Dell on Lies of Omission & Toronto's G20 Security

I took a jaunt to town yesterday, with Ron driving. We went to the walk-in clinic for the doctor's opinion on my sore feet. Gout: just what I thought, but best to have it checked out, and I picked up the prescription while I was in town. Afterward, we stopped at the coffee shop. Perfect timing: the usual suspects were all there. I questioned them on the various issues emerging following Toronto's G20 Summit and want to share with you some of the feedback generated.

Keep in mind that in this neck of the woods, Ontario's solicitor general, Rick Bartolucci, is the Liberal MPP for the riding of Sudbury, as well as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
You are considered more or less a neighbour if you are within a five hour drive of someone in northern Ontario, so these folks know who Bartolucci is, compared to most Canadians.
You need to understand, too, that Bartolucci isn't particularly popular in these parts having chosen to remain neutral in October 2009, avoiding voting on NDP's Peter Kormos' private member's bill to bann the use of replacement workers during the Vale Inco strike in Sudbury.
Having chosen not to speak up on the strike issue, no one was surprised that Bartolucci didn't speak up and reveal the truth regarding the secret June 2 change to the Ontario Public Works Protection Act. [The regulatory amendment was approved through an order-in-council by the cabinet; no debate in the Legislature: then quietly posted June 16 at the government’s e-laws website.]
The NDP's Justice Critic, Peter Kormos has now been quoted as saying "McGuinty's solicitor general [Bartolucci] misled the people of Ontario and the police into believing that police had the authority to demand identification and to search people without warrants," entering the Red Zone area designated around the Summit meeting in Toronto.

Who else was in on this lie of omission?

Certainly, Sgt. Tim Burrows of the G8/G20 Integrated Security Unit knew. He had said, "The public has nothing to fear with this legislation and the way the police will use this legislation, It really comes down to a case of common sense and officer discretion. If you're approaching that fence line, we want to know why."
Burrows was also quoted as saying that the police, at their discretion, could deny access to the area and "use whatever force is necessary" to keep people out. Anyone who refused to identify themselves or refused to provide a reason for their visit, were told they could be fined up to $500 and face up to two months in jail.
You should have heard the hoots of derision when I mentioned that this Ontario Public Works Protection Act regulation states that if someone has a dispute with an officer and it goes to court "the police officer's statement under oath is considered conclusive evidence under the act."
You have to understand, these folks had heard Toronto Chief of Police Blair's notion of what consitutes a lie. When asked on Tuesday, after the Summit, if the "five meter rule existed," Blair smilingly replied, "No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out."

"Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Praising the police, Bartolucci referred to the "thugs" protesting the G20 as proof such measures were justified.
The end justifies the means? Lie by omission? Deny citizens' their rights? Who are the "thugs" now?
These politicians and senior police officers lied, not only to the public, they lied to all the decent, dedicated police officers called to serve security in Toronto, who believed they were acting within the law, only to learn after the Summit that they had been hood-winked into breaking the law they were sworn to uphold.
If this deception doesn't anger police forces across Canada, they're missing a golden opportunity to regain credibility with the Canadian public by demanding the resignation of Blair, Burrows and any other police personnel found to have participated in the deception.
Bartolucci has been quoted: "Will there be armchair quarterbacks? There's going to be armchair quarterbacks, there always are," as recently as Sunday.
This was Tuesday: Does Bartolucci consider Liberal public safety critic, Mark Holland, an armchair quarterback?
Holland says the National Security Committee will be seeking answers to questions "over the coming weeks". In my opinion, Holland will likely have the support of opposition parties, and the House of Commons committee will be convened over the summer. There were dissenters at the coffee shop, sure no politician would want to spend a summer that way.
Mark Holland has asked Conservative MP and Public Safety Minister, Vic Toews, the former Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada, to provide answers to his questions and I don't think he's prepared to wait.
Here's a few questions from regular citizens: How high up did this deception go? Did others holding public office know and similarly believe Canadians find the lie of omission any less offensive than an outright lie? Who are the guilty parties who took the law into their own hands?
By four o'clock we were headed back to the lake and Ron left me to my thoughts while he drove. As I reflected on our friends' opinions I suddenly realized I had been totally wrong; my concern that Canadians would mostly be angry about the billion dollars spent, rather than the civil liberties issues, had been an unnecessary worry. The general consensus was that it was money well spent if the ongoing erosion of Canadian citizens' rights ceases.

