Wednesday, June 03, 2015

"Freedom Act" Extends NSA Spying Powers

US Senate approves extension of NSA spying

by Patrick Martin - WSWS


3 June 2015

The US Senate voted by a top-heavy bipartisan majority Tuesday to approve legislation that extends several key spying programs of the National Security Agency.

President Obama declared his intention to sign the bill into law “as soon as I get it” in order to allow the NSA to resume the collection of telephone metadata and several other surveillance efforts that had nominally been suspended with the expiration of authorization under the Patriot Act Sunday night.

While the White House, congressional leaders of both parties and the American media are all portraying the so-called USA Freedom Act as a significant restriction on NSA spying, an effort to “strike a balance” between security and civil liberties, it is nothing of the kind.

In the first place, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, whose expiration May 31 made passage of the new authorization necessary, only covers a tiny fraction of the vast surveillance operations of the NSA. The collection of telephone metadata on every American was only one of the many of these illegal and unconstitutional programs first exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, now in exile in Russia.

In a bitter floor speech just before the final vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denounced the bill as “a victory for Edward Snowden,” but this is merely part of the congressional play-acting aimed at giving the American people the illusion that something is being done about illegal government spying, when it continues on a virtually unlimited and ever-expanding scale.

Only hours before McConnell’s diatribe, the Associated Press revealed yet another secret government spying program—hundreds of flights by a fleet of FBI planes that conduct low-flying video and cellphone surveillance over dozens of American cities .

McConnell denounced the bill for supposedly “taking away another tool from those who defend us every day” because it phases out the bulk collection of telephone metadata by the NSA, leaving collection of data to the telecommunications companies, which are in turn required to respond to NSA search requests once they are approved by the rubber-stamp FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court.

The bill contains a few other cosmetic efforts to conceal the build-up of police-state powers in America. The secret FISA court is required to hear from privacy advocates and document its decisions on surveillance policy, rather than, as in the past, hearing only from government prosecutors and making all its decisions in secret. This will have no material effect on the surveillance state.

The Senate passed the grossly misnamed USA Freedom Act by a vote of 67-32, with nearly all the opposition coming from right-wing Republicans, led by McConnell, who objected to even the minor limitations on the surveillance operations of the US government contained in the bill. The House passed the same bill last month by an overwhelming margin of 388 to 38, with the backing of Speaker John Boehner and the entire Republican leadership.

The 67-32 Senate vote actually expresses near-unanimous support for the US intelligence apparatus. Democrats backed the bill by 44-2. Republicans were split, 23 in favor and 30 against, but nearly all those opposed wanted no restrictions on NSA spying, even of a cosmetic character.

After McConnell’s vitriolic attack on the Obama White House for supposedly capitulating to Edward Snowden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid retorted that it was McConnell who had undermined US spy operations by his mistaken handling of delaying tactics by Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, leading to the supposed shutdown of the telephone metadata program by the NSA Sunday night.

Final passage came after the Senate narrowly rejected all three amendments put forward by McConnell and the Republican leadership to further water down the bill’s anemic “reform” element. One amendment would have set the transition period from NSA databases to telecom databases at a year, rather than six months. Another would have required the telecoms to notify the NSA before any change in data retention policy, and mandated the NSA to certify that it was ready to make the transition without any loss of ability to conduct searches. The third amendment would have eliminated the requirement that the FISA court report to Congress on significant changes in the interpretation of surveillance laws.

The amendments were less important substantively than as an attempt to delay passage of the legislation indefinitely, since an amended bill would have to go back to the House for further deliberation. In that event, the Senate Republican leadership hoped to push through a simple extension of all Patriot Act surveillance authority, without any cosmetic changes.

A US Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not provide adequate legal authority for the telephone metadata collection—in effect, finding the program had been operating illegally for 14 years. The White House and the congressional leadership of both parties moved quickly to reestablish the program using a different legal process—FISA warrants served on the telecoms—to accomplish the same end.

Appearing on the CBS program Face the Nation Sunday, CIA Director John Brennan denounced the protracted wrangling in the Senate and whipping up fears of new terrorist attacks—despite the well-documented fact that none of the Section 215 programs has played any role in disrupting terrorist activities.

“Anyone who is satisfied with letting this critical intelligence capability go dark isn’t taking the terrorist threat seriously,” Brennan said.
 “I’d urge the Senate to pass the bipartisan USA Freedom Act, and do so expeditiously.”

Brennan declared, “I think terrorist elements have watched very carefully what has happened here in the United States, whether or not it’s disclosures of classified information or whether it’s changes in the law and policies. They are looking for the seams to operate within.”

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s vote, Obama made increasingly strident denunciations of the congressional delay in approving the extension of NSA spying authority. The White House issued a statement Sunday night, after the expiration of Section 215, declaring,

“We call on the Senate to ensure this irresponsible lapse in authorities is as short-lived as possible. On a matter as critical as our national security, individual senators must put aside their partisan motivations and act swiftly. The American people deserve nothing less.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the American people faced “unnecessary risk,” because of the loss of surveillance tools “our national security professionals can use to keep us safe.” In reality, there was no change in the operation of the vast US police-intelligence apparatus, as the New York Times admitted, reporting that “interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials about what they will do in the interim suggest there are multiple workarounds to the gap.”

The Unmentionables: Israel's Litany of War Crimes

The Israeli War Crime That Goes Unmentioned

by Jonathan Cook - Dissident Voice

June 2nd, 2015

Here set out in black and white in the Israeli media is a moral conundrum that western politicians, diplomats and international human rights organisations are resolutely failing to address – and one I have been highlighting since 2006.

It was then that Israel implemented for the first time its Dahiya doctrine – turning Lebanon back to the Stone Age. It launched a horrific assault that wrecked Lebanon’s infrastructure, killed 1,300 Lebanese – most of them, as ever in Israel’s wars, civilians – and made refugees of more than a million inhabitants of the country’s south. The exercise has been repeated in Gaza on a regular basis ever since.

Last month the New York Times kindly published an Israeli press release masquerading as a news report that the Israeli army had photographic evidence that Hizbollah was moving its military bases into villages all over south Lebanon. The evidence was paltry to say the least. And the New York Times, quite bafflingly, said it had not been able to “independently verify” the information, as though it lacked reporters in Lebanon who could visit the sites named by its correspondent in far-away Tel Aviv.

The clear implication of the story was that, when the next war with Lebanon arrives, as the Israeli army keeps promising is just around the corner, Israel will be able to blame Hizbollah when its attacks kill mostly civilians.

As Israel’s Haaretz newspaper pointed out – possibly inadvertently – in a headline, the New York Times was doing Israel’s propaganda work for it: “Israel’s secret weapon in the war against Hezbollah: The New York Times”.

Although the NYT’s propaganda role was noted by several observers, no one seemed to make the point that, if Hizbollah is only now moving its bases into these villages, how can one make sense of the prominent justification for the high civilian death toll in Lebanon in 2006? Then Israel argued – and was backed by the UN and others – that the civilian deaths were a result of Hizbollah’s “cowardly blending” with the civilian population by firing rockets from built-up areas, though no evidence was produced at the time.

Look at what Amos Harel, Haaretz’s military correspondent, writes now:

The [New York] Times reports that Hezbollah, as part of the lessons it drew in the Second Lebanon War, in 2006, moved its “nature reserves” – its military outposts in the south – from open farmland into the heart of the Shi’ite villages that lie close to the border with Israel. That in itself is old news.

Tell that to Jan Egeland, who was the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs at the time (and later joined Human Rights Watch), as well as all those who echoed his accusation against Hizbollah of “cowardly blending”.

There is another, even more vital point unnoticed by most observers but highlighted in Harel’s report for Haaretz. One of the problems for those at the receiving end of these savage Israeli attacks has been: how to respond. Or rather: how to respond within the confines of international law. While Israel has been doing most of the killing, western politicians, diplomats and human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been more exercised by the efforts of Hizbollah and Hamas to retaliate in kind.

The international law argument supposedly goes something like this: Israel has the right to defend itself and so long as it is aiming for military targets with its precision armaments and acts proportionately then it is within its rights to launch attacks, whether civilians are killed or not.

