Protecting Human Rights vs Fighting Extremism

[mirror]

Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour today asked the UK to walk that fine line between fighting violence and respecting human rights. I think these words are crucial, and I hope that our government authorities in Canada are listening. Arbour stated that the London bombings were terrible acts of violence, but also expressed concern for people's human rights, such as Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician who was accidently killed by the British bobbies last week. No one said it was going to be easy.

[Renegade]

For once, I agree with you.

[crazymf]

Mr Menezes was said by police to have vaulted a ticket barrier when ordered to stop.

He was chased by officers down the escalators then shot when he ran on to the carriage.

That guy should get the Darwin Award this year.

Wear a heavy coat and run from the police in the subway a few days after a bombing, swift....

That is a tragic scenario, but a sign of the times. I do not fault police procedure. This chap made bad choices but at least he had choices, unlike the people that died in the bombings.

Unfortunate.

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...-name_page.html

Oh and I quoted from this site...

[mirror]

How can you jump to conclusions when the facts have not yet been made public? Or are you clairvoyant, eh!

My understanding is that the Bobbies had changed to a "shoot-to-kill" policy but that they had not yet notified the British public. A slight oversight perhaps.

Let's wait until the evidence is in before we exonerate anyone or blame anyone.

[cybercoma]

Mr Menezes was said by police to have vaulted a ticket barrier when ordered to stop.

He was chased by officers down the escalators then shot when he ran on to the carriage.

That guy should get the Darwin Award this year.

Wear a heavy coat and run from the police in the subway a few days after a bombing, swift....

That is a tragic scenario, but a sign of the times. I do not fault police procedure. This chap made bad choices but at least he had choices, unlike the people that died in the bombings.

Unfortunate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he was brazilian and probably accustomed to a much warmer climate. The weather in the UK was probably chilly to him.

how many people do you see rushing to the subway in the morning? Oh yeah...just about everyone who is late for work.

Since it has already been determined that he was brazilian perhaps he has a difficult time understanding english, or maybe in his rush to get on the train he was more focused on making it on time and thought the PLAIN CLOTHES officers were shouting at someone else.

The murder of this unarmed man is inexcusable.

[crazymf]

Let's wait until the evidence is in before we exonerate anyone or blame anyone.

The fellow must have been an imbecile if he did not know about the bombing. Ditto if he acted like someone with something to hide.

A wounded suicide bomber can still blow himself up.

I used the word unfortunate, cybercoma used inexcusable. The fellow is a casualty of WAR. Don't forget that.

It's only a matter of time before some of those bombings and attacks come home to Canada. Shoot to kill may become police tactics in the near future.

All I can suggest is that everyone make it their business to know who their neighbors are on both sides of you. If everyone did that, the terrorists wouldn't be able to hide as easily.

[mirror]

you use inexcusable

Not me.

Why do you think it is inevitable that it will come to Canada?

Do you have a crystal ball?

[crazymf]

Sorry, cybercoma used that word.

I feel it's a matter of time before terrorism bombs come here because they already have. Remember the truckload of stuff the Americans caught crossing over from BC a few years ago headed for LAX? If the Americans can't keep bombs out and the British and Spaniards can't keep bombs out, I think it's a reasonable assumption to think it's ONLY a matter of time.

It's my personal opinion that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I don't have a crystal ball and don't believe in them. It's going to take leaders and military men with steel balls to get a handle on these radicals.

[Epictetus]

Air India

From the transcript of the judge’s ruling:

[1263] It is incumbent upon the Crown to establish that that device had been located within the baggage area containing the M. Singh bag originating in Vancouver. Crown witness, Professor Christopher Peel, offered expert opinion evidence that it had been. Defense expert, Dr. Edward Trimble, supported in part by Mr. Frank Taylor, testified to the contrary, placing the device in an area of the aircraft containing luggage loaded in Toronto.

