid embarrassment. If there were telephone conversations involving bomb plots, there would be a repeat of Air India.
Even if there is someone in the CIA, FBI or CSIS who can speak Klingon, by the time they get the translation over with, Kucinich could be President.
I just want to add my voice in the utter disgust of the cowardice of the Canadian government. I am deeply ashamed.
Ann Wright is a real heroine and I hope we get to see a lot more of her in the future.
Stephen Harper is Stephen Harper - you think he threw enough pennies to the crowd of peasants to keep them quiet? Hope not. He scares me.
What scares me even more is that the Liberals would have done the same thing. Admit it, they would have, though to a slighly lesser degree.
It is embarrassing that the Canadian border agents refused these two women entry into Canada, what have we become? Running scared it sounds like, just as Bush and his cronies want, to instill fear, and suspicion, but directed at who?
Those who strive for peace, and object to the Iraq war are now treated as dangerous, and suspect of possible verbal assaults on government policies. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic, and wrong, I read a quote by Stockwell Day, our Minister for Public Safety, supporting this travesty of justice. I also read it is up to the discretion of the border guards who to let in and who to refuse, but I have a feeling it was more than just their decision to keep these two women out of Canada. Our government is slowly falling into line with the ridiculous notions of Homeland Security, about what makes us safe, and who is a threat to our societies. Anyone ever find out who, and where all that money went, that was made on the 9-11 tragedy? Oh...I forgot, it is too hard to track.
This is more than just a slight mistake, this is an action that goes against the very basis for our society, free speech.
Steve Harper is the head knobgobbler send him your complaints.
[quote]COMarc October 30th, 2007 7:06 pm -- To the people who excuse the border guards, 'just following orders' has long been rejected as an excuse for wrong action.[/quote]
Not exactly. It's certainly not an excuse for crimes against humanity. But what these border guards did was hardly that. They simply enforced the current rules of entry established under Canadian law.
Granted that they failed to exercise much common sense discretion in doing so. But, if that were a crime, there'd be a lot of border guards in jail worldwide. The mere fact that we (and perhaps even they) may not agree with every border restriction, doesn't make them guilty of anything.
We (both countries) should certainly be working to change laws that we find offensive and unduly restrictive. But, as noted above, a lot of the impetus for tighter and more closely integrated security throughout North America is coming from the U.S. with considerable complicity on the part of Canada's current PM and his governement. In the long run, the frontline implementers are the least of our worries.
To the people who excuse the border guards, 'just following orders' has long been rejected as an excuse for wrong action.
Sounds like there are three courses of action to follow.
1) Work politically in the US. We should pester the worthless Democrats to get them to challenge this policy. It won't work since they've supported it from the beginning and since they hate antiwar activists as much as the Republicans. But nonetheless we should do it. And then also help independent antiwar candidates in the next election use this to challenge the worthless Democrats.
2) Canadians should be working on their own government about why they do this.
3) A 'flood the jails' approach might work. IE, anyone who's been arrested on civil disobedience should start trying to repeatedly cross the border. Make this a big pain in the rear that can't be ignored for the border guards. Better yet, put two actions together. Massive civil disobedience against the war in the US followed by everyone trying to attend an even in Canada later on. In general, make the numbers of people on these lists so large that the system can't deal with it.
Arvy, I think you call that "rimming" - sadly Harper doesn't rinse his mouth out before he speaks.
PJD says: and see the parliamentarians. (you don't call them "MPs" up there?)
If you want to get techincal, NDP MPs (including the wife of the party leader).
rsterling1 says: Hooray for the Canadian legislators who are inviting Wright and Benjamin. When they arrive in Ottawa please give them an extra big hug, recognition and award. And if this is all because of NAFTA or related policies… its one more reason to trash that agreement ASAP.
It is probably more related to the SPP - which is NAFTA on steriods. The WEBB article Wright links to doesn't use the initials "SPP" - it spells the words out. And, unlike NAFTA, which relies on legislation, the SPP works at the level of regulation so as to avoid the need to be ratified through parliament.
With regulation, the only way you become aware of them is when someone comes assunder to them.
rsterling1, you may wish to thank Penny Priddy, Olivia Chow, Libby Davies, Paul Dewar, Alexa McDonough and Dawn Black personally. Just click on their picture:
http://www.ndp.ca/node/15
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NDP launches stop SPP working group
Mon 29 Oct 2007
OTTAWA – As part of the NDP's national campaign to stop Stephen Harper's sellout of Canadian sovereignty, NDP International Trade Critic Peter Julian announced this week the formation of the NDP's working group to stop the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
"Canadians have already felt the devastation that came from the softwood sellout and the ongoing privatization of our public services," said the MP from Burnaby-New Westminster. "They don't want to see Harper take us any further down this road."