The argument’s flip side goes like this: However terrible the suffering endured by their respective populations under this barrage, Hizbollah and Hamas have no right to respond with their imprecise rockets, whether they are aiming for a military target or not, because they cannot be sure their rockets will not hit civilians. In short, anything they fire over the border is a war crime by definition.

If that sounds problematic to you, check out my own public engagement with Sarah Leah Whitson of HRW back in 2006 debating this very issue.

The problem when dealing with asymmetrical confrontations is that traditional interpretations of international law are rigged to the advantage of the stronger, better-armed side.

So how does the Israeli army feel about Hizbollah’s efforts to improve its rockets to avoid this international law problem. Haaretz’s Harel explains what his military contacts have been telling him:

Israel is apparently deeply concerned by Hezbollah’s effort to improve the accuracy of its rockets. The organization has in its possession vast numbers of missiles and rockets – 130,000, according to the latest estimates – but upgrading its capability is dependent on improving the weapons’ accuracy, which would enable Hezbollah to strike effectively at specific targets, including air force-base runways and power stations.

In other words, Israel is “deeply concerned” that Hizbollah might soon be able to operate within the terms of international law as laid down by official arbiters like the UN and HRW.

How is Hizbollah trying to upgrade its rockets? Its allies, Iran and Syria’s Bashar Assad, are trying to deliver more sophisticated weapons to it through Syrian territory. How does Israel feel about this? Harel reports: “Israel is upset at the smuggling of weapons by the Assad regime in Syria to Hezbollah.” In fact, we know Israel is “upset” because it keeps violating Syria’s sovereign air space to launch attacks in Syria to stop convoys it claims are transporting such weapons reaching Hizbollah. It is similarly blockading Gaza to make sure upgraded, precise weapons do not get into Hamas’ hands.

So who will be to blame when Israel gets the next war with Lebanon or Gaza it wants and Hizbollah or Hamas respond by firing their imprecise rockets in retaliation? When Israeli civilians die under those rockets, will Hizbollah and Hamas be responsible or will it be Israel’s fault?

We will doubtless hear the answer from the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and the New York Times soon.

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

The Ways USA Freedom Act Fails

3 Ways USA Freedom Act Fails to Stop FBI Spying on Americans

by TRNN


June 2, 2015

As the Senate looks to pass a bipartisan "reformed" Patriot Act, TRNN's Jessica Desvarieux examines how this bill will continue FBI's mass collection of private information of Americans who are under no suspicion of crime.

If you've made a phone call, sent a text or an email, the Federal Bureau of Investigation could be monitoring your online activities without a warrant. Critics of the Patriot Act have pointed out this fact, and now Congress is doing something about it. On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is likely to pass a bill called the US Freedom Act, which advocates say will reform the Patriot Act of 2001, and some of its surveillance provisions.The House of Representatives already passed their version of the USA Freedom Act last month, which includes a change that makes sure the government can no longer hold on to phone records but instead it will remain in the hands of phone providers that can be compelled to turn over those records to the government. President Obama said in his weekly address that he's ready to sign the bill into law.




Jessica Desvarieux is a multimedia journalist who serves as the Capitol Hill correspondent for the Real News Network. Most recently, Jessica worked as a producer for the ABC Sunday morning program, This Week with Christianne Amanpour. Before moving to Washington DC, Jessica served as the Haiti corespondent for TIME Magazine and TIME.com. Previously, she was as an on-air reporter for New York tri-state cable outlet Regional News Network, where she worked before the 2010 earthquake struck her native country of Haiti. From March 2008 - September 2009, she lived in Egypt, where her work appeared in various media outlets like the Associated Press, Voice of America, and the International Herald Tribune - Daily News Egypt. She graduated from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism with a Master of Science degree in journalism. She is proficient in French, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and has a working knowledge of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Follow her @Jessica_Reports.

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Asad Ismi, David Christopher, Sofija Lazovic June 3, 2015

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook - Gorilla-Radio.com


Last week, tens of thousands of Paraguayans were out in the streets of the capital, culminating a ten consecutive day protest against the government's Public-Private Partnerships, or APP legislation.

This followed a general strike in March demanding higher wages, better labour protections, a stronger social welfare system, and an end to privatizations schemes like the APP. But Paraguay is just one Latin American country trending back towards oligarchic corporatocracy. It wasn't meant to be that way, Paraguay has a progressive, former priest as leader, but in 2012 his hopes, and those of the poor majority in the country were dashed by a coup - a coup Canada supported.

Listen. Hear.

As in Haiti, and Honduras, and Egypt, and Afghanistan, and the former Ukraine, Stephen Harper likes corpo-fascists, and doesn't mind at all the coups that bring them to power.

What Harper and his minders in Washington don't like however is democracy; especially a democracy with an eye to serving any other than the interests of that tiny sliver of the people constituting the crème de la crème of the elite; as in Venezuela. Venezuela is squarely in the gunboat sights of Mr. Obama, and his useful quislings in Ottawa, just as it was for the Pope of Hope's predecessor, George W. Bush.

Asad Ismi is an award-winning journalist and radio documentary producer focused on Yankee imperialism in the Global South and the resistance there to it. The international affairs correspondent for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' news magazine Monitor, Asad recently published, 'Canada and the US Go Digging for Regime Change in Venezuela.'

Asad Ismi in the first half.

And; the prospect of the USAPatriot Act's demise in the United States over the weekend had some hoping for real change in the surveillance state created since the 9/11 attacks. That optimism is dimming now with the quick passage of the Freedom Act, a faux effort at reforming the egregious original. In Canada things are even worse, with Bill C-51 poised to sail through the rump senate on its way to easy ratification. C-51 is what the Patriot Act would have liked to become, if only American law would allow it. What that means for Canadians is a future lived in the Panopticon, where every move you make is monitored, every call you place recorded, every notion you utter scrutinized for thought crimes. But, there is push back on C-51, and its authors.

David Christopher is Communications Manager with OpenMedia.ca, the nation-wide community organization that is trying to "safeguard the possibilities of the open Internet." OpenMedia, in concert with a number of concerned Canadian organizations, has enjoined the fight against the Harperites with 'Canada's Privacy Plan: A Crowdsourced Agenda for Tackling Canada's Privacy Deficit'

David Christopher in the second half.

And; Victoria Street Newz publisher emeritus and CFUV Radio broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will not be with us today, as business calls her away. So first up, Asad Ismi and Canada and the US digging away at Venezuela's democracy.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Wednesday, 1-2pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca, and now heard at Simon Fraser University's http://www.cjsf.ca . He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/

G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.

Digging for Regime Change: How Canada and the US Are Undermining Venezuela's Democracy

Canada and the U.S. go digging for regime change in Venezuela

by Asad Ismi - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

April 1, 2015

U.S. hostility towards Venezuela reached absurd heights in March amidst accusations both Ottawa and Washington are supporting local efforts to overthrow the popularly elected socialist government of Nicolás Maduro. On March 9, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order “declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.” This strange step allowed the president to impose sanctions with the ostensible aim of “protecting the U.S. financial system from the illicit financial flows from public corruption in Venezuela.”

But as one State Department official tweeted afterwards, “The goal of these sanctions is to persuade the government of Venezuela to change its ways.” Obama banned seven Venezuelan officials from the U.S. for “human rights violations and corruption” and ordered their assets frozen. He did not provide any evidence to back up the allegations, or explain how these people posed a threat to U.S. security.

“This is ludicrous. Is Obama insane?” wondered Venezuelan-Canadian sociologist Dr. Maria Páez Victor in an interview.

“How can Venezuela, with an army of 140,000 soldiers, be a national security threat to the U.S., the biggest imperialist state in the world, with an army of two million, 10,000 nuclear missiles and 700 military bases globally?”

She added that the U.S. has been implicated in two coup attempts in Venezuela, and of fomenting violence in the country for the past 15 years. “Obviously it is the U.S. which is a massive security threat to Venezuela.”