[1264] The difference between the two bomb locations identified by these experts amounts to a distance of only some five feet,

remarkably small considering the size of the aircraft and the small percentage of it recovered. However, it is a crucial difference as the

Crown’s theory is lost if a reasonable doubt arises in that regard.

Maher Arar

"The Americans had indicated that it was RCMP and it was the RCMP who indicated to me that there was no official discussions," he said.

However, Mr. Easter did not rule out the possibility RCMP officers working the Arar case alerted U.S. law enforcement without approval of their superiors at RCMP headquarters.

Asked if the Canadian Security Intelligence Service also provided information on Mr. Arar to the U.S., Mr. Easter replied: "I can't get into talking what CSIS did or didn't on that particular matter."

However, U.S. authorities indicated yesterday an RCMP team in charge of the Arar investigation co-operated with the Americans to make certain the man did not return to Canada.

If you were asked while on vacation to a foreign nation to describe a ‘traditional’ Canadian event, you might offer the “Calgary Stampede” or “Hockey Night in Canada”, or even more basic still, pancakes and maple syrup for breakfast…..

But you’d only be partially correct.

A new ‘tradition’ emerging from the Canadian ethos should justly raise alarms among all Canadian citizens.

After one hundred million dollars and twenty years of investigation, the ruling by The Honourable Justice Josephson in the Air India trial of the accused Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri, (suspects in the Air India explosion of June 24/1985) as cited in the aforementioned paragraphs, calls upon the foundation of exactness in proof and clarity required by Canadian law in determining accountability.

“However, it is a crucial difference as the Crown’s theory is lost if a reasonable doubt arises in that regard.” {Determination of the exact location of luggage within the cargo section of the downed aircraft}

This same effort to complete and meticulous evidentiary findings is however obviously and unarguably completely ignored when any reasonable person examines the circumstances around the arrest and deportation (by the United States) of a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar.

Canadians are, some reluctantly and others enthusiastically watching while Canadian law and enforcement of those laws is applied ambiguously and capriciously with respect to many events unfolding in the new climate of fear and mistrust that’s gripping the world.

We have watched The Honorable Anne McClellan repeating the words of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (later retracted by Zaccardelli) regarding the tragic deaths of four officers near Mayerthorpe Alberta.

“I gave what I believed was the best information I had knowing full well that at that time I didn’t have all the information.” a contrite Zaccardellli said. “Clearly there’s a lot of things in there that in hindsight we will have to look at in a different perspective.”

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli

The “leap” to conclusion offered by the Honorable Anne McClellan and Commissioner Zaccardelli with respect to the underlying “reasons” behind the slaughter of four RCMP officers resonates with the broader theme of avoiding accountability that plagues not only the RCMP CSIS and members of Parliament in today’s Canada, but extends to the Prime Minister’s office itself.

Now let’s be absolutely clear on this point.

On one hand the Canadian justice system cites a possible difference of five feet in the placement of suspected terrorist bombs aboard flight 182 amid highly speculative “expert opinion testimony” as ‘crucial’ in adjudicating the trial of two suspects, yet when testimony and information concerning what role if any the RCMP and CSIS played in the Maher Arar case, a deafening silence descends under the rubric of “national security”.

As four police officers are murdered by a known psychopath, (a lengthy history of attention by the RCMP on the killer James Roszko, {36 arrests and six convictions}) the “cited” (the first “explanation” to be thrown to a press eager to distribute anything in the name of “news”) points at marijuana grow operations. While there were marijuana plants on the Roszko property, this action by the RCMP had nothing whatever to do with a “grow-op”.

The Canadian government through our elected representatives appears to be acting on impulse and perhaps hysteria when it comes to finding the culprit responsible for some events, but is closed-mouthed and secretive when it comes to disclosing the underlying events behind several tragic miscarriages of justice when the sequence of events points to government ineptitude.

There have been many people participating in a variety of Internet “Forums” eager to divert attention away from the lengthy list of irregularities and questionable activities of members of the Prime Ministers closest staff and the party he represents.

