C-51 RCMP/Harper Anti-fossil fuels lobby = Terrorism?

jacee · February 18, 2015

A leaked RCMP report from early 2014 makes it clear that Harper is targeting anti-oil sands/fossil fuels/petroleum

citizens as terrorists. This includes not only those actively protesting at sites, but those "promoting" an anti-oil "ideology" online or otherwise.

So ... I'm not sure we're even allowed to have this discussion but ...

/rcmp-called-anti-petroleum-critics-a-potential-security-threat

OTTAWAThe RCMP has identified anti-petroleum critics as a potential security threat, fuelling concerns in Parliament that tough new anti-terror powers will be misused to target environmentalists, aboriginals and critics of the governments economic agenda

/rcmp-sees-anti-petroleum-movement-threat

... the Globe and Mail reports, "The RCMP has labelled the 'anti-petroleum' movement as a growing and violent threat to Canadas security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper governments new terrorism legislation."

RCMP view reflects Harper government's hostility

"In highly charged language that reflects the governments hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence. ...The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy,

The government has tabled Bill C-51, which provides greater power to the security agencies to collect information on and disrupt the activities of suspected terrorist groups. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has identified the threat as violent extremists motivated by radical Islamic views, the legislation would also expand the ability of government agencies to infiltrate environmental groups on the suspicion that they are promoting civil disobedience or other criminal acts to oppose resource projects."

anti-oil-activists-named-as-national-security-threats-respond-to-leaked-rcmp-report

As the Harper government's Bill C-51 moves to extend anti-terrorism legislation to include anyone who interferes with the "critical infrastructure," "territorial integrity," or "economic and financial stability of Canada," a leaked report from the RCMP's Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Team demonstrates how aboriginals and environmentalists are already being targeted by law enforcement for these reasons.

The leaked intelligence report from early 2014 observes a "growing international opposition" to Canada's tar sands and focuses on "violent aboriginal extremists," anti-fracking, and anti-pipeline activists, identifying them as threats to national security. In particular, the report is concerned with aboriginal struggles against unwanted fossil fuel developments on lands that were never ceded to the Crown.

"There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed, anti-Canadian petroleum movement, that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists, who are opposed to society's reliance of fossil fuels," the report says. "Governments and petroleum companies are being encouraged, and increasingly threatened, by violent extremists to cease all actions which the extremists believe, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions."

As the RCMP's report presents "violent aboriginal extremists" with "anti-petroleum ideology" as key national enemies,

...

Publication of some of these ideas may soon be a crime in and of itself.

As examples of "criminal extremism," the report provides the anti-fracking protests in Elsipogtog, New Brunswick, the Swamp Line 9 pump-station occupation in Hamilton, Ontario, and resistance to the Northern Gateway pipeline in British Columbia. The RCMP also raise concerns about the earliest attempts to organize opposition to TransCanada's Energy East.

...

Unist'ot'en Camp and Freda Huson are mentioned in a Georgia Straight article on pipeline resistance in BC, which is included in the RCMP report's appendix as evidence of regional extremism. The intelligence report argues that the second "most urgent anti-petroleum threat of violent criminal activity is in Northern British Columbia where there is a coalition of like-minded violent extremists who are planning criminal actions to prevent the construction of the pipelines."

It is outrageous that Harper is trying to intimidate and silence the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of consciencious Canadian citizens who lobby for reduction of fossil fuel consumption and production and government reliance on those revenues.

Outrageous.

Divestment from fossil fuels is now a widespread investment practice, by individuals, institutions, pension plans, etc., has been for years.

Are all of those Canadians 'promoting an anti-petroleum ideology' - ie, terrorists?

.

Edited May 21, 2015 by jacee

On Guard for Thee · February 18, 2015

I guess, since they seemed to get more or less away with Joe Olivers comments calling environmentalists foreign funded radicals, Harpers folks decided to put the pedal to the metal and went to work on C 51. Of course a little smoke and mirrors about Jihadis and radical Muslims works the fear angle to throw us off. I wonder how fat the file they have on Obama is now after his stand on Keystone.

hitops · February 18, 2015

It is outrageous that Harper is trying to intimidate and silence the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of consciencious Canadian citizens who lobby for reduction of fossil fuel consumption and production and government reliance on those revenues.

Outrageous.

Divestment from fossil fuels is now a widespread investment practice, by individuals, institutions, pension plans, etc., has been for years.

Are all of those Canadians 'promoting an anti-petroleum ideology' - ie, terrorists?

Since Harper is not talking about people divesting from fossil fuels, what is your point here other than a strawman?

In addition, divestment is not a large scale practice by any stretch of the imagination, nor any measurement. It is a trendy niche pursuit that affects nobody and has no significance. Divestment due to the falling price of oil is the normal response to the market changes just as it has always been. For activist purposes, it is an insignificant subject of malcontents and nothing more.

That's not because of a shortage of folks who enjoy the emotional self-importance of feeling part of the anti-oil in crowd. There are plenty of them. But investors are people with enough knowledge, experience and intelligence to have something to invest, which are features nearly mutually exclusive from the former group. Investors are not in their position because of feel-good policies. They do what gains a return. As a result, they divest from oil for the same reason they divest from anything - during times when that asset is not performing well.