With these new sanctions against officials in the Maduro government, Obama’s economic war against Venezuela looks similar to the one being waged against Russia. According to Páez Victor, the connection is oil, more specifically the desire to control it. Venezuela is the fourth-largest exporter of oil to the U.S. As in Russia, declining crude prices—oil makes up 95% of Venezuelan exports—have contributed to the country’s recession, which is made worse by political and economic instability fomented by right-wing groups pushing for regime change. Obama’s executive order is designed to contribute to the unrest.

Unfortunately, for the U.S. and Venezuelan opposition groups, it looks to be having the opposite effect, by shoring up support for Maduro domestically and among his regional counterparts. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which represents 12 Latin American countries, immediately demanded that the U.S. revoke the sanctions as “a threat to sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states.”

“Those people who doubted before that the U.S. was conspiring against [Maduro] now believe it, and all the countries of the region and the world have declared themselves in support of Venezuela except the U.S. and Canada,” said Páez Victor. 

On March 12, the Venezuelan national assembly granted Maduro temporary powers to rule by decree in these six months leading up to national elections, which he is expected to win.

The alleged February coup


Obama’s designation of Venezuela as a national security threat is even more ridiculous if Maduro’s allegations are true that the U.S., along with Canada and the U.K., backed another attempted coup against his government in February. It would prove, again, the threats run one way—from Washington.

The Maduro government announced on February 12 it had stopped an attempted coup involving Venezuelan Air Force officers in league with the U.S. government and members of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition. Ten people, including civilians and members of the military, were detained. One of those arrested was Antonio Ledezma, mayor of Caracas. The alleged coup plotters are said to have planned to bomb the presidential palace, the national assembly and the headquarters of Telesur (Television of the South).

As reported by Telesur, Diosdado Cabello, president of Venezuela’s national assembly, stated in mid-February that, “a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and a member of the U.K. diplomatic corps in Venezuela, had been involved in [coup] plans, including seeking information on airport capacity in case of emergencies.” Cabello named Nancy Birbeck as the RCMP officer, who was allegedly accompanied by someone from the Canadian Embassy. The embassy denied the allegations in a tweet—the only official response to the crisis situation.

Páez Victor was surprised to learn that, as she put it, “in the midst of the tension of an attempted coup, an RCMP officer of the Canadian embassy took it upon herself to ‘inspect’ an airport for its readiness in an emergency.” She said she is not surprised, however, that the Venezuelan government interpreted this as proof that Canada was either involved with, or had prior knowledge of, the alleged coup.

Canada’s history of regime change


Canadian support for coups in Latin America and the Caribbean, while spanning Liberal and Conservative governments, has been on the rise under Prime Minister Harper, as has Canadian hostility to the Chavez and Maduro administrations—Harper called Venezuela a “rogue state” in 2009—and the alignment of Canadian and U.S. foreign policy generally. Canada supported the coups in Honduras (2009) and Paraguay (2012), and it is well documented how Ottawa played a central role, with Washington, Paris and London, in planning of the 2004 coup against the Aristide government in Haiti.

In February 2010, the Chavez government accused Canada of supporting coup plotters and destabilizers in Venezuela. Prominent among them was Venezuelan opposition politician María Corina Machado, who refers to Maduro as a dictator, and who was one of the leaders in last year’s violent protests against the Venezuelan government, in which 43 people were killed and 800 injured. The U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have channelled millions of dollars to Machado's (now defunct) non-governmental organization, Súmate, as well as to her electoral campaigns. She outright supported the 2002 coup and is implicated in the alleged February reprisal.

The Canadian government also funded Súmate as far back as 2005, the year Machado was first invited to Ottawa to brief the Department of Foreign Affairs on the human rights situation in Venezuela. As reported last June in the CCPA Monitor, Machado was granted a private meeting in Ottawa last year with John Baird, then Canada's minister of foreign affairs, suggesting a continued relationship with “this terrorist,” in the words of Páez Victor.

“This is a woman that if she were Canadian would now be in prison here,” she added during our conversation. José Vicente Rangel, Venezuela’s former foreign minister, announced in July 2014 that the Canadian embassy had helped about 30 agents of an unnamed “important intelligence organization” enter Venezuela, a charge Ottawa denied.

Yves Engler, author of the The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy (2009) and The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy (2012), told me, “The Canadian government has definitely made it clear that it is antagonistic to the government in Venezuela and the revolutionary process more generally. It has also spent money building up oppositional groups and Ben Rowswell, who was appointed ambassador in 2014, was viewed as someone who was likely to be active in campaigns against the elected government.”

Rowswell is a specialist in social media and political transition. As Gerard Di Trolio explained in his March 2014 article for the Venezuela Analysis website,

“While overseeing the ‘democratic transitions’ of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt, the fledgling attaché specialized in the harnessing of social media for diplomatic missions, in order to interact directly with non-state actors, in effect bypassing the target nation’s government.”

Rowswell believes that social media can create transparency. His Twitter presence feels humourously at odds with the Canadian government that employs him. While leaked documents suggest the RCMP and CSIS are monitoring protest movements in Canada for their potential threat to the government’s economic priorities, Rowswell tweets continuously about how social movements can successfully promote change. They include links to articles assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Idle No More’s online presence.

But transparency has limits when regime change is your ultimate objective. As Di Trolio pointed out, Venezuela's opposition has posted photos from Turkey, Ukraine, Brazil and Syria to social media networks, pretending the harsh treatment of protestors by official security forces that they showed were actually from Venezuela.

Geopolitical interests in Venezuela


Engler emphasized that Ottawa is aligning its policy towards Venezuela with that of Washington’s but not only for U.S. interests. Parts of the Canadian business class strongly oppose the progressive social changes that have taken place in Venezuela, and Latin America more broadly, over the past 15 years.

Peter Munk, the founder of Toronto-based Barrick Gold (the biggest gold mining company in the world with operations in Peru, Chile and Argentina), once compared Chavez to Hitler in a letter to the Financial Times, and frequently decries growing “resource nationalism” in presentations to company shareholders and board members.

The Prime Minister does not go as far as Munk or Machado in declaring Venezuela a dictatorship, though his comments in 2013, on the death of Chavez (“I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights”), elicited strong condemnation from the Venezuelan government.

But Canada’s objectives in the region are intimately connected with those of Munk and his colleagues in Canada’s oil, gas and mining industries. In fact, as Páez Victor suggested, Harper’s “political career seems to centre on advancing the interests of Canadian mining and petroleum companies.”

Venezuela’s move to the left, and away from the U.S., has involved the nationalization and/or tighter regulation of key extractive operations, some of them owned by Canadian firms. Maduro is also courting China, whose investors have extended US$50 billion since 2007 in exchange for guaranteed oil shipments. A country taking control of its resources is anathema to neoliberal regimes in Ottawa and Washington, not to mention the powerful international extractives lobby.

Outside of direct assistance to opposition groups, the Canadian government’s main tool for undermining resource nationalism in Latin America are investment treaties and free trade agreements, which allow mining companies to penalize governments that change their mind about energy or mining projects, even for social or environmental reasons. (See Judith Marshall’s article in this issue.)

Canadian-listed gold miners Crystallex, Vanessa Ventures, Gold Reserve and Rusuro Mining sued Venezuela, in separate cases under a 1998 Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) with Canada, when their projects were affected by Chavez’s nationalization of all gold mines in 2011. Late last year, an arbitration panel at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes awarded Gold Reserve more than US$700 million (plus legal fees) in compensation.

Venezuela has withdrawn from the ICSID convention and is cancelling its investment treaties, but, as is normal with these treaties, the FIPA remains in force for fifteen years after the date of cancellation. The pressure will be on future Venezuelan governments to reverse this policy direction.

Gold Reserve’s victory will no doubt inspire Canadian and U.S. mining companies to continue to use investor–state arbitration, or the threat of it, to get their way in the region. It is also a feather in the Harper government’s cap, as it seeks to position Canada as an energy and mining superpower. The message to miners is that Canadian treaties are strong enough to protect investment from left-of-centre regimes, and that Canada’s embassies will be working hard, where necessary, to make those regimes more amenable to foreign investment.

“The joining of Canadian policy with that of the U.S. and Ottawa’s aggressive stance towards the Chavez and Maduro governments is a real shame, because Canada used to be well regarded internationally and in Latin America. No more,” said Páez Victor.