"The people whose families are dealing with the consequences of these misguided policies are the same people who are being shut out of the decision-making process," stated NDP Leader Jack Layton. "Harper is telling people that there's no room for them at the table – and that's not right."
In 2005, the Martin Liberals committed Canada to a trilateral political and economic framework aiming to harmonize Canada's social, economic and security policies and institutions with those of Mexico and the United-States. The talks have all gone on behind closed doors and even elected MPs have been kept out of the discussions. Though the SPP agenda has largely been kept secret, it is known to involve over 300 policy areas, including pesticide use, food safety and air safety, civil liberties, human rights, and environmental protection, as well as oversight from Washington over security decisions and energy policy.
NDP activities to stop the SPP involve: a national tour (launched on August 20, 2007) of public forums to speak out on the SPP and to ensure everyday Canadians get informed and have their say; and keeping the pressure on the House of Commons to expose the SPP agenda through its Standing Committees. The NDP is working alongside civil society groups and labour unions to hold the Conservative government to account and to increase pressure on the Harper government to stop SPP implementation until there is a meaningful public consultation and a full debate and vote in Parliament.
Peter Julian and other NDP MPs have been traveling across the country to speak out on the issue. Events held thus far have included Moose Jaw, Regina, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa, Fredericton, and Halifax. Upcoming events will be held in Winnipeg, Victoria, Hamilton, and Kamloops. Many other cities are in the process of planning similar public stop the SPP town hall meetings to help inform Canadians about the realities of the SPP agenda.
"Each and every member of our caucus is going to do their part to make sure that the voices of ordinary Canadians get heard," said Layton. "That's what the Stop the SPP working group is about. We have a mandate from Canadians to stand up to Harper and to protect Canadians' rights to make sovereign decisions about the direction this country is taking on the issues that matter to them."
Ann Wright is a Patriot. The violent criminals with WMDs are BushCo, along with a few other renegade empires.
[quote]piltdownman October 30th, 2007 2:19 pm -- The problem here is that the Bush government is thuggish and vindictive and aims to punish anyone who disagrees with its policies. Let us hope that the next American administration rolls back these "police state" tactics.[/quote]
That, plus the fact that Stevie Harper (Canada's current PM) has his nose so far up George Bush's ass that he may choke on the latter's next pretzel swallowing adventure.
I share your disgust and disappointment with the behavior of Canadian officialdom in this case. But, based on the main article's recitation of events, I'm inclined to think that's basically what it was -- a case of bureaucratic refusal to consider anything but the strictest interpretation of current statutory and regulatory provisions.
Ms Wright and others may want to try a border crossing into the Canadian province of Quebec next time. I suspect that they are probably staffed with people who will be much more sympathetic to the cause. Harper and his pro-war, pro-US administration tendencies certainly aren't popular there to say the least.
As a Canadian, I am ashamed and disgusted that non-violent activists are being denied entry into Canada. I've written to everyone I could think of in the government to protest.
I'm also ashamed and disgusted that Canada was the first country to cut support to the Palestinians after Hamas won the election, and that the Canadian government pronounced that the wholesale bombing of Lebanese citizens and infrastructure in response (allegedly) to the kidnapping of soldiers was a 'measured response' by Israel.
And I'm alarmed that the recent incident of Ann Wright being turned away at the border is getting very little attention from the MSM on either side of the border. Is this the new normal?
'Canada's New Government', as the Conservatives who are in power here now like to call themselves, is really scaring me, as is the fact they have a significant core of support. I don't know my country anymore.
All us Canadians, write a letter of protest to Harper and your MP. Pickett their offices. Write letters to the newspapers. Grieving it here might feel good, but I doubt our little bush-ettes are reading or caring.
During the 1970's Canadian writer Farley Mowat was not allowed entry into the USA because of some comments he made in opposition to the Vietnam War. This was widely criticised in Canada and became an embarrassment to the US. How ironic that we now have two US peace activists being denied entry into Canada. While Donald Rumsfeld is being served papers of criminal indictment in France, and while bona fide war criminals strut about the White House, two people who have fought valiantly against bloody war and for peace are apparently deemed unsuitable in Canada. As one who grew up in Canada and has dual US-Canadian citizenship I say DISGUSTING. Hooray for the Canadian legislators who are inviting Wright and Benjamin. When they arrive in Ottawa please give them an extra big hug, recognition and award. And if this is all because of NAFTA or related policies... its one more reason to trash that agreement ASAP.
