Papers, Citizen!

As if it couldn't get any worse, the ridiculous paranoia of the Harper regime has surfaced once more in the wake of a sneaky, but peaceful protest in BC.  Senator Runciman wants a law so that protests like this can't happen again.

"People who sneak into these kinds of events, using phony ID, impersonate others, or conspire with others to do the same, should face indictable offences with serious fines and/or imprisonment," said Senator Runciman in a written statement sent to the parliamentary press gallery. 

"The decision not to charge two individuals who impersonated wait staff, avoided RCMP security and got to within a few feet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper trivializes a serious security breach and highlights the need for new laws to deter future improper attempts to gain entry to events where designated persons such as the prime minister or Governor General are present."

Nothing says democracy like a government willing to create laws to inhibit peaceful protest, and here we have another Conservative with his knickers in a twist over a relatively harmless protest of the Harper Government.

If you don't think it's bad, consider the following piece of data.  From 2006 to 2012, the cost of PMO Security from the RCMP has ballooned to $20,000,000.  That's right, we spend more on security for the PM than a lot of small companies make in a year.

This combination of world-travel risks and the increased threat level at home has seen the transformation of the security detail from a cozy enclave of the RCMP into a tightly run tactical squad, insiders said. 

It is also expensive: Overtime has gone through the roof, and the budget of the PMPD, as the unit is called, is set to reach $20-million this year, or twice the 2006 cost. The Prime Minister’s Office and the RCMP say the increase in costs is justifiable, since security concerns are growing and threats are now taken more seriously.

We are spending how much on this?  So the least accountable Prime Minister in Canada's history can blissfully move about in his bubble and not have to hear a protester or two?  Considering the amount that the Harperites have cut from programs that benefit average Canadians, perhaps the PM needs to hear more from the population rather than from the people living in his bubble.

 

Insecurity Response

In the wake of the Christmas Day attempt at man-bombing a plane, there has been a renewed level of agitation from the right-wingnuts for racial and religious profiling to be used for screening people at the airport.

The problems with this are myriad. How do you identify someone's religion? For that matter, how do you identify if someone is of a particular ancestry - especially in North America where there are a lot of people born and raised here who might appear to be of Arab ancestry? Or for that matter, just what makes someone "visible" as a member of a particular ethnic population?

The practical answer is that you can't - and it won't work - ever.

Such approaches to threat management are just as ineffective as the ridiculous restrictions that have been placed on people flying into the US in the last week.

They do, however, have some insidious side effects that we should be thinking about. Let us presume, for a moment, that there was such a profiling scheme implemented. In effect, what you have just created is two queues at the airport - one for whatever group(s) you designate as deserving additionally scrutiny, and one for the rest of the population.

How is this any different from the racial segregation policies that were a part of South Africa's Apartheid era?

They aren't. Period.

In fact, such policies plant the seeds for the same kind of insane limitations on freedoms and liberties that were in place for decades in South Africa. (Not to mention segregation era USA, come to that) What they do is confirm the assumed notion that so many people have that being different is somehow a threat. This is precisely the kind of policy that makes neo-Nazi and other racist organizations ecstatically happy - because it gives them the "moral authority" (in their view) to beat the tar out of whomever raises their ire.

In fact, what it lays down is the foundation for exactly the kind of racism and bigotry that our very laws have been designed to eradicate.

As an aside, just how do you "know" somebody's religion? You can ask them, but the determined will quite happily lie to you about it; and people change religious affiliation all the time. How many of us in this society are "lapsed Catholics", or perhaps are Catholics that switched to one of the Charismatic churches?

The real answer is to investigate and root out threats one at a time - as they turn up. Not with heavy military action, but with counter-intelligence and espionage. Focus on undermining the very organizations that facilitate these actions the same way they operate - in the shadows.

About that secure transmissions thing...

Insurgents tapping Predator Drone video

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Frankly, it's quite hilarious to realize that the insurgents know precisely what kind of surveillance the Americans are using - and the fact it can be done with a $26 piece of software is just added irony.

H/T: Canadian Cynic

Dear General Hillier: STFU

Cripes, the more Hillier opens his yap lately, the more he sounds like a propaganda shill for the Cons.

Today, Canadians were treated to the General lecturing us about how the detainee issue is detracting from "all the good things" the troops are doing.

Allow me to make something very clear - this critic is not annoyed with the job that the troops on the ground are doing. They are carrying out a difficult job in even more difficult circumstances.

Having said that, those troops are carrying out orders and directives created by the General himself, at the behest of his political masters. When those orders and directives cheapen Canada's name on the world stage, it is my duty as a Canadian to stand up and be heard.

While Hillier complains that we aren't "looking at the good bits" of the picture, the fact is that it's not the "good bits" of the story that Canadians should be concerned about. It is policies and agreements signed on our behalf by a General who seems more interested in lecturing us on "supporting the troops" than taking ownership of questionable decisions that he has made, and that the Harper government is ill-disposed to correct.

We, as Canadian citizens, must ask ourselves repeatedly whether this is the kind of government that we want? Do we want one where challenging government policy is frowned upon? A government that actively uses its armed enforcement agencies as propaganda tools, with the implicit threat of force should we have the temerity to disagree with them?

Security Certificates and Law

Now that Canada's Supreme Court has examined the whole "Security Certificate" mechanism and found that it is in violation of basic principles of civil rights, such as due process, it's time to take apart one of the most abusive pieces of law on Canada's books.

I've always argued that in a country like Canada, we have a clear system of due process and law which should take precedence over the fear-mongering paranoia of politicians whose idea of power is nearly authoritarian in nature. A free and democratic society should not need tools as arbitrary as security certificates. If someone has been accused of the kind of criminal activity that warrants detention, then bloody well charge and prosecute them in the open courts. Secretive "you can't see the evidence" processes are abusive, and subject to political manipulation in ways that are simply not acceptable in a civil society.

For those willing to delve into the arcane language of law, the full ruling is already posted here, and it contains some intriguing insights.

From the Chief Justice's commentary (emphasis added):

2 In this case, we are confronted with a statute, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), that attempts to resolve this tension in the immigration context by allowing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Minister”), and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (collectively “the ministers”) to issue a certificate of inadmissibility leading to the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national deemed to be a threat to national security. The certificate and the detention are both subject to review by a judge, in a process that may deprive the person named in the certificate of some or all of the information on the basis of which the certificate was issued or the detention ordered. The question is whether the solution that Parliament has enacted conforms to the Constitution, and in particular the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protect against unjustifiable intrusions on liberty, equality and the freedom from arbitrary detention and from cruel and unusual treatment.



3 I conclude that the IRPA unjustifiably violates s. 7 of the Charter by allowing the issuance of a certificate of inadmissibility based on secret material without providing for an independent agent at the stage of judicial review to better protect the named person’s interests. I also conclude that some of the time limits in the provisions for continuing detention of a foreign national violate ss. 9 and 10(c) because they are arbitrary. I find that s. 12 has not been shown to be violated since a meaningful detention review process offers relief against the possibility of indefinite detention. Finally, I find that there is no breach of the s. 15 equality right.

This more or less encompasses the fundamental problems that I have expressed (repeatedly) around the subject of detaining people on arbitrary mechanisms like this. I still fundamentally disagree with the whole notion of a secretive process, as it seems to me that it creates serious problems with the transparency and accountability that is essential in the government of an open society.