“Canada is now seen as an agent of U.S. imperialism in Latin America which has isolated it in the region and significantly curtailed its influence.”

Despite the Canadian government’s hostility to Maduro, the new Venezuelan ambassador to Canada, Wilmer Barrientos Fernandez, told me, “We would love to work with the Canadian people towards a close relationship on the basis of respect, of true democracy, and of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”

Asad Ismi covers international affairs for the Monitor.

Can Cuba's Organic Agriculture Movement Survive US Agribusiness Moving In?

Organic Farming Flourishes in Cuba, But Can It Survive Entry of U.S. Agribusiness?

by Democracy Now!

Over the past 25 years, Cuba has built a largely organic farming system out of necessity. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba lost its main supplier of fertilizers and pesticides. What will the changing U.S.-Cuban relationship mean for Cuban farmers? We air a video report from a farm outside Havana produced by Democracy Now!'s Karen Ranucci and Monica Melamid. We also speak to filmmaker Catherine Murphy, who has studied Cuba's agricultural system.




Guests: Catherine Murphy, filmmaker who lived and studied in Cuba in the 1990s. Her film titled Maestra explores the stories of the youngest women teachers in the 1961 national literacy campaign in Cuba.

Just Why Are the Prisons Filled with the Poor and People of Color? - 40 Ways the System is Skewed

40 Reasons Our Jails and Prisons Are Full of Black and Poor People

by Bill Quigley - CounterPunch

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) reports 2.2 million people are in our nation’s jails and prisons and another 4.5 million people are on probation or parole in the US, totaling 6.8 million people, one of every 35 adults. We are far and away the world leader in putting our own people in jail. Most of the people inside are poor and Black. Here are 40 reasons why.

One. It is not just about crime. Our jails and prisons have grown from holding about 500,000 people in 1980 to 2.2 million today. The fact is that crime rates have risen and fallen independently of our growing incarceration rates.

Two. Police discriminate. The first step in putting people in jail starts with interactions between police and people. From the very beginning Black and poor people are targeted by the police. Police departments have engaged in campaigns of stopping and frisking people who are walking, mostly poor people and people of color, without cause for decades. Recently New York City lost a federal civil rights challenge to their police stop and frisk practices by the Center for Constitutional Rights during which police stopped over 500,000 people annually without any indication that the people stopped had been involved in any crime at all. About 80 percent of those stops were of Black and Latinos who compromise 25 and 28 percent of NYC’s total population. Chicago police do the same thing stopping even more people also in a racially discriminatory way with 72 percent of the stops of Black people even though the city is 32 percent Black.

Three. Police traffic stops also racially target people in cars. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers and Hispanic drivers are 23 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers. Connecticut, in an April 2015 report, reported on 620,000 traffic stops which revealed widespread racial profiling, particularly during daylight hours when the race of driver was more visible.

Four. Once stopped, Black and Hispanic motorists are more likely to be given tickets than white drivers stopped for the same offenses.

Five. Once stopped, Blacks and Latinos are also more likely to be searched. DOJ reports Black drivers at traffic stops were searched by police three times more often and Hispanic drivers two times more often than white drivers. A large research study in Kansas City found when police decided to pull over cars for investigatory stops, where officers look into the car’s interior, ask probing questions and even search the car, the race of the driver was a clear indicator of who was going to be stopped: 28 percent of young Black males twenty five or younger were stopped in a year’s time, versus white men who had 12 percent chance and white women only a 7 percent chance. In fact, not until Black men reach 50 years old do their rate of police stops for this kind of treatment dip below those of white men twenty five and under.

Six. Traffic tickets are big business. And even if most people do not go directly to jail for traffic tickets, poor people are hit the worst by these ticket systems. As we saw with Ferguson where some of the towns in St. Louis receive 40 percent or more of their city revenues from traffic tickets, tickets are money makers for towns.

Seven. The consequences of traffic tickets are much more severe among poor people. People with means will just pay the fines. But for poor and working people fines are a real hardship. For example, over 4 million people in California do not have valid driver’s licenses because they have unpaid fines and fees for traffic tickets. And we know unpaid tickets can lead to jail.

Eight. In schools, African American kids are much more likely to be referred to the police than other kids. African American students are 16 percent of those enrolled in schools but 27 percent of those referred to the police. Kids with disabilities are discriminated against at about the same rate because they are 14 percent of those enrolled in school and 26 of those referred to the police.

Nine. Though Black people make up about 12 percent of the US population, Black children are 28 percent of juvenile arrests. DOJ reports that there are over 57,000 people under the age of 21 in juvenile detention. The US even has 10,000 children in adult jails and prisons any given day.

Ten. The War on Drugs targets Black people. Drug arrests are a big source of bodies and business for the criminal legal system. Half the arrests these days are for drugs and half of those are for marijuana. Despite the fact that Black and white people use marijuana at the same rates, a Black person is 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than a white person. The ACLU found that in some states Black people were six times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites. For all drug arrests between 1980 and 2000 the U.S. Black drug arrest rate rose dramatically from 6.5 to 29.1 per 1,000 persons; during the same period, the white drug arrest rate barely increased from 3.5 to 4.6 per 1,000 persons.

Eleven. Many people in jail and prison because the US has much tougher drug laws and much longer sentences for drug offenses than most other countries. Drug offenders receive an average sentence of 7 months in France, twelve months in England and 23 months in the US.

Twelve. The bail system penalizes poor people. Every day there are about 500,000 people are in jails, who are still presumed innocent and awaiting trial, just because they are too poor to pay money to get out on bail. Not too long ago, judges used to allow most people, even poor people to be free while they were awaiting trial but no more. In a 2013 study of New York City courts, over 50% of the people held in jail awaiting trial for misdemeanor or felony charges were unable to pay bail amounts of $2500 or less.

Thirteen. This system creates a lot of jobs. Jails and prisons provide a lot of jobs to local, state and federal officials. To understand how this system works it is good to know the difference between jails and prisons. Jails are local, usually for people recently arrested or awaiting trial. Prisons are state and federal and are for people who have already been convicted. There are more than 3000 local jails across the US, according to the Vera Institute, and together usually hold about 500,000 people awaiting trial and an additional 200,000 or so convicted on minor charges. Over the course of a year, these local jails process over 11.7 million people. Prisons are state and federal lockups which usually hold about twice the number of people as local jails or just over 1.5 million prisoners.

Fourteen. The people in local jails are not there because they are a threat to the rest of us. Nearly 75 percent of the hundreds of thousands of people in local jails are there for nonviolent offenses such as traffic, property, drug or public order offenses.

Fifteen. Criminal bonds are big business. Nationwide, over 60 percent of people arrested are forced to post a financial bond to be released pending trial usually by posting cash or a house or paying a bond company. There are about 15,000 bail bond agents working in the bail bond industry which takes in about $14 billion every year.

Sixteen. A very high percentage of people in local jails are people with diagnosed mental illnesses. The rate of mental illness inside jails is four to six times higher than on the outside. Over 14 percent of the men and over 30 percent of the women entering jails and prisons were found to have serious mental illness in a study of over 1000 prisoners. A recent study in New York City’s Rikers Island jail found 4,000 prisoners, 40 percent of their inmates, were suffering from mental illness. In many of our cities, the local jail is the primary place where people with severe mental problems end up. Yet treatment for mental illness in jails is nearly non-existent.

Seventeen. Lots of people in jail need treatment. Nearly 70 percent of people prison meet the medical criteria for drug abuse or dependence yet only 7 to 17 percent ever receive drug abuse treatment inside prison.

Eighteen. Those who are too poor, too mentally ill or too chemically dependent, though still presumed innocent, are kept in cages until their trial dates. No wonder it is fair to say, as the New York Times reported, our jails “have become vast warehouses made up primarily of people too poor to post bail or too ill with mental health or drug problems to adequately care for themselves.”

Nineteen. Poor people have to rely on public defenders. Though anyone threatened with even a day in jail is entitled to a lawyer, the reality is much different. Many poor people facing misdemeanor charges never see a lawyer at all. For example, in Delaware more than 75 percent of the people in its Court of Common Pleas never speak to a lawyer. A study of Jackson County Michigan found 95 percent of people facing misdemeanors waived their right to an attorney and have plead guilty rather than pay a $240 charge for a public defender. Thirteen states have no state structure at all to make sure people have access to public defenders in misdemeanor courts.