I repeat; if Canada won't let them in, the proper solution is to simply find a convieneient rural spot and discreetly walk through a field or woods across the border - arrange to meet a Canadian supporter on the other side, then drive to Ottawa and see the parliamentarians. (you don't call them "MPs" up there?) It's not like people get randomly stopped for papers in Canada (Or the US, yet).
"Let me see your papers."
In 2003 Canada refused to support the war in Iraq. There were instant economic and political reprisals by the US against Canada. One cow with "mad cow disease' was discovered in a herd in western Can. This led to The US refusing to allow Canadian beef into the US. Ironically the owner of the farm where the diseased cow was discovered is an American. This caused great hardships for Canadian ranchers. As recently as this September I had a beef sandwich confiscated while crossing the border into the US at Port Huron Mich. I could bore you with many more examples, big and small, but I'm sure you get the picture. Soon after, Canada sent troops into Afghanistan and now we have more than 70 dead Canadian soldiers. Our entry into Afghanistan freed up many American soldiers to be sent to Iraq. What's the difference? We might as well be in Iraq. Now we are refusing peace loveing Americans entry into Canada. Disgusting!
As a Canadian who is outraged by the Iraq war, I am disgusted that American peace activists who have committed no felonies nor taken part in any violent acts in the U.S. have been denied entry into Canada.
However, because the Canadian-American border is long and still relatively porous, it is necessary that there be co-operation between our governments. Neither border guards nor immigration officials are in a position to decide whether an FBI watch list is correct or not.
The problem here is that the Bush government is thuggish and vindictive and aims to punish anyone who disagrees with its policies. Let us hope that the next American administration rolls back these "police state" tactics.
These FBI ass-pimples still think they can bury the truth in red-tape. Reminds me of the decades old Rolling Stones lyrics, "some little jerk in the FBI keeps a stack of papers on me six feet high." The Repugs tried desperately to throw John Lennon out of the country for encouraging young people to register to vote, and then failed in the most grandiose and public manner. Now they are frantic to keep the truth tellers here from traveling far and wide, and in so doing only call more attention to their debased thuggery. This moronic nonsense will not only pass, the FBI crime cabal will have their day coming before a jury of their peers.
And yet true criminals like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Gonzales would have no problems going to Canada. Obscenity is not limited to sexual matters. In fact, there is more obscenity in American politics than in all the adult video stores around the country.
This is the letter that Wright refers to:
http://www.ndp.ca/xfer/pdf/2007-10-12-letter-harper.pdf
Wright says: Most of the new security measures are done through administrative agreements, international joint working groups, regulations and the use of international organizations such as the G-8 and the International Civil Aviation Organization. By using administrative regulations, the U.S. and Canadian governments avoid opening up the proposed restrictions of personal privacy to public scrutiny and debate by preventing such regulations from being enacted in the Congress or Parliament.
Making these laws in the form of regulations (rather than legislation) means that they never have to go through parliament for approval. Note that one of the things discussed at SPP meeting was how to word a law in the form of a legislation (rather than regulation). And also note that, in a years time, the regulation will probably be altered again so that Wright needs different documents.
Anyone wonder which party all six parliamentarians belonged to?
Wright also mentions the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Note that Naomi Klein's brother, Seth Klein, works there.
Wright refers specifically to an article by Maureen Webb, but the link she gives doesn't work. Here is the link that does work:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIssues/2006/04/MonitorIssue1356/
Maureen Webb says: NAFTA was never a trade agreement in the traditional sense, but rather the first of a new generation of agreements that give investors unprecedented rights against national governments and subject important areas of public policy to rules that privilege the interests of capital over those of citizens. The business lobby in Canada has been pushing the government to adhere to, and even expand on NAFTA, and to replicate its provisions in the World Trade Organization regime (WTO) and the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). It is apparent from reading the Canadian Council of Chief Executives' North American Security and Prosperity Initiative document of January 2003
Or, in other words, the SPP. Wright did make it across the border when the SPP was held in Montebello in August, but barely. I am wondering if the reason for this was to highlight border crossing integration.