Canadians cannot help but feel that the betrayal of their trust and the use of ‘sleight-of-hand-reasoning’ being consistently exposed, as the vehicle of choice among Canadian parliamentarians has become an issue that warrants intense scrutiny.

There are of course websites and forums dedicated to misconstruing fact and opinion. Walking a thin line between using these public forums as a means of furthering political agendas and affording extremists an arena for their prejudices.

Bloggers and participants in Canadian Political forums need to protect the spirit of freedom of speech and right to criticize the status quo.

In my opinion these rights are being intentionally trampled on in some sites, prepared to grant space to bigotry and permit emotional reactionism to “rule” when reason fails.

[Leader Circle]

Mr Menezes was said by police to have vaulted a ticket barrier when ordered to stop.

He was chased by officers down the escalators then shot when he ran on to the carriage.

That guy should get the Darwin Award this year.

Wear a heavy coat and run from the police in the subway a few days after a bombing, swift....

That is a tragic scenario, but a sign of the times. I do not fault police procedure. This chap made bad choices but at least he had choices, unlike the people that died in the bombings.

Unfortunate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he was brazilian and probably accustomed to a much warmer climate. The weather in the UK was probably chilly to him.

how many people do you see rushing to the subway in the morning? Oh yeah...just about everyone who is late for work.

Since it has already been determined that he was brazilian perhaps he has a difficult time understanding english, or maybe in his rush to get on the train he was more focused on making it on time and thought the PLAIN CLOTHES officers were shouting at someone else.

The murder of this unarmed man is inexcusable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These damn cops should have know he was Brazilian and spoke his native tongue when they told him to stop! Damn the intolerant British for not having multi-lingual police!!!!

Robin Williams used to say about British police: "police in England don't have guns, so it's "stop...or I'll say stop again"". Which is so true, because the British have always been a mellow bunch. If people started setting bombs off in my backyard, you know damn well, I'd be pulling out guns. Kudos to the British for defending their people with guns. If this Brazilian died, it's tough, but if he can't think before pulling a bonehead stunt, it is his fault. The police only did what they thought they had to, how can you possibly run them down for that? Casualties of the war on terror. If you have no hidden agenda, then stop when the police tell you to stop!!!!!

[crazymf]

Canadians cannot help but feel that the betrayal of their trust and the use of ‘sleight-of-hand-reasoning’ being consistently exposed, as the vehicle of choice among Canadian parliamentarians has become an issue that warrants intense scrutiny.

I don't think you have to look further than the non-confidence vote to find underhanded dealings and veiled threats to stay in power. All high level politicians are crooked to one extent or another IMO. They are just the best at dodging, covering their behinds, and covering their tracks.

The system of checks and balances is what needs to be monitored and rechecked.

[cybercoma]

I love how a countries own citizens are casualties of the war they're fighting. I'm wondering what is the logical thing to do when your government wages war against its own citizens or people living in its country? Since when do police have the right to pass down a death sentence (in a country without capital punishment) on an innocent unarmed man? They subdued him then unloaded an entire magazine into this guy's face. If this doesn't sound at all ridiculous, then I can't see you having any value for freedoms or human rights.

[Argus]

I love how a countries own citizens are casualties of the war they're fighting.  I'm wondering what is the logical thing to do when your government wages war against its own citizens or people living in its country?  Since when do police have the right to pass down a death sentence (in a country without capital punishment) on an innocent unarmed man?  They subdued him then unloaded an entire magazine into this guy's face.  If this doesn't sound at all ridiculous, then I can't see you having any value for freedoms or human rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called reasonable cause. After the first bombing, and the day after, I believe, the second bombing, it was unwise in the extreme to run from police into a subway while wearing a heavy coat. The man understood English. He didn't stop because he was illegally in the UK. His dumb luck to be running from armed police at the worst possible location and a very poor time. Not to mention coming out of a house they had under surveillance as a possible home of terror suspects.