Twenty. When poor people face felony charges they often find the public defenders overworked and underfunded and thus not fully available to provide adequate help in their case. In recent years public defenders in Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Pennsylvania were so overwhelmed with cases they refused to represent any new clients. Most other states also have public defender offices that have been crushed by overwork, inadequate finances and do not measure up to the basic principles for public defenders outlined by the American Bar Association. It is not uncommon for public defenders to have more than 100 cases going at the same time, sometimes several hundred. Famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence, who never lost a criminal case because of his extensive preparation for each one, said that if he was a public defender and represented a hundred clients he would never have won a case.

Twenty One. Lots of poor people plead guilty. Lack of adequate public defense leads many people in prison to plead guilty. The American Bar Association reviewed the US public defender system and concluded it lacked fundamental fairness and put poor people at constant risk of wrongful conviction. “All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring…The fundamental right to a lawyer that America assumes applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the US.”

Twenty Two. Many are forced to plead guilty. Consider all the exonerations of people who were forced by police to confess even when they did not do the crime who were later proven innocent: some criminologists estimate 2 to 8 percent of the people in prison are innocent but pled guilty. One longtime federal judge estimates that there is so much pressure on people to plead guilty that there may easily be 20,000 people in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Twenty Three. Almost nobody in prison ever had a trial. Trials are rare in the criminal injustice system. Over 95 percent of criminal cases are finished by plea bargains. In 1980, nearly 20 percent of criminal cases were tried but that number is reduced to less than 3 percent because sentences are now so much higher for those who lose trials, there are more punishing drug laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and more power has been given to prosecutors.

Twenty Four. Poor people get jail and jail makes people worse off. The poorest people, those who had to remain in jail since their arrest, were 4 times more likely to receive a prison sentence than those who got out on bail. There are tens of thousands of rapes inside jails and prisons each year. DOJ reports over 4,000 inmates are murdered each year inside each year. As US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy told Congress recently “This idea of total incarceration just isn’t working. And it’s not humane. We [society and Congress and the legal profession] have no interest in corrections, nobody looks at it.”

Twenty Five. Average prison sentences are much longer than they used to be, especially for people of color. Since 1990, the average time for property crimes has gone up 24 percent and time for drug crimes has gone up 36 percent. In the US federal system, nearly 75 percent of the people sent to prison for drug offenses are Black or Latino.

Twenty Six. There is about a 70 percent chance that an African American man without a high school diploma will be imprisoned by the time he reaches his mid-thirties; the rate for white males without a high school diploma is 53 percent lower. In the 1980, there was only an 8 percent difference. In New York City, for example, Blacks are jailed at nearly 12 times the rate of whites and Latinos more than five times the rate of whites.

Twenty Seven. Almost 1 of 12 Black men ages 25 to 54 are in jail or prison, compared to 1 in 60 nonblack men. That is 600,000 African American men, an imprisonment rate of five times that of white men.

Twenty Eight. Prison has become a very big private business. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) owns and runs 67 for-profit jails in 20 states with over 90,000 beds. Along with GEO (formerly Wackenhut), these two private prison companies have donated more than $10 million to candidates and spent another $25 million lobbying according to the Washington Post. They lobby for more incarceration and have doubled the number of prisoners they hold over the past ten years.

Twenty Nine. The Sentencing Project reports that over 159,000 people are serving life sentences in the US. Nearly half are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. The number of people serving life in prison has gone up by more than 400% since 1984. Nearly 250,000 prisoners in the US are over age 50.

Thirty. Inside prisons, the poorest people are taken advantage of again as most items such as telephone calls to families are priced exorbitantly high, some as high as $12.95 for a 15 minute call, further separating families.

Thirty One. The DOJ reports another 3.9 million people are on probation. Probation is when a court puts a person under supervision instead of sending them to prison. Probation is also becoming a big business for private companies which get governments to contract with them to collect outstanding debts and supervise people on probation. Human Rights Watch reported in 2014 that over a thousand courts assign hundreds of thousands of people to be under the supervision of private companies who then require those on probation to pay the company for the supervision and collect fines, fees and costs or else go to jail. For example, one man in Georgia who was fined $200 for stealing a can of beer from a convenience store was ultimately jailed after the private probation company ran up over a thousand dollars in in fees.

Thirty Two. The DOJ reports an additional 850,000 people are on parole. Parole is when a person who has been in prison is released to serve the rest of their sentence under supervision.

Thirty Three. The DOJ reported in 2012 that as many as 100 million people have a criminal record, and over 94 million of those records are online.

Thirty Four. Everyone can find out people have a record. Because it is so easy to access to arrest and court records, people who have been arrested and convicted face very serious problems getting a job, renting an apartment, public assistance, and education. Eighty-seven percent of employers conduct background checks. Employment losses for people with criminal records have been estimated at as much as $65 billion every year.

Thirty Five. Race is a multiplier of disadvantage in unemployment for people who get out of prison. A study by Professor Devah Pager demonstrated that employers who were unlikely to even check on the criminal history of white male applicants, seriously discriminated against all Black applicants and even more so against Black applicants with criminal records.

Thirty Six. Families are hurt by this. The Sentencing Project reports 180,000 women are subject to lifetime bans from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families because of felony drug convictions.

Thirty Seven. Convicted people cannot get jobs after they get out. More than 60 percent of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed one year after being released. Is it a surprise that within three years of release from prison, about two-thirds of the state prisoners were rearrested?

Thirty Eight. The US spends $80 billion on this big business of corrections every year. As a retired criminal court judge I know says, “the high costs of this system would be worth it if the system was actually working and making us safer, but we are not safer, the system is not working, so the actual dollars we are spending are another indication of our failure.” The cost of being number one in incarceration is four times higher than it was in 1982. Anyone feeling four times safer than they used to?

Thirty Nine. Putting more people in jail creates more poverty. The overall poverty rate in our country is undoubtedly higher because of the dramatic increase in incarceration over the past 35 years with one research project estimating poverty would have decreased by 20 percent if we had not put all these extra people in prison. This makes sense given the fact that most all the people brought into the system are poor to begin with, it is now much harder for them to find a job because of the barriers to employment and good jobs erected by a criminal record to those who get out of prison, the increased number of one parent families because of a parent being in jail, and the bans on receiving food stamps and housing assistance.

Forty. Putting all these problems together and you can see why the Center for American Progress rightly concludes “Today, a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of poverty.”

What does it say about our society that it uses its jails and prisons as the primary detention facilities for poor and black and brown people who have been racially targeted and jail them with the mentally ill and chemically dependent? The current criminal system has dozens of moving parts from the legislators who create the laws, to the police who enforce them, to the courts which apply them, to the jails and prison which house the people caught up in the system, to the public and business community who decides whom to hire, to all of us who either do something or turn our heads away. These are our brothers and sisters and cousins and friends of our coworkers. There are lots of proposed solutions. To learn more about the problems and the solutions are go to places like The Sentencing Project, the Vera Institute, or the Center for American Progress. Because it’s the right thing to do, and because about 95 percent of the people who we send to prison are coming back into our communities.

Bill Quigley teaches law at Loyola University New Orleans and can be reached at quigley77@gmail.com

Keeping an Eye on the Spies: Canadians Seeking Accountability

Eyes on the Spies: Canadians deserve accountability

by David Christopher - OpenMedia.ca

  June 1, 2015


For anyone involved in the privacy debate, it’s been a busy couple of years. Barely a week goes by without new revelations about the activities of the Canadian spy agency known as Communications Security Establishment (CSE), and its Five Eyes partners in the U.S., U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.


A version of this article by our David Christopher
was originally published by The Tyee, as part of a
new series about Canada's Privacy Plan

In just the past few weeks, for example, we learned that the CSE actively exploited security holes in a popular mobile web browser, placing millions at risk.

