Hey, Pal, I have a debate issue for you. Resolved: That it's perfectly acceptable, in a democratic society, to forcibly muzzle free speech and political protest:
RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership
The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.
The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.
“It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians,” said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. “Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders.”
Seriously, Pal, I don't care what other topics you had lined up, but I can't think of a better debate topic than whether Canadians have the freedom to debate. Some pretty wicked irony there, don't you think?
And I think you should beat the bushes for a Canadian wanker who's prepared to defend that because you know as well as I do that, while the Canadian progressive community is up in arms over this, you won't hear a peep out of those worthless, pro-U.S., Bush-loving suckups over at the Blogging Tories. (These would, of course, be the same Blogging Tories who keep insisting that we need to hear "both sides" of the global warming controversy.)
Come on, this is important. This was clearly Stephen Harper's doing, so it only makes sense that you should be able to find at least one airheaded, right-wing fuckwit who's dumb enough to stand up in public and defend this as a good idea.
I'm sure Richard Evans is available.
15 comments:
I have heard lies that might be true, that "The Council of Canadians" may have read Richard Evans at sometime, somewhere, maybe.
They must be stopped.
They must be banned.:)
Oh, I'm sorry, hadn't you heard? Maude Barlow is a "Dangerous Crackpot" who must be silenced at all costs. Because that way we won't have to, you know, actually think about what she's trying to say.
I still want to know WTF the U.S. ARMY has to do with a security operation on Canadian soil. Or was this the real reason Harper decided to start letting armed Americans wander across the border?
If it was a legit complaint CC I'd actually agree with you.
Nobody's stopping the Council of Canadians from having their meeting. They're stopping them from having their meeting within the 25KM security control zone during the period of time that control zone is in place.
The security control zone is in place to prevent the often violent protests generally organized by socialist/anarchist organizations like the Council of Canadians.
Keep grasping. I'm sure you'll come up with something other than straws eventually...
I agree, that is important. To prevent people from holding a meeting and/or protesting, which is a fundamental aspect of a healthy democracy is ludicrous.
I'll point that out to Olaf if/when I get a chance.
Careful, Paladiea -- don't use the word "protesting" since, as you can see above, that's already being used to justify keeping those violent socialist/anarchists at a distance.
The Council of Canadians is being prevented from simply renting a community centre for a public forum, so any rebuttal that this ban is necessary to prevent violence is simply making shit up.
"often violent protests generally organized by... the Council of Canadians"
Name one. I dare you.
"socialists/anarchists"
Libertarians are nothing but anarchists in disguise...
Paladiea -
It's hard to tell from that last comment whether the problem is that you know nothing at all about Libertarianism, or nothing at all about the Council of Canadians.
So, for your edification, go here, and then go here, and then come back and explain to us how a group dedicated to fighting free trade and privatization of public services can subscribe to a political philosophy dedicated to laisse-faire economics and privatization of EVERYTHING.
I'll gladly defend my assertation against Libertarianism.
As for the Council of Canadians, I completely support their right to protest.
Name one. I dare you.
Ok...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22council+of+canadians%22+calgary+G8+protest&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US
Yes, that would the same as this one:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_politics/93528
notable for its lack of violence or disorder
You quoted information from a partisan lib-left aggregator. I quoted information from an unbiased google search. I win!
Regardless of how you try to spin it, there was violence involved with Calgary's G8 protests (I know. I was there.) and the Council of Canadians was involved in organizing/participating in the protests.
They are on the security watch lists for a reason...
You Win???