[crazymf]

They subdued him then unloaded an entire magazine into this guy's face.

...after someone very recently blew up a train with a bomb. I wasn't there and I'm assuming you weren't there so the assumptions we both glean from the situation can't really be argued much past our opinion on the matter. If we both knew the exact details and state of mind of all involved, perhaps both of us might change our opinions.

If the fellow had been strapped to a bomb, the cops would have acted properly. I'm fairly confident the entire police force in Britain isn't corrupt enough to frivilously go around shooting the citizens at will so I'm confident that the situation warranted the force given their rule of engagement, so to speak.

If the fellow had been a bomber and set it off when the police merely wounded him and killed everyone involved, then it's entirely possible this situation might happen again after that.

The message to people is clear. Don't be running away from police in the subway in Britain these days or else.

[cybercoma]

Ah heck, why not tackle everyone who runs from the police and murder them. It serves them right for running in the first place, right?

This is different though...this guy had a backpack. Maybe they could just use this type of force against school kids that run.

I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to justify the murder of an innocent unarmed civilian just because the cops are paranoid of people with darker skin than them.

[Epictetus]

Canadians cannot help but feel that the betrayal of their trust and the use of ‘sleight-of-hand-reasoning’ being consistently exposed, as the vehicle of choice among Canadian parliamentarians has become an issue that warrants intense scrutiny.

I don't think you have to look further than the non-confidence vote to find underhanded dealings and veiled threats to stay in power. All high level politicians are crooked to one extent or another IMO. They are just the best at dodging, covering their behinds, and covering their tracks.

The system of checks and balances is what needs to be monitored and rechecked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crazymf

Greetings!

I couldn’t agree more. ‘Checks and balances’ like the procurement oversight that Chretién scrapped and then Mr. Martin “reintroduced” as though it was some “great insight” into controlling how billions find their way into the pockets of Quebec ad-men and others among the two dozen or so other “cases” identified by the Auditor General’s office.

Canadians ought not to “fool” themselves into thinking that simply because someone attains public office that they’re “principles” remain intact. The greater issue in my opinion is that the political climate of Canada is being manipulated through Parliament at the hands of a “representative government” with zero integrity and a pervasive unwillingness to be held accountable for their actions.

We’ve had the Stone Age then the bronze and iron-ages and now we have the age of “spin”.

There are fundamental problems at the core of Canadian government that have little to do with personalities per se, and much more to do with the “system” that’s been shaped by lawyers and politicians to provide the gaping holes through which accountability is allowed to seep out.

Systemic change is absolutely what’s needed. Although the “enormous” costs of the procurement policies in place prior to Jean Chretién’s ‘retirement’ of these checks and balances was sighted at the time he elected to do away with this systemic check, the outcome has been billions of dollars lost and wasted.

Everyone in Canada realizes that politicians operate above the law and have histories in legal firms, business ventures etc., which have more than adequately equipped them to circumvent “legalities”. The only way of addressing the apparent lack of integrity in government that Canadians have grown to recognize as endemic is to re-work and modify the “system” itself.

[Guest eureka]

Not" everyone in Canada....etc.. Some of us have a little better acquaintance with reality. Some of us do not merely parrot what certain other politicians want us to believe until it is time to forget.

[Epictetus]

Hi Eureka!

Would you agree that the meager ‘showing’ at Canadian election booths says something about what Canadians believe to be the likelihood of political “change”? Might this ‘spotty’ record of Canadian participation in the electoral process reveal anything about who ‘believes’ and who doesn’t ‘believe’ that the Canadian political process is in fact a waste of time?

If indeed the majority of Canadians accept the premise that the political process in Canada has been and is continually usurped by “the ole boy’s club” and one politician is pretty much the same as any other politician is it more likely or less likely that people would get out and exercise their franchise?

Your statement that “Some of us have a little better acquaintance with reality.” is accurately reflected in the turnout when elections roll around…..