We also learned that the U.K. government passed secret legislation granting GCHQ (Britain’s version of CSE) immunity for hacking into our computers and mobile phones. And we’ve seen the U.S. NSA implicated in extensive spying on European citizens and private companies, in ways that go far beyond national security.

As leading privacy expert Professor Michael Geist wrote late last week “nothing surprises anymore”, when it comes to surveillance.

What these reports reveal about our spy agencies’ activities are indeed disturbing. But the seemingly unending stream of revelations also point to a larger problem - the striking lack of accountability, transparency, and oversight that people have over what are, at the end of the day, government agencies operating with taxpayer dollars.

Canadians are clearly unhappy with this state of affairs. Concerns about lack of accountability were expressed again and again by those who took part in our crowdsourcing work for Canada’s Privacy Plan, the pro-privacy action plan launched recently by OpenMedia.

As crowdsourcing participant Roxane puts it: “It is clear that we need some kind of watchdog, with a bit, to protect law-abiding citizens’ privacy.” A second participant, Steve, was even blunter: “If we spied on the government, imagine the crimes we’d prevent.”

The findings from our crowdsourcing process make clear that Canadians dislike excessive secrecy around government spying. There was strong support for a wide range of measures to improve the accountability, oversight, and transparency of surveillance activities.

Notably, 94.1% of Canadians want an all-party Parliamentary Committee to conduct a thorough review of Canada’s existing oversight mechanisms, and make recommendations for improvements. And 87.9% want independent bodies to oversee CSE and CSIS and issue regular reports to the public.

Sadly, under this government Canada has been going backwards. Even where oversight bodies exist, they lack the resources and independence necessary to hold spy agencies accountable. The budgets of spy agencies have exploded, while official watchdogs are starved of resources.





The CSE’s official watchdog has a staff of just 8 and an annual budget of only $2 million dollars, yet are expected to keep tabs on a rapidly expanding spy agency with over 2000 employees and an annual budget of over $820 million.

CSIS also suffers from a severe oversight deficit. In fact, the government shut down the Office of the CSIS Inspector General, which was responsible for reviewing day-to-day CSIS activities.

All that’s left now to oversee CSIS is the part-time, resource-starved Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). Over the years, SIRC has repeatedly complained it has insufficient powers to hold CSIS accountable – complaints that the government has ignored. It’s no wonder that SIRC is now taking an average of three years to investigate complaints against CSIS.

Under the current government, the trend is clear - the powers and capabilities of Canada’s spy agencies have rapidly expanded, with no commensurate increase in accountability, oversight, or transparency. Canadians clearly deserve better. Thankfully, there are many measures that can be taken to tackle this growing problem, including:

Establish a cross-party Parliamentary committee to provide rigorous review of CSE, CSIS, and other government security agencies. To ensure this committee’s independence, it should be chaired by a member of the opposition, and its members should be elected by secret ballot of MPs, rather than chosen by party hierarchies.

Reinstate the office of the CSIS Inspector General, responsible for providing near real-time oversight of CSIS activities. This office should be made independent of the Department of Public Safety and mandated to report directly to Parliament and the public without interference from the government.

Place the CSE under judicial control, by empowering the Privacy Commissioner and the CSE’s watchdog Commissioner to issue binding orders onto CSE as well as penalties for when they break the law.

Fully implement the federal Privacy Commissioner’s January 2014 Checks and Controls recommendations for strengthening CSE and CSIS accountability. These recommendations were supported by over 84% of our crowdsourcing participants.

Make sure that SIRC, the oversight body for CSIS, can do it’s job effectively. SIRC’s powers to oversee CSIS activities should also be broadened and deepened, and it should be given the resources needed to complete investigations promptly.

When compared with the challenge of reining in warrantless spying, or ending mass surveillance, these steps are relatively straightforward. The challenge is twofold: our oversight agencies need more resources, and they need the power to do the job that taxpayers expect.

Canadians deserve action - between them, CSE and CSIS now cost taxpayers over $1.3 billion a year. Surely it’s just common sense that these agencies are held accountable for what they do in Canada’s name?

Readers can learn more about these and other steps to improve spy agency oversight by checking out our action plan at PrivacyPlan.ca and by sending it to decision-makers.

Democracy Denied, Smart Meter Resistance Alive: An Open Letter to BC Hydro and the Clark Government

PART 1: Democracy denied, “Smart” meter resistance alive -
An open letter to BC Hydro and the BC government, from Christiane Brown

by Christiane Brown and Care Leah  - Take Back Your Power



I am a private citizen of Canada. I am a senior. I live in British Columbia.

I was, and still am working hard. Like most of us. But I am not wealthy. Like most of us. And I do not carry any academic degree.

But I do carry one degree which tops any academic and/or political one: It is called “conscience”.

At the end of World War II, I was born into a family in which the maxim complacency means complicity played an existential role.


Complacency means complicity



Existential in a very real way: Several members of my family have been executed for their resistance to the regime in Germany between 1933-1945, and for its complete violation of human rights, human dignity, and human life.

This maxim has guided me throughout my life and in all the countries I have lived in before I came to Canada. I have left one country for its rapid democratic deterioration and moved to another which at the time was famous for its high democratic values and respect for an individual’s human right: Canada. That was almost twenty years ago.

Not in my wildest dreams 

 

One after another, after another…


In my wildest dreams I did not expect what I, and with me tens of thousands of smart meter resisters are confronted with, here in British Columbia, for the last three years.

I am speaking of BC Hydro’s relentless enforcement of unlawful, undemocratic, unconstitutional methods of extortion, intimidation, manipulation, trickery, harassment and plain mis-information and lies with regards to smart meters and their disastrous effects on human health, privacy and billing.

And, of course, BC Hydro’s and the Government’s consistant irresponsible and unconscionable denial of s/meter related fires in this province. British Columbia has no documentation “code” that allows a s/meter related fire to be entered as a statistic. Hence, there is no record of BC ever having had s/meter related house fires. A s/meter related fire has not been given a code, therefore the fire did not happen? How naïve does one think we are?

I remember one of the dozens of BC Hydro Notices that flooded our mailboxes about two years ago in which we were informed “that our smart meter refusal had now expired”. Really? There was a “best before date”?

For three years now, we who have always paid our electrical consumption in full and on time, have been threatened with BC Hydro’s signed – and more and more unsigned notices of deadlines: Alleged meter choices deadlines. Meter replacement deadlines. Punative extortion payment deadlines. 24 hour robo call disconnection deadlines. (And, yes, those were made by Hydro.)

Unmasking the fear campaign 

 


Taking a stand against microwave-emitting surveillance devices: 1) “No Trespassing” sign with your signature, 2) written Notice removing your consent (and enforcing liability), 3) locking your analog meter, and 4) spreading the word & standing ground together.

BC Hydro’s terrorist-like tactics are designed to scare us, intimidate us, wear us out and finally break our last reserves of strength. Has it worked? With some, but not all. The blind, the ill, the very old, the not-so-wealthy-; people who have a very busy life to live; work to do; family-and other life’s problems to solve….They “gave their consent”. But non disclosure of risks and use of force to impose uninformed consent is not consent at all.

To sum it up: Throughout the past three years, we have endured a seemingly endless war of psychological control: Hydro has consistently made mutually contradictory and mutually exclusive statements with regards to smart meter installations on the homes of those who are lawfully stating their Claim of Right (www.bc-freedom.com), and their refusal to give away their privately owned analogue meter.

With Christmas and Hanukkah fast approaching, we are expected to believe that “the end is near” and that we have no choice but to “get used to it,” as it was so delicately put. That those with medical implants; those who just underwent surgery; those with epilepsy and other serious medical conditions, all will get used to it or “move to a different province.”

I am lost for words.

And no, we will not go away. We will continue to fight this violation of every moral and legal principle as long as it takes. Our resistance is still very much alive.

– Christiane Brown

PART 2: Lemons to Lemonade

An update from Care Leah on the Rotraut Knopp story, as reported here and on CHEK TV here.



Rotraut Knopp


This story gets better by the day.

It has now been just three weeks since Rotraut Knopp had her power disconnected. The CHEK TV interviewer told Rotraut Knopp that her story (in part due to her reference to growing up in Germany during the war) has apparently become news in Germany media.