And that reminds me, my next post is on CSIS, Fadden, Harper's promised transparency in government and a flawed piece of Liberal legislation: the Whistleblower's Act.

Dell on Harper & Watering the Maple

There is nothing like sitting down with a friend you have known for years. Ron and I have lived roughly the same history, seen the same movies, loaned each other books. We're of a similar mind, even if we don't always see eye to eye. Ron boated over yesterday on the windiest day we've had in a bit, then headed home just before dark under a sky thick with dark, thunderous clouds. I was relieved when he gave me a shout on the two-way radio: arrived in one piece.
To give you an idea of the how it is with us, I'd like to share with you the gist of our talk last night: the subject being my earlier posts about Harper and the show of police force at Toronto's G20 Summit.
Honest to God, Dell, I'm dancing in the dark on this one. I can see what you're getting at, but I can't put it together.
1986 with  Martha Henry or 1995 with Victoria Principal? I'm hurt...you've already forgotten my post on missing pieces?
As in Dancing in The Dark, 1995. Raped: as in seriously screwed. I've got all the pieces, Dell, it's the context I'm missing.
Be specific, Ron.
All right, let's talk specifics...is this a give the mouse a cookie situation?
Air Force One, and you've got part of it. Harper is the mouse. He's already got the cookie if no one opposes his abuse of civil liberties. Worse, Harper has used Canada's own police forces to enforce his abuse of power. Canadians should be concerned that if this mouse gets this cookie he's going to be able to demand, not ask, for his glass of milk. He'll point to the cookie and say, "Hey, you were okay with the cookie." Suppose Harper wants to screen The Deer Hunter instead of Coming Home, as he has promised Canadians?
Deer Hunter beat Coming Home at the Oscars after a timed film release for Oscar consideration. It wasn't screened in public theaters until after it had already received the Oscar nod. A risky move on the part of Universal..but the gambit worked. Does it make a difference if he's screening Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?
Art imitating life. Nope. Doesn't matter. You were screwed when you gave the mouse the cookie.
Has Harper used "a sledgehammer to crack a peanut"? and if he has, where's the peanut?
Tommy Douglas, criticizing Trudeau's invoking the War Measures Act, perfect quote for an analogy. Harper has swung an unauthorized sledgehammer against a fake peanut labelled G20. Trudeau only pulled out the sledgehammer when there was an actual peanut.
And if Harper gets away with using his sledgehammer against the fake G20 peanut...
... we will have given Harper the power to swing that same sledgehammer against any future real peanuts of public dissent.
We're talking peanut butter. Do you think Canadians will screen The Trotsky?
More like Network.
Howard Beale, 1976, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Maybe it'll be the first known instance of a Prime Minister ousted for lousy ratings.
Would you quit already! I gotta take a piss.
Wild at Heart, 1990.
I'm serious, Dell, I gotta take a leak.
All right, Ron. You go water the maple. I'll grab us a couple more cold ones.

Dell on CBC Reporter Susan Ormiston's "Visceral Response"

My first post today, June 28th, commented on the CBC's The National and their Sunday evening coverage at the G20 Summit in Toronto. See: Dell on The Truth Behind Toronto's 2010 Summit Costs.
In her moving report, Susan Ormiston, in Toronto, said the police presence there evoked a "visceral response". As words are the tools of Ms. Ormiston's trade, I pay attention to the words she chooses.
The adjective visceral is a form of the word viscus: an internal organ, with viscera being the plural form.
The internal organs removed from a butchered animal are known as "offal" which is pronounced exactly the same as the word "awful".
Visceral response: Offal response: Awful response: you don't have to be Freud to get the message.
Roman pagan priests used the viscera or offal of animals as a means of divining the future. Susan Ormiston's report is a means for Canadians to divine the future, too!
CBC reporters are among the best in the world, and it is reporting of this calibre that makes CBC news and The National my choice for reliable news.

I'm back from the clinic and shopping in town, where it is not raining today. Shelley says Ron plans to boat over for dinner this evening, so I have to do some preparations before his arrival.

Dell on Hate Emails & Refugees

You have probably opened your mailbox at least once to find a friend has sent you a provocative piece of information regarding the amount of money paid to "simple" refugees, including dollar figures meant to elicit Canadian's outrage:
Typically, it will read:

It is interesting to know that the federal Government of Canada allows :

A monthly pension of : $1,890.00 to a simple refugee
plus 580.00 in social aid to a grand total of : $2,470.00 monthly X 12 months
By comparison, the Old Age Pension of a senior citizen who has contributed to the development ofCanada for 40 or 50 years, cannot receive more than $1,012.00 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement per month X 12 months.
These hate emails then  go on to state Canadian seniors should be applying for the Status of Refugees, instead of applying for Old Age Pension.