“Some” people “better acquainted”….without the support of the majority are unable to effect change, that’s the way this system works!

As cozy and comfortable as it may be to sit back with self-confidence in our personal “grasp” of politics in Canada, that doesn’t really address the situation.

Apathy and complacency are the enemies of democracy. An enemy that exists within the very “democracy” that has bamboozled Canadians from one scandalous ‘eruption’ to the next.

I’m glad you feel your “acquaintance” with “reality” satisfies your personal impulses to participate in the electoral process, but would you suggest that enough people share this “acquaintance” to demand and receive changes to a political system that is fundamentally flawed?

When Ministers of government (Anne McClellan) parrot the words of the chief of Canada’s federal policing authority then doesn’t recant those statements when the Commissioner admits the explanation was “flawed”, does your “acquaintance with reality” inform you that the license to deceive Canadians is what’s being granted?

When millions upon millions of dollars are spent and twenty years go by and the fact that the Canadian judicial system brings a case to court (Air India) without sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute, does your “acquaintance with reality” suggest to you that something’s terribly wrong?

When the once Finance Minister claims “I didn’t know”…(Paul Martin, also deputy of the Treasury at the time of the “Sponsorship Scandal”, does your “acquaintance” with the whole Paul Martin story (reflagging CSL ships, moving CSL off-shore to avoid taxes, Voyager Bus Lines pension fund questions…. etc..) inspire a great deal of faith in the “reality” offered by this Prime Minister?

May be you could tell Maher Arar or any of the folk now held under “security certificates” which “reality” is actually powering Canadian federal police agencies…

Is the opportunity there for more people to share your insights into the political dynamic that must undergird your awareness of the “reality” of Canadian political process?

How might one go about building this “acquaintanceship” with this “reality”?

[Epictetus]

Perhaps this is the acquaintanceship to which we are referring?

February 1, 1994 - Martin enters into a Supervisory Agreement to allow his lawyer and Canada Trust to assume his share of control in Passage Holdings and CSL Group Inc. Unlike a blind trust, the agreement includes a "peek-a-boo clause" to allow Martin to "personally intervene in order to exercise the rights and privileges associated with the shares or the assets" in the case of "an extraordinary corporate event."

February 2003--It is revealed that Martin used the "peek-a-boo clause" in his supervisory agreement a full 12 times since 1993, at which time he discussed CSL's business dealings directly with members of the CSL board.

February 22, 1994 - In his first budget, Martin says, "Certain corporations are not paying an appropriate level of tax. Accordingly, we are taking measures to prevent companies from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes which are otherwise due." In his budget implementation, Martin made it difficult for Liberia to qualify as a tax haven, but thanks to a loophole in the law, the Barbados still counted. Within a year, CSL International had moved its registered office from Liberia to the Barbados.

One might reasonably having considered that the all-consuming paranoia of the American people after September 11/2001 would result in a blossoming of security and intelligence efforts.

And it has.

What’s considerably less clear is how the Canadian government can claim to have implemented tighter “security” along the U.S. Canadian border while the flood of American handguns to Canada appears to be relatively unaffected.

In a MacLean's.ca story of August 10/2005 an estimate of roughly four thousand handguns having been smuggled into Canada through this “highly secure border” is cited as a conservative estimate.

One might reasonably consider that like watching as Mr. Martin’s highly vaunted “gun-registry program” unfolded, the costs of which have mushroomed well beyond the governments predicted costs, we are simply watching another episode of “Mr. Martin goes to Ottawa”

Kindly turn your attention to the earlier paragraphs of this contribution and consider the dynamic at play when the multi-millionaire shipping tycoon says one thing then does something directly opposite to the sentiment he’s evoked.

Say one thing but then turn around and do the opposite….

While Canadians shell-out millions after millions of dollars to pay illegal softwood lumber tarifs imposed by the United States, while the BSE “affair” as was entirely expected….turns out to be a completely one-sided acknowledgement of a larger problem…..