Whenever Ms. Knopp goes out locally now, people everywhere she goes recognize her from the news and congratulate her and say to her “Good for you!”

People are truly inspired by her story. Some of them go farther and reach out and help whatever way they can. Several have given or sent her gifts such as wool socks and/or candles, packages arrive by mail.

The story gets even better


Consider this next bit to be in the supreme irony department.

An unnamed politician in the area had “upgraded” the kitchen, which involved getting rid of a used gas range cookstove, four burners and an oven, which can be retrofitted to use propane. Ms. Knopp was talking to a plumber who had been following her story in the media. This same plumber happened to be the one who removed the gas range. This used gas range was offered to Ms. Knopp, a good as new gas power cookstove, for free.

She will soon be the proud possessor of a politician’s cast-off cookstove range to use for her off-grid cooking needs.

Further? 





Info about solar energy in BC: www.gabenergy.com/faq-pv/. 
Photo: Energy Unlimited LLC


Ms. Knopp had already long used frugality to reduce her usage to the absolute minimum. She uses only 3 kWh for three seasons of the year and 6 kWh in winter.

She has had two off-grid system quotes. The first one was for $25,000 which would exceed her minimalist needs. The other was a quote of $15,000 to provide her with 3 Kilowatts a day.

For this second solar arrangement, until solar batteries innovations advance sufficiently, Ms. Knopp would in the meantime continue to use her neighbour’s extension cord for a power source to recharge her closed cell, gel type battery bank. The power draw for the extension cord would have its own separate monitor attached to indicate exactly how many kilowatts she uses a day. She would pay the neighbour for any power she “borrows” to recharge her four batteries battery bank.

I think the quote also includes an inverter which would be located in her outdoor shed.

The quote includes an off-grid panel, four 24 volt batteries, 8 solar panels (she was not sure of the wattage yet for each panel) plus whatever else is needed to accomplish this microgrid project.

There is one single perfect shadow free spot in which to locate the solar array. That spot has already been determined to be found in her enclosed back yard. The array does not require a unistrut frame as it can also readily be located on a 2X4 lumber frame for best light options.

Due to her age, pay back is not a consideration for her. Her primary goal is to be off-grid for the rest of her life.

And I can think of no one more suited to this outcome.

– Care Leah

A Heiltsuk Celebration of Herring

A Celebration of Herring

by Damien Gillis - Common Sense Canadian


Hello everyone,

I wanted to pass along an amazing event on June 9 being organized by Pacific Wild and the Heiltsuk First Nation.

It's a benefit to help conserve herring on the central coast. Star Chef David Hawsworth is preparing a variety of seafood sustainably harvested by the Heiltsuk in the Great Bear Sea - halibut, salmon, and, of course,
herring roe on kelp and hemlock boughs. The latter is a unique treat!

The evening will also feature an eye-popping photo exhibit and video of the herring spawn and all the creatures that come out of the forest and ocean to enjoy it - bears, wolves, eagles, whales, sea lions. It all takes place at the ideal venue for such an event - the historic Gulf of Georgia Cannery in Steveston.


Here's a little video about the event:

And here's where you can purchase tickets online:
https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/a-celebration-of-herring-tickets-16917296088

Proceeds go to the Heiltsuk's herring conservation campaign.

If you've never experienced roe on hemlock or kelp, this is your chance - prepared by Vancouver's top chef! And this is a close as you'll come to seeing wolves, bears and whales in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest without actually being there :)

Hope to see you there June 9!

Grad Scam: Poverty U. Demobilizing American Youth


You’ve Been Scammed! Kept Politicians and Demobilized Americans in a System Without a Name

by Tom Engelhardt  - TomDispatch


It couldn’t be a sunnier, more beautiful day to exit your lives -- or enter them -- depending on how you care to look at it. After all, here you are four years later in your graduation togs with your parents looking on, waiting to celebrate. The question is: Celebrate what exactly?

In possibly the last graduation speech of 2015, I know I should begin by praising your grit, your essential character, your determination to get this far. But today, it’s money, not character, that’s on my mind. For so many of you, I suspect, your education has been a classic scam and you’re not even attending a “for profit” college -- an institution of higher learning, that is, officially set up to take you for a ride.

Maybe this is the moment, then, to begin your actual education by looking back and asking yourself what you should really have learned on this campus and what you should expect in the scams -- I mean, years -- to come. 
Tomgram: Engelhardt, Going for Broke in Ponzi Scheme America

[Note to TomDispatch Readers: I’ve long had a weakness for commencement addresses, or at least for what they might be rather than what they usually are, which is why, I suppose, I’ve written them relatively regularly myself. Since no actual college or graduating class has ever asked me to give such a speech, I’ve addressed the graduates of 2014 and other years from what I’ve called “the campus of my mind.” This year, given the increasing strangeness of our American world and the rising debt under which college students labor, I couldn’t resist doing so again. Tom] 

You’ve Been Scammed! Kept Politicians and Demobilized Americans in a System Without a Name

by Tom Engelhardt

Many of you -- those whose parents didn’t have money -- undoubtedly entered these stately grounds four years ago in relatively straitened circumstances. In an America in which corporate profits have risen impressively, it’s been springtime for billionaires, but when it comes to ordinary Americans, wages have been relatively stagnant, jobs (the good ones, anyway) generally in flight, and times not exactly of the best. Here was a figure that recently caught my eye, speaking of the world you’re about to step into: in 2014, the average CEO received 373 times the compensation of the average worker. Three and a half decades ago, that number was a significant but not awe-inspiring 42 times.

Still, you probably arrived here eager and not yet in debt. Today, we know that the class that preceded you was the most indebted in the history of higher education, and you’ll surely break that “record.” And no wonder, with college tuitions still rising wildly (up 1,120% since 1978). Judging by last year’s numbers, about 70% of you had to take out loans simply to make it through here, to educate yourself. That figure was a more modest 45% two decades ago. On average, you will have rung up least $33,000 in debt and for some of you the numbers will be much higher. That, by the way, is more than double what it was those same two decades ago.

We have some sense of how this kind of debt plays out in the years to come and the news isn’t good. Those of you with major school debts will be weighed down in all sorts of ways. You’ll find yourselves using your credit cards more than graduates without such debt. You’ll be less likely to buy a home in the future. A few decades from now, you’ll have accumulated significantly less wealth than your unindebted peers. In other words, a striking percentage of you will leave this campus in the kind of financial hole that -- given the job market of 2015 -- you may have a problem making your way out of.

For those who took a foreign language in your college years, in translation you’ve paid stunning sums you didn’t have to leave yourself, like any foreclosed property, underwater. Worse yet, for those of you who dream of being future doctors, lawyers, financial wizards, architects, or English professors (if there are any of those anymore), that’s only the beginning. You’ll still have to pay exorbitantly for years of graduate school or professional training, which means ever more debt to come.

Does this really sound like an education to you or does it sound more like a Ponzi scheme, like you’ve been scammed?

Do I understand how all this works? No. I’m no expert on the subject. What anyone should be able to see, however, is that the promise of higher education has, in this century, sunk low indeed and that what your generation has been learning how to endure while still in school is a form of peonage. I’d binge drink, too, under the circumstances!

Nobody feels good when they’ve been scammed, but at least you’re not alone on this great campus in needing to reassess what higher education means. Many of your teachers turned out to be untenured part-timers, getting pitiful salaries. They, too, were being scammed. And even some of their esteemed tenured colleagues (as I know from friends of mine) are remarkably deep in the Ponzi pits. It turns out that, as government money flowing onto campus has dried up, the pressure on some of those eminent professors, particularly in graduate programs, to essentially raise their own salaries has only been rising -- a very highbrow version of peonage. They increasingly need patrons, which generally means “friendly” corporations. Talk about a scam!

Demobilizing You


Many of you undoubtedly think that your education is now over and it’s time to enter the “real world.” I have news for you: you’ve been in that world for the last four years, hence the debt you’re dragging around behind you. So, on a day when the sun’s in your eyes and it couldn’t be more apparent that the world’s not what you’ve been told it was, maybe you should apply the principles of the scam artist to the world you’re about to enter. Unless you do so, you’ll simply be scammed again in the next phase of your life.