Maureen Webb says: The Canadian National Security Policy unveiled in April 2004, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America announced in March 2005 following the summit meeting between Bush, Martin and Fox, and the 300 proposals discussed at the tri-national meeting of Ministers in June 2005, more or less reflect the content of the Smart Border Action Plan. This Plan calls for common biometric standards for identity cards that can be used across different modes of travel, coordinated visa and refugee policy, coordinated risk assessment of travellers, integrated border and marine enforcement teams, integrated national security intelligence teams, coordinated terrorist lists, new counter-terrorism legislation, increased intelligence sharing, and joint efforts to promote the Canada-U.S. model internationally.
So this is what they were up to at the last SPP meeting prior to the one in Montebello. Such sharing resulted in the detainment of Maher Arar and they are doing more of it. One strategy is to investigate everyone who has had even nominal contact with a suspect - and nominal contact may be enough to put a person on a no cross list. No wonder Monia Mazigh is still speaking out!
Maureen Webb also says: Complying with the Smart Border Action Plan, Canada has harmonized its visa requirements with those of the U.S. and coordinated its refugee policy by entering into a Safe Third Country Agreement with the Bush administration.
Which means that the US wants to harmonize immigration policy. It means that whoever the US refuses to let in, Canada cannot let in either.
This accelerating move to totalitarianism also seems to be driven by the fear that the corporate imperial power is losing its hegemony in the world. The official "explanations" and "justifications" of their wars, neoliberal economics, support for some terrorists (Posada Carriles, anti-Iranian Kurds, etc.) and persecucion of others (real ones and accused innocents), are no longer accepted by increasing numbers of people all around the world. Every time a Desmond Tutu or an Ann Wright speaks new people start to question what they have been taught to believe. When they are prohibited from speaking people also begin asking why. The only way that corporate imperial power can think of to slow the process is by increasingly totalitarian measures.
You know the scariest part of this is Col. Wright's being a 29 year veteran. Say what you want but if being a veteran of so many years doesn't over qualify her to have her citizen's freedoms of speech and liberty ... what about ou...um, excuse me...I seem to have lost some... hey...where's my rights? If she don't have 'em? Why should I think that I do?
No joke. This is Kafka's bureaucracy using Orwellian speak in the beginnings of 1984. Who decides? WHo is the decider of whom amongst us is fully free? None call this treason but this betrays us all. Once we had rights but some would turn them into priviledges instead... priviledges can be witheld and revoked.
Yeah if she don't have 'em ...why should we think we do?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."--JFK in a white house speech in 1962
When coupled with The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, this smothering conduct by the government and their police/military/intel/security apparatus is really quite predictable.
As both the indignation and outrage of people everywhere grows and is regarded with all the empathy of a stifled yawn, by the powers that be, sooner or later it will occur to lots more people to grow more violent. If it doesn't more agent provocateurs will stoke the fires of indignation till it does.
Neither the Polish, Hungarian, nor Czech uprisings brought down the Soviet empire. It rotted from the inside out and the top down as its subject's apathy grew more and more a liability to their masters.
Shame on Canada for this travesty! What has become of the nation of good governance and peace-keeping? Lester B. is rolling in his grave!
This calls for some civil disobiedient-border crossings.
Back in boy-scout days, we paddled down the St. Francis river which forms the Maine-Quebec border. No fences, no guard towers, no "migra" just woods, river and lakes. I checked a satellite image of this this area on Google maps. about a half-mile back in the woods on the Maine side, there is now a rather sinister-looking is now a clear-cut swath - presumubly rigged with cameras and sensors. In other words - like something from the days of East Germany - just add land mines.
But barring that, can you just go to N. Dakota or Montana and simply cut through someone's wheat field? Just bring a GPS - when it reads latitude N49-00-01 you're there.
If war is good and peace is bad, is the US the new SU?
"If war is good and peace is bad, is the US the new SU?"
"No, it's the Fourth Reich!!!!"
In the late '80s, Soviet expatriate Vassily Aksyonov said that totalitarianism would continue to develop forms differing from its early models. He clearly implied that Europe & the US could easily develop such forms while continuing to claim to be democratic.
The US rulers have learned that you don't need large concentration camps and large displays of force in the homeland; occasional demonstrations and low-level pressure work much better. Allow people to continue to express themselves freely & only harrass them at airport terminals, Congressional hearings, political conventions, and through surveillance which we're told is both legal & unmentionable. People say "Well, see, you aren't in a camp, are you? you can write whatever you please".
The most effective totalitarianism is the one which blends into its background.
No, it's the Fourth Reich!!!!
Seig Heil!