Mind pointing out a particular article that states that the Council of Canadians sparked and/or was involved in violence in Calgary? Just regurgitating a list will not do. I read a few of those and saw no support for your position. Indeed, one stated about that meeting
"The G8 meeting in Calgary was reported to be the most militarized global summit in history: $400 Million was spent on security, 5000 militia were deployed with instructions to use lethal force (i.e., to KILL any unauthorized persons discovered in the woods surrounding Kananaskis), rocket launchers were included in the arsenal of heavy weaponry, an entire prison was cleared out in anticipation of mass arrests, the Mayor of Calgary unilaterally suspended the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties (like the US Bill of Rights), stating that political demonstrations in public places would not be tolerated (only one permit was issued--all other applications were denied). "
Interesting, no? And NOT involving the Council of Canadians...unless they have a secret store of rocket launchers somewhere.
And just because their "on the security watch list" doesn't mean they're up to no good. And whose watch list are they on? Canada's? The U.S.'s? Uzbeckistan's?
It seems that anonymous is practicing a favorite Conservative tactic: dump a pile of BS, hope no one looks at it and proclaim victory.
You win what, exactly?
Am I supposed to work through every single Google result to find an example of violence at the protest? Because I've got to tell you, I didn't find any on the first page. I did get this on the second page:
"Cover the riots," instructed Lisa Gregoire's editors. Her bosses at the Edmonton Journal had a clear idea of the stories they expected to see from the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. But when there were no riots to cover, Gregoire started producing articles with headlines such as "Calgary March Proves Critics Wrong," and "G8 Protestors Act in Good Faith: Promoting Peace, Opposing Colonialism."
Good try. Next time, though, you do the fucking work of proving yourself wrong, rather than making me do it for you.
and another example of muzzling:
"Military tried to cover up file on outspoken critic (Ottawa Citizen, July 13, 2007
Forces' report deemed Ottawa man not a threat
Military officials kept an eye on an outspoken opponent of the Afghanistan war last year, but in a report produced about the Ottawa man's public comments they determined support for the mission was still high and his criticism does "not seem to resonate" with the public and media.
Defence department officials originally denied the documents, requested by the Citizen under the access to information law, even existed. But an investigation by the information commissioner revealed that e-mails and a report on the activities of left-wing defence analyst Steven Staples had indeed been compiled by the military. The report was sent to 50 officers, including two brigadier generals.
The release comes as the Defence Department finds itself dealing with charges from critics that Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a sweeping crackdown to block the release of all files on the Afghanistan mission requested under the access to information law."
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=746bfb9c-2430-4851-a7f2-5b200c086fa1
........ and why would the current government do that?
"The Hamilton Spectator - July 13, 2007
Who's watching the generals?
... When media reports surfaced this week that Canada's chief of defence staff, General Rick Hillier, has directed senior officers to interfere in the release of documents under Access to Information laws, alarm bells should have sounded across the country.
The Globe and Mail was the first to report that Hillier's inner circle of advisers -- a group called the Strategic Joint Staff -- has been giving "guidance" to senior civilian officials as to what facts will be made public through Access to Information requests.
Even such information as how many prisoners have been taken by Canadian soldiers -- documents that used to be public -- is now being withheld, on the claim that such knowledge could endanger Canadian soldiers.
There's nothing new in officials trying to suppress information in times of war, and it is well known that the Stephen Harper government is vehement about maintaining strict control over who says what.
What is alarming is that soldiers are apparently interfering with the freedom of information laws of our democracy, overriding the civilian authorities charged with ensuring the proper execution of such laws. It's a bitter irony that the freedom of information process is being manipulated over events in Afghanistan -- the very place where our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect freedoms.
Important questions beg answers. Did Hillier award these new powers to himself? Did someone in the PMO or the Privy Council Office give the go-ahead to start muzzling? Did Hillier end up trying to manage the file because the civilian defence minister, Gordon O'Connor, has performed so poorly? And finally, aren't government MPs concerned enough to publicly demand answers on behalf of the citizens they represent?
Canadians do not want a country where generals tell the civilians how to apply our laws. If in fact such a frightening precedent is being set or tolerated, it's startling that the government is not acting urgently to reassure people that, in Canada, civilian oversight still prevails."
Post a Comment