Via DemocracyNow!, news that "Toronto police were secretly given new powers" right before the G20 meetings to arrest people simply because they refused to identify themselves while protesting and other unsettling news in what has been described as a "brutal crackdown" on protesters has civil liberties advocates mulling over their next moves:
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it is looking into suing the Toronto police department following mass arrests at the G20 summit last week. It is now estimated that 1,000 people, including many journalists, were arrested. On Thursday, protest rallies were held in Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg against the brutal police crackdown.
Video Below the fold. Make the jump»
Today the trial of Splitting the Sky commenced. Splitting the Sky attempted a citizens' arrest on credibly accused war criminal George W. Bush on March 17, 2009, and was arrested and jailed for doing so by police. Try as its representatives might to disguise their motivations with the kind PR spin doctoring we witnessed in the court today, the Calgary Police, the RCMP and its contractors were under the Harper government's strict political orders to protect the Alberta home turf of the current minority government that came to power as the holder of the Bushite franchise in Canada. Some have termed this historic proceeding as "The Trial of Splitting the Sky versus George W. Bush." From what I witnessed firsthand on day one, the government attempt to manage this highly volatile convergence of law and politics was an exciting affair.
For those of you that might try to point out the lack of the word "alleged" in front of the "Bush War crimes" part of the title, this has already been dealt with legally as Canada had already documented some war crimes of the Bush administration previously in court leading to their placing the USA on its torture watch list:Make the jump»
From the One Laptop Per Child News Blog:
Hi, my name's Amal Chandaria, and I'm one of the four students from Upper Canada College who researched, designed and deployed an OLPC laptop implementation program at the Ntugi Day Secondary School in Kenya in March 2009. Make the jump»
Ran across this on YouTube (via another forum) and thought I would put it out there for discussion.
Are body bags an appropriate item for government health officials to send to communities as part of a PPP (Pandemic Preparedness Plan)?
This story comes to us via Common Dreams. It was first published on Sunday, September 7, 2008 by The Toronto Star. It's the story of a US soldier who fled to Canada because of the likelihood that his training and skill at Arabic would put him into a situation he finds untenable: the support of torture through using his knowledge of the language as part of the interrogation of detainees.
"It's a soldier's obligation to say `no' if their commander is doing things that are criminally complicit," Jemley, now 42, said in a recent interview in Toronto. "I think everyone is agreeing now that torture is really what has been going on ... I have every reason to believe that from my small pool that I belong to, with my credentials, that I'd be ordered to do such things."
Such a stand would be praised by those who understand the importance of not undermining the US prohibitions against torture and against the undermining of the Geneva Convention; those who support the misguided and malignant failed policies of the Bush regime -- among whom we now find John "I'm against torture, but I support it if you don't call it that" McCain -- would call him a traitor.
Who, though, is betraying whom? Make the jump»
(originally brewed at drinking liberally in new milford)
The Canadian courts don't seem to think too highly of the American torture of prisoners:
The Federal Court of Canada Thursday struck down a refugee agreement [judgment, PDF] between Canada and the US, noting that the US does not meet international refugee protection requirements or respect international conventions against torture. Justice Michael Phelan essentially nullified the 2004 Safe Third Country Agreement , which barred foreign refugees who first arrived in the US from seeking refugee status in Canada and vice versa. Phelan noted that the US has not been compliant with the Refugee Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture. The court also held that the agreement discriminates against refugees based on how they first arrived in Canada and thus violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The nullification of the agreement will likely result in Canada processing thousands more refugees each year. The US and Canadian governments have until January 14 to file an appeal. CTV News has more. [The National Post] has additional coverage.