statism watch

Dana Gabriel, BeYourOwnLeader
November 29, 2010

Canada is under pressure from U.S. officials to further comply with American security rules which in some cases, threatens its sovereignty and the privacy of its citizens. As a result of the war on terrorism, the U.S. government now has more power to restrict air travel and is not only dictating North American, but also international security measures.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act would require Canadian airline carriers that fly over the U.S. to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with passenger information. This includes name, date of birth, gender, as well as passport and itinerary details when applicable. Airlines landing in the U.S. already have to supply this information, but allowing personal data to be shared on passengers who are only flying through American airspace essentially shreds existing Canadian protection and privacy laws. Bill C-42 complies with the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Security Flight Program which would take effect globally at the beginning of next year. Most Canadian commercial flights pass over the U.S. while en route to Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe which in many cases would give the DHS the final say on who is allowed to travel to and from Canada.

Under Canada’s Passenger Protect Program, “airlines must compare passenger’s names against a list that is controlled and managed by Transport Canada before a boarding pass is issued.” Secure Flight transfers that authority from airlines to the DHS. TSA will be responsible for pre-screening passengers and their personal information against federal government watch lists. According to the Secure Flight Final Rule document issued in 2008, “If necessary, the TSA analyst will check other classified and unclassified governmental terrorist, law enforcement, and intelligence databases, including databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, National Counter Terrorism Center, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.” With many well documented issues surrounding the accuracy of security watch lists, U.S. mistakes could further prevent more Canadians from flying to foreign destinations. There are also concerns that data collected on Canadian citizens will be readily accessible to a broad range of U.S. agencies and just what might be done with the information.

(more…)

Dana Gabriel, BeYourOwnLeader
November 22, 2010

In many ways, the Arctic has become a geopolitical game with mixed messages being sent from all sides. There appears to be a real contradiction in what is being said and what is actually being done to safeguard sovereignty. While Arctic countries have emphasized the importance of resolving conflicting boundary claims through enhanced cooperation, at times, rhetoric has served to fuel rivalries in the resource-rich area. NATO has declared the Arctic a strategically important region with northern member nations individually or collaboratively conducting military and naval operations to showcase their capabilities.

Some have called the release of Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy statement in August, a significant shift from the Conservative government’s often hostile approach in addressing sovereignty issues in the far north. The policy paper declared that, “Canada’s vision for the Arctic is of a stable, rules-based region with clearly defined boundaries.” It plans to pursue its interests through leadership, stewardship, diplomacy and respect for international law. Canada also seeks a more strategic engagement with the U.S. in the Arctic. Over the summer, they conducted their third joint continental shelf survey. The U.S. and Canada are gradually moving towards merging their Arctic policies and further adopting a more North American strategy. While Canada is placing more emphasis on cooperation and appears ready to resolve boundary disputes, absent is any concrete suggestion on how to engage Russia. Both have claimed the Lomonosov Ridge under the Arctic as an extension of their respective continental shelves. Any aggressive moves to enforce sovereignty in the area could jeopardize future bilateral relations and lead to a possible confrontation.

(more…)

Todd Howe, WeAreChangeToronto
November 20, 2010

In March 2009,  PM Stephen Harper was being interviewed on CNN when he told Fareed Zakaria that “…we are not ever going to defeat the insurgency.” The interview was remarkable not only for its candor (and Harper’s in reputable company on this point) but also because it seemed so off-message. He went on to say that  “[From] my reading of Afghanistan history, it’s probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind.” Really?

Afghanistan lies at the crossroads of of central Asia and is the intersection of empires. The windswept homeland of  independent nomadic peoples, it’s weathered waves of invaders — Alexander and the Macedonians, the Mongols, English and Russian empires, all have come seeking occupation of this geopolitical keystone and all have been repelled. The present conflict, which has been dubbed the ‘New Great Game’, has very deep roots.

(more…)

James Corbett, CorbettReport.com
November 19, 2010

TRANSCRIPT: This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

(more…)

Todd Howe, WeAreChangeToronto
November 11, 2010

This week world leaders, finance ministers and their retinues are once again meeting for the G20 summit, descending this time on the city of Seoul. Protests have broken out in the streets, as expected. The mandatory dramatic images of citizens being pepper sprayed have been rolled out to the international media. And South Korea has shown it can deploy a militarized security force with the best of them: demonstration is simply ‘illegal’ within 2km of the site and a battery of water cannons, armoured vehicles, robots, roadblocks and helicopters says so.

As it turns out, the real melee to watch in Seoul may be inside the security wall this week. With talk of a showdown between the US and Germany and China over currency manipulation, the World Bank’s push for a stronger global trade unit, and the ongoing implosion of sovereign European bonds in overexposed countries (most recently, Ireland), the occasional firework is sure to be lit inside the conference center as well. Despite the mass media’s overwhelming focus on protest, violence, and damage to property it’s clear that the police, the intimidating hardware, and the very real populist opposition to the summit are symptomatic of, but are not the ultimate cause of the dis-ease afflicting the streets of any recent G20 host site. That’s the part of the story reserved for the business sections and back pages of the paper, couched in the pallid language of global economics, abstraction, and understatement.

(more…)