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

Shady · February 18, 2015

There are some pretty extreme environmentalist groups. There's a group called ELF, earth liberation front, that has actually committed acts of violence. They're definitely anti-fossil fuels.

overthere · February 18, 2015

eternally OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why didn't you mention Harpers weary rebuttal in Parliament the other day, when he said 'nothing to do with conscientious Canadian citzens'?

Hmmmmmm?

no cameras here, fess up.

hitops · February 18, 2015

There are some pretty extreme environmentalist groups. There's a group called ELF, earth liberation front, that has actually committed acts of violence. They're definitely anti-fossil fuels.

Yep, and done jail time.

Jacee is not going to let that affect her reality. Forget that some anti-oil or pro-environmental groups have not only committed violence, crimes, and threatened to do so. That simply will not factor in to the narrative.

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

jacee · February 18, 2015

/anti-terrorism-bill-s-powers-could-ensnare-protesters-mp-fears-

The bill's definition of activity that undermines the security of Canada ranges from influencing a government in Canada by "unlawful means" to interfering with the country's "financial stability."

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May fears environmentalists protesting peacefully - but unlawfully - could be covered by the government's proposed anti-terrorism bill, which would give broad powers to Canada's spies. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)May has asked Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and now the prime minister about peaceful but unlawful protests, and says she's gotten "non-answers" each time.

"I think they don't want to address the question of non-violent and illegal civil disobedience. Civil disobedience of all kinds is wide open to falling under this act unless it's amended," said May, who is a lawyer.

The NDP do not support Bill C-51.

The Liberals do. WHY?

The leaked RCMP document tells the real truth about who Harper is targeting.

Muslims, Indigenous people, environmentalists ... and millions of ordinary Canadians who promote reduction and replacement of fossil fuels.

.

hitops · February 18, 2015

Muslims, Indigenous people, environmentalists ... and millions of ordinary Canadians who promote reduction and replacement of fossil fuels.

Um nope the email doesn't list those people.

Those people are also not these people:

/anti-terrorism-bill-s-powers-could-ensnare-protesters-mp-fears-

The bill's definition of activity that undermines the security of Canada ranges from influencing a government in Canada by "unlawful means" to interfering with the country's "financial stability."

Environmental activists, unlike ordinary Canadians, have indeed used unlawful means in the past, and been prosecuted for them. So this definitions applies pretty well to them.

Fortunately most activists do not commit unlawful acts, and this will have no affect on them.

Edited February 18, 2015 by hitops

jacee · February 18, 2015

eternally OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why didn't you mention Harpers weary rebuttal in Parliament the other day, when he said 'nothing to do with conscientious Canadian citzens'?

Hmmmmmm?

no cameras here, fess up.

I'm pretty sure Harper's idea of "conscientious Canadians" is Conservative Canadians who don't participate in dissent against his government, don't protest in the streets.

.

Keepitsimple · February 18, 2015

Eco-nuts have the potential to be, well....nuts. Blowing up pipelines or power stations or bombing a hydro dam could very well be considered terrorism - it is in my books.....and seems to properly match the definition of terrorism as defined in our current criminal code:

Link: https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/terrordefinition_canadacriminalcode.png

On Guard for Thee · February 18, 2015

Since Harper is not talking about people divesting from fossil fuels, what is your point here other than a strawman?

In addition, divestment is not a large scale practice by any stretch of the imagination, nor any measurement. It is a trendy niche pursuit that affects nobody and has no significance. Divestment due to the falling price of oil is the normal response to the market changes just as it has always been. For activist purposes, it is an insignificant subject of malcontents and nothing more.

That's not because of a shortage of folks who enjoy the emotional self-importance of feeling part of the anti-oil in crowd. There are plenty of them. But investors are people with enough knowledge, experience and intelligence to have something to invest, which are features nearly mutually exclusive from the former group. Investors are not in their position because of feel-good policies. They do what gains a return. As a result, they divest from oil for the same reason they divest from anything - during times when that asset is not performing well.

I guess these investors you dote so heavily on dont include people like the Rockefellers eh. You know, those guys who are in the process of divesting in fossil fuels to the tune of 50 billion.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Since Harper is not talking about people divesting from fossil fuels, what is your point here other than a strawman?

The RCMP are talking about anyone who promotes an anti-petroleum ideology.

That could include pensioners or employees who lobby their employers and pension funds to divest from fossil fuel stocks.

In addition, divestment is not a large scale practice by any stretch of the imagination, nor any measurement. It is a trendy niche pursuit that affects nobody and has no significance. Divestment due to the falling price of oil is the normal response to the market changes just as it has always been. For activist purposes, it is an insignificant subject of malcontents and nothing more.

My pension plan has 42,000 members and 36,000 pensioners. We lobbied for and got divestment from fossil fuels before Harper was PM.That's one of many large investment funds in Canada.

We lobby, promote divestment, have influence.