You will then be asked to circulate this false information to all your friends. BEFORE YOU HIT FORWARD TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS ~ SPREADING MIS-INFORMATION, you may want to check the following link to Canada's web site dealing with these emails. The Canadian government's web site states this myth originated with a letter to a newspaper, later corrected. No one read the correction, and bigots continue to spread these false figures as a way to incite hatred. See: Canadian Government Website: Media Myths vs. Facts

Then go to Google and query the original email information: you will find it contained in personal posts and the like.
My father's reply to people's gullibility in these cases was, "They have read it in a comic book: must be true."
This would be funny, if the intent behind the emails was anything other than race motivated hatred toward refugees: designated "refugee" through a lengthy and detailed process .
Because refugees are not eligible for welfare until their status changes, they are provided with one time payments and, for up to a year, an amount roughly equivalent to general welfare rates,  far below what a Canadian pensioner receives.
In this age of information, make sure you are getting the facts and not taking part in a smear campaign.

I'm off to have my one perfect cup of coffee, and then I will get back to you with some additional thoughts on last night's topic: PM Harper's G20 costs of one billion: an expense you may find outrages you, with good reason.

Dell on The Truth Behind Toronto's 2010 Summit Costs

For those of you following my posts on concerns surrounding the criminalization of Canadian citizens, you may want to check out the archived news for June 27th : CBC's The National with Peter Manbridge, reports from Rex Murphy and Susan Ormiston [the latter in Toronto for the G-20 Summit]. Susan Ormiston's reports included her describing a "visceral response" to the imagery before her in Toronto: "two or three lines" of riot police, two rows deep, sometimes reinforced by police on horses, and she found herself asking, "What country am I living in?" Susan Ormiston went on to describe how one woman had wept to see the city of her childhood filled with the enormous police presence.
Do you suppose this visual image of a huge police force in Canada was the real reason behind the spending of almost  a billion tax dollars?
Rex Murphy suggests that the violence of a small group of 200 or so "losers" he also refers to as  "The Black Bloc" [a misnomer because there is no group; it's just a catch-phrase for those who wear black and protest violently] will be a "partial cover" of PM Harper's spending almost one billion to host the two Summits. Has Rex Murphy already forgotten President Sarkozy's remarks of the day before?
When French President Sarkozy was asked about the price tag for the G-8 and G20 Summits in Canada, he side-stepped the question, instead saying he hadn't seen anything "opulent or luxurious". Interesting then, that Sarkozy should make a second statement which appeared to be a criticism of Canada, the host nation, saying that when France hosts the Summits, the cost will be one-tenth what Canada has spent. Why would Sarkozy make those two particular statements?
It would appear President Sarkozy found a nice way of drawing attention to what Harper was actually doing: using the G20 as a staged scene with a message for the Canadian populace.
The film imagery of these last days in Toronto is stunning. The last time I recall such effective propaganda imagery, the director was Leni Riefenstahl, and I imagine that classic piece of film was expensive, too. Riefenstahl's 1935, Triumph of the Will, was made at the request of her leader with a message for the populace. It was wildly successful.
If the spending of one billion on the two Summits wasn't about security [Fadden] and wasn't about luxury for the guest nations [Sarkozy], then it had to be something else. What might that be?
With already 600 protesters arrested and that number expected to rise overnight, Susan Ormiston additionally reported that the previous Quebec and Seattle Summits, where the black-garbed violent protesters also showed up, resulted in fewer arrests than in Toronto 2010. Ormiston also stated the FLQ October Crisis of 1970, [following the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, the latter murdered by his kidnappers], resulted in fewer arrests; in fact, 497 were arrested, but only 62 were charged and held.
Does Rex Murphy actually believe his talk of "heavy penalties" and "banned for life" treatment of protesters is going to have any meaning in the face of what Prime Minister Harper has actually done here? Harper has played fast and loose with our civil liberties and tax dollars, in order to orchestrate a show of the police power at his disposal. And why would he do that?
We're supposed to be pulling out of a war. If we don't, there are going to be protests. I predict Harper is gearing up the propaganda machine in advance of his release of that very news and perhaps news of a financial collapse to boot. Would PM Harper dare to use this country's police force against its own citizens? Harper hasn't said it, but I'm hearing the words, "Just watch me."