Like the rest of us, presidents and politicians of every stripe have regularly told you that you belong to the one “indispensible” nation on the planet, a country “exceptional” in every way. As a college-educated American, you’ve similarly been assured of how important you’ll be to that exceptional land.

Get over it. You’re going to find yourself living in an ever greyer, grimmer country -- if you don’t believe me, check out the government’s unwillingness to fund essential infrastructure maintenance -- to which you will be remarkably irrelevant. And if the political elite, the plutocratic class, and the national security state have anything to do with it, in the future you’ll become ever more so. In other words, you are to be relegated to the sidelines of what now passes for American life.

Behind this reality, there’s a history. Since the Vietnam era, the urge to demobilize Americans, to put them out to pasture, to stop them from interfering in the running of “their” country has only grown stronger. When it comes to the military, for instance, the draft was sent to the trash bin of history in 1973 and most Americans were long ago demobilized by the arrival of an “all volunteer” force. So, today, you have no obligation whatsoever to be part of that military, to serve in what is no longer, in the traditional sense, a citizen’s army.

If that military isn’t really yours, the wars it's been fighting since the dawn of the twenty-first century haven’t been your wars either, nor -- despite the responsibility the Constitution reserves to Congress for declaring war -- have they been that body's. Congress still has to pony up sums so extravagant for what's charmingly called "defense" that the military budgets of the next seven countries combined don't equal them. It has, however, little genuine say about what wars are fought. Even when, as with the Islamic State, it is offered the modest opportunity to pass a new authorization for a war already long underway, its representatives, like most Americans, now prefer to remain on the sidelines. In the meantime, the White House runs its own drone assassination campaigns via the CIA without anyone else’s say-so, while secretive paramilitaries and a secret military -- the Special Operations forces -- cocooned inside the larger military and growing like mad have changed the face of American war and it’s none of your business.

Your role in all this is modest indeed: to pay as little attention as you want, endlessly thank the troops for their “service” when you run across them at airports or elsewhere, and leave it at that. Of course, given the sums, verging on a trillion dollars a year, that “we” now put into the U.S. military and related national security outfits, and given our endless wars, conflicts, raids, and secret operations, that military does at least provide some job opportunities, though it has its own version of job flight -- to so-called private contractors (once known as “mercenaries”).

And if you think it’s only the military from which you’ve been demobilized, think again. In these last years, so much of what the American government does has been swallowed up in a blanket of heavily enforced secrecy and fierce prosecutions of whistleblowers. An expanding national security state, accountable neither to you nor to the legal system, has proven eager indeed to surveil your life, but not be seen by you. In growing realms, that is, what once would have been called “the people’s business” is no longer your business.

Your role, such as it is, is to get out of the way of the real players. As with the military, so with that national security state: Americans are to thank its officials and operatives for their service and otherwise, for their own “safety,” remain blissfully ignorant of whatever “their” government does, unless that government chooses to tell them about it.

The Corruption Sweepstakes


It hardly needs to be said that this isn’t the normal definition of a working democracy or, for that matter, of citizenship. Other than casting a vote every now and then, you are to know next to nothing about what your government does in your name. And speaking of that vote, you’re being sidelined there, too, and buried in an avalanche of money. Admittedly, in the media campaign season that now goes on non-stop from one election to the next, sooner or later you can still enter a polling place, if you care to, and cast your ballot. Otherwise step aside. These days, the first primary season or “Koch primary” is no longer for voters at all. Instead, prospective candidates audition for the blessings and cash of plutocrats.

Just how the vast sums of money flooding into American politics do their dirty work may not matter that much. Specific contributions from the .01%, enacting their version of trickle-down politics, may not even elect specific candidates. What matters most is the deluge itself. These days in the American political system, money quite literally talks (especially on TV). Via ads, it screams. In the 2016 election season in which an unprecedented $10 billion is expected to be spent and just about every candidate will need his or her “sugar daddies,” the politicians will begin to resemble you; that is, they will find themselves dragging around previously unheard of debts to various plutocrats, industries, and deep pockets of every sort for the rest of their careers.

Take just two recent examples of the new politics of money. As the New York Times reported recently, Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been supported by a single billionaire auto dealer, Norman Braman, for his entire political career. Braman hired him as a lawyer, hired his wife as a consultant to a family foundation, financed his legislative agenda, helped cover his salary at a local college, helped him right his personal finances and deal with his debt load, and is now about to put millions of dollars into his presidential campaign. Rubio, as the article indicates, has returned the favor. Though no one would write such a thing, this makes the senator quite literally a “kept” candidate. Other plutocrats like the Koch brothers and their network of investors, reputedly ready to drop almost a billion dollars into the 2016 campaign, have been more profligate in spreading around their support and favors.

Now, jump across the political aisle and consider Hillary Clinton. As the Washington Post reported recently, she received a payment from eBay of $315,000 for a 20-minute talk at a "summit" that tech company sponsored on women in the workplace. Over the last 16 months, in fact, she and her husband have raked in more than $25 million for such talks. Hillary’s speeches pulled in $3.2 million from the tech sector alone, which she’s now pursuing for more direct contributions to her presidential campaign. “Less than two months [after the eBay summit]," the Post added, "Clinton was feted at the San Francisco Bay-area home of eBay chief executive John Donahoe and his wife, Eileen, for one of the first fundraisers supporting Clinton’s newly announced presidential campaign.”

Say no more, right? I mean, it’s obvious that no one pays such sums for words (of all things!), not without ulterior motives. No deal has to have been made. No direct or even indirect exchange of promises is necessary. On the face of it, there is a word for such fees, as for Rubio’s relationship with Braman, as for the investor primaries of the new election season, as for so much else that involves “dark money” and goes to the heart of the present political process. It’s just not a word normally used about our politicians or our system, not by polite pundits and journalists. If we were in Kabul or Baghdad, not Washington or Los Angeles, we would know just what that word was and we wouldn’t hesitate to use it: corruption.

The Un-Kept Americans


We are, it seems, enmeshed in a new hybrid system, which fits the Constitution, the classic tripartite separation of powers, and the idea of democracy increasingly poorly. We have neither an adequate name for it, nor an adequate language to describe it. I’m talking here about the “real world” in which, at least in the old-fashioned American sense, you will no longer be a “citizen” of a functioning “democracy.”

As that system, awash in plutocratic contributions to politics and taxpayer contributions to the military-industrial-homeland-security complex, morphs into something else, so will you, whether you realize it or not. Though never thought of as such, your debt is part of the same system. A society that programmatically trains its young into debt and calls that “higher education” is as corrupt as a wealthy country that won’t rebuild its own infrastructure. Talk about the hollowing out of America: you are it. No matter how substantial you may be in private, you are being impersonally emptied in what passes for the real world.

If Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton are kept politicians, then you are un-kept Americans. You are the ones that no one felt it worth giving money to, only taking money from.

Being on the sidelines, it turns out, is an expensive affair. The question is: What are you going to do so that you aren’t there, and in debt, forever?

Of course, there’s a simple answer to this question. Think of it as the Rubio Solution. You could each try to find your own billionaire. But given the numbers involved and what you don’t have to offer in return, that seems an unlikely option. Or, if you don’t want the version of higher education you experienced to morph into the rest of your lives, you -- your generation, that is -- could decide to stop thanking others for their “service” and leave those sidelines.

They’re counting on you not to serve. They assume that you’ll just stay where you are and take it, while they fleece the rest of us. If instead you were to start thinking about how to head for the actual playing fields of America, I guarantee one thing: you’d screw them up royally.

As you form into your processional now to exit this campus, let me just add: don’t underestimate the surprises the future has in store for all of us. The people who sidelined you aren’t half as good at what they do as they think they are. In so many ways, in fact, they’re a crew of bumblers. They have no more purchase on what the future holds than you do.

You’ve proved in these years that you can get by despite lousy odds. You’ve lived a life to which no one (other than perhaps your hard-pressed parents) has made a contribution. You’re readier than you imagine to take our future into your hands and make something of it. You’re ready to become actual citizens of a future democracy. Go for broke!

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. This graduation speech was given only on the campus of his mind.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2015 Tom Engelhardt