Universities and other public and private institutions have been doing the same.

Large numbers, big money.

Don't kid yourself:

Divestment matters.

That's not because of a shortage of folks who enjoy the emotional self-importance of feeling part of the anti-oil in crowd. There are plenty of them. But investors are people with enough knowledge, experience and intelligence to have something to invest, which are features nearly mutually exclusive from the former group. Investors are not in their position because of feel-good policies. They do what gains a return. As a result, they divest from oil for the same reason they divest from anything - during times when that asset is not performing well.

Public pension funds are large investors. The top 14 have combined assets of over $1T.

http://www.swfinstitute.org/canadian-public-pension-fund-rankings/

We lobby, we promote.

We educate the public.

We have influence.

We divest.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

jacee · February 18, 2015

There are some pretty extreme environmentalist groups. There's a group called ELF, earth liberation front, that has actually committed acts of violence. They're definitely anti-fossil fuels.

Really? A link about that Shady?

Certainly there haven't been enough 'violent' incidents to warrant 'terrorist' designation or legislation.

I doubt the average Canadian could name even one.

.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Eco-nuts have the potential to be, well....nuts. Blowing up pipelines or power stations or bombing a hydro dam could very well be considered terrorism - it is in my books.....and seems to properly match the definition of terrorism as defined in our current criminal code:

Link: https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/terrordefinition_canadacriminalcode.png

Links for those incidents pls?

Blocking roads maybe.

That's civil disobedience.

Now it's terrorism.

.

jacee · February 18, 2015

I guess these investors you dote so heavily on dont include people like the Rockefellers eh. You know, those guys who are in the process of divesting in fossil fuels to the tune of 50 billion.

It's a huge phenomenon, with much more potential to damage the fossil fuel industry than any protest.

However, it is years of protest that have created the 'critical mass' for large scale divestment.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

Shady · February 18, 2015

Really? A link about that Shady?

Certainly there haven't been enough 'violent' incidents to warrant 'terrorist' designation or legislation.

I doubt the average Canadian could name even one.

.

I guess it depends on what you consider enough.

"In the last decade, these so-called eco-terrorists have been responsible for more than $100 million in damages. And their tactics are beginning to escalate."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/burning-rage/

Shady · February 18, 2015

I guess if you're not aware of the problem, it doesn't exist eh? Ignorance is bliss!

jacee · February 18, 2015

I guess it depends on what you consider enough.

"In the last decade, these so-called eco-terrorists have been responsible for more than $100 million in damages. And their tactics are beginning to escalate."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/burning-rage/

Your link doesn't go anywhere relevant.

Pls provide evidence of such incidents in Canada that would warrant inclusion in anti-terror legislation.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

jacee · February 18, 2015

Eco-nuts have the potential to be, well....nuts. Blowing up ...

So do anti-abortionists. Murder too.

.

overthere · February 18, 2015

I think they don't want to address the question of non-violent and illegal civil disobedience. Civil disobedience of all kinds is wide open to falling under this act unless it's amended," said May, who is a lawyer.

May has a more important job than lawyer, which is to be Outraged. Harper addressed the intent of the bill in Parliament.

I'm pretty sure Harper's idea of "conscientious Canadians" is Conservative Canadians who don't participate in dissent against his government, don't protest in the streets.

Harper addressed the intent of the bill publicly and clearly in Parliament. Sorry to point out that the horse is deceased. You may stop flogging it.

jacee · February 18, 2015

May has a more important job than lawyer, which is to be Outraged. Harper addressed the intent of the bill in Parliament.

Harper addressed the intent of the bill publicly and clearly in Parliament. Sorry to point out that the horse is deceased. You may stop flogging it.

No it isn't dead yet.

Harper was quite clear that any unlawful protest comes under the anti-terror act.

That can and will be interpreted as anyone walking on a street, as large groups of protesters do.

It's very much open to abuse, very likely to be used to suppress dissent and violate rights of freedom of expression and association.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee

overthere · February 18, 2015

Dead and starting to stink.

This what he actually said.....

Harper told MPs in question period Wednesday the bill does not cover "lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic expression" when asked by Mulcair about activities that would become illegal under C-51.

"This is, in fact, the attempt of the NDP to always say that anything that is in defence of our security somehow undermines our freedoms. That is simply not true," Harper said.

"All we are seeing is as the NDP's positions on this issue become more and more irrelevant, more and more unconnected to Canada's real concerns, their statements on the issue become more and more extreme."

You are spending too much time on rabble.ca.

That can and will be interpreted as anyone walking on a street, as large groups of protesters do.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Dead and starting to stink.

This what he actually said.....

You are spending too much time on rabble.ca.

From a couple of years back:

Harper's Audit-the-Enemy Strategy Fulfills Nixon's Dream

The audit funds became available after the Harper government named environmental groups and First Nations as 'adversaries' in a campaign to increase exports of tar sands bitumen to Europe and after an open letter from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver characterized prominent environmental groups and citizens as 'foreign funded radicals' and ideological extremists.

Now environmentalists won't just be audited, but arrested.

.