As sovereign control of Canadian water resources are played with like chesspieces on the boardroom tables of government and American corporate interests, where is Paul Martin?

Poor Paulie….

He can’t risk ruffling the feathers of his American counterpart and equally as disingenuous “leader” by calling for America to tighten its borders to prevent carnage on the streets of Canadian cities. Martin and Bush are if not exactly peas-in-a-pod, they’re certainly from the same pea patch.

Both have demonstrated a readiness to ignore the notions of integrity and honesty when it comes to their duty to Canadian and American citizens.

How can I be so sure?

Any honest man would have resigned his office after having been proven as responsible for taking a nation to war on the basis of a fabricated pretext.

Any honest man would have acknowledged grave miscarriages of justice and potentially corrupt and illegal manipulations taking place within his party and his government and allowed the process of government to proceed.

Mr. Martin knew that if he took the road of integrity and honesty, his government would have fallen.

Instead he (in the spirit of the entrepreneur) “cuts-a-deal” with Jack Layton, who somehow has managed to hang on to the earnest naiveté of youth believing a politician can be trusted to deliver on his promises.

Instead he commissions the Gomery Inquiry to give his pals room to manoeuvre and delay release of findings better persued by the RCMP.

Martin’s going to need all the help he can muster when the whole truth becomes common knowledge.

The whole truth being a litanny of mismanagement, highly questionable alliances and manipulations, a record of “double-speak” and personal involvement in a lengthy list of adventures down the thin line between what’s legal and what isn’t.

I’d never for a moment suggest that the Honourable Paul Martin is directly complicit in fraud and illegal undertakings.

I’d simply suggest that a good hard look at the history of government under the leadership of Jean Chretién with Paul Martin as Finance Minister and now government under the leadership of Paul Martin as Prime Minister leaves too many questions unanswered to commit to trusting this man with anything.

Certainly not another term in office.

[Mad_Michael]

Epictetus,

You realise that the US 2004 election was one of the highest voter turnouts in a long, long time.

Does this mean that George W. Bush is doing something positive for democracy? Is Bush thus a model for human rights?

In other words, I don't see how voter turnout rates can be used to make the conclusions that you are drawing.

[Epictetus]

Epictetus,

You realise that the US 2004 election was one of the highest voter turnouts in a long, long time.

Does this mean that George W. Bush is doing something positive for democracy?  Is Bush thus a model for human rights?

In other words, I don't see how voter turnout rates can be used to make the conclusions that you are drawing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good Point!

Now let’s look at Canada shall we?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/...nout040629.html

If you prefer the stats from the U.S., feel free to apply the “logic” from those stats to Canada if you like.

Seems a little odd to me though.

Voter turnout lowest since 1898: reports

Last Updated Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:03:47 EDT

CBC News

TORONTO - There were conflicting reports Tuesday morning about how many Canadians had voted in the 2004 federal election the day before.

According to some preliminary reports, a smaller proportion of Canadians bothered to vote in the 2004 election than in any other poll apart from 1898. That year, only 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast ballots in what was actually a nationwide referendum about liquor prohibition.

That figure would suggest that only about 13.5 million of the roughly 22.3 million eligible voter in Canada exercised their democratic right to vote.

The Toronto Star reported that "fewer than 13 million" Canadians voted. The newspaper also reported that Prince Edward Island, at 70 per cent, had the highest turnout of any province

The Canadian Press said 2004 turnout was about 62 per cent, roughly the same as the last election in 2000.

But according to Elections Canada voter turnout in 2000 was 61.2 per cent, the second-lowest ever.

Elections Canada's Web site was not displaying any 2004 turnout data.

Is your point that American statistics prove that Canadians are voting in droves?

Is you point that the American's knew before they voted that G. Bush would turn out to be a man of extremely low itellect and completely devoid of integrity?

Please clarify your point for me would you?