Could Harper Deploy Troops Against Canadians?

I was taken aback by a post from Geoff Kennedy at Parchment in the Fire entitled, "EU Advisors Advocate use of Military Against Strikes and Protests | Global Research."

The thrust of this report is that military forces should be employed to defend the interests of the extremely wealthy from unrest among the masses.  The key author was professor Tomas Ries, currently with the Swedish Institute for International Affairs.  Geoff writes:

Ries sees the central threat to “security” in a violent “conflict between unequal socioeconomic classes in global society,” which were “in vertical asymmetric tensions in the global village.” Put simply, the main “security issue” is class struggle in the globalised world economy.

For the inevitable social, economic and political conflicts which would emerge from this inequality, he recommended that the EU enter a “symbiosis” with the global corporations. The power of these companies “in the areas of technology and economy is constantly growing, while they are also winning influence in other areas. But they need the state and the state needs them.”

With the financial crisis, the state had already fulfilled its part in the “symbiosis.” The population had been burdened with the banks’ debts, and the living conditions of the working class had been attacked and undermined.

As a consequence of these fundamental attacks on the social rights of the working class, according to Ries, social conflict will inevitably develop which would constrain important areas of infrastructure.

The rich had to be protected from the poor, the professor explained. Since “the percentage of the population who were poor and frustrated would continue to be very high, the tensions between this world and the world of the rich would continue to increase, with corresponding consequences. Since we will hardly be able to overcome the origin of this problem by 2020, i.e., the functional defects of society, we will have to protect ourselves more strongly.”

Ordinarily I would have written this off, putting it down to just more ravings of another Euro-crank.  However much of what Ries advocates is now being put into place in the United States. I wrote about this the other day in a post about America's Posse Comitatus Act which prohibited the deployment of U.S. military forces against the American people.

That's "prohibited" as in past tense.  The intent of the Act was quietly watered down by Bush-Cheney in 2006 when Bush persuaded Congress to enact an express authority for the use of military force on American streets:   "The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy..."

Which leads me to wonder - if the Europeans are toying with it and the Americans have already put it in place, would our Divine Leader be reluctant to invoke The Emergencies Act, successor to The War Measures Act, to use military muscle to put down civilian unrest, say in the form of large scale opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline?

The Act allows the prime minister, with a cooperative Governor General, to impose martial law in the event of, "public order emergency." The Harper gang are utterly intolerant of dissent, especially when it results in protest.  How far would protest have to go before our Constitutional Beelzebub declares it an emergency under the Act?  And, as for Harper's stooge in Rideau Hall, is there any reason to trust that he would defend Canadians against the excesses of our prime minister?  With deviants like Joe Oliver ready to denounce environmentalists as terrorists who are 'inimical' to the country and with CSIS (and presumably CSEC), the national police already in secret service to Big Oil we have a government that plainly sees those who stand opposed to its will as enemies of the state.

The Governor in Council is authorized to declare a public order emergency exists in the event of a "threat to the security of Canada" as defined in s,. 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act:

“threats to the security of Canada” means

• (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
• (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
• (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
• (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

 

Joe Oliver obviously had s. 2(b) in mind when he spoke of Canadian dissidents being under the influence of foreign organizations and when he declared dissenting Canadians "inimical (detrimental) to the interests of Canada."  That alone gives the game away.

 

The Act itself is hopelessly vague on the powers of the government on declaration of an "emergency."

 

Preamble to The Emergencies Act:

 

WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;

 

AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;

Operative sections:

17. (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.

 

(2) A declaration of a public order emergency shall specify

• (a) concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency;
• (b) the special temporary measures that the Governor in Council anticipates may be necessary for dealing with the emergency; and
• (c) if the effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the effects of the emergency extend.

 

19. (1) While a declaration of a public order emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations with respect to the following matters as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary for dealing with the emergency:

• (a) the regulation or prohibition of
  • (i) any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace,
  • (ii) travel to, from or within any specified area, or
  • (iii) the use of specified property;
• (b) the designation and securing of protected places;
• (c) the assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services;

But the Act does embody certain protections.  The conclusion of the preamble states, "the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency.  The Act also requires the emergency order to be brought before the House for consideration and debate.

Harper would therefore be restrained by his arch-nemesis, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Once again our last line of defence against our jackboot government would rest with the Supreme Court of Canada.  Knowing Harper the defiant would be spending a good bit of time in the Greybar Hotel before the court could intervene.

It's Like the Noonday Sun to a Vampire - Fascist Governments Cannot Stand the Rule of Law

And by "fascist government" I'm referring to the government of Stephen Harper. Steve doesn't like the rule of law.  I'll bet he figures Magna Carta was a huge mistake. Our federal fuhrer thinks himself the supreme law, above the law of those meddling courts of the land.  The law is His to carve into tablets. The courts are merely to dutifully uphold and apply his law.

Steve is regularly at odds with Canada's judiciary and, as CBC News reports, it's Harper government policy to run afoul of the law.

Edgar Schmidt agrees that something is wrong, and he would know — he was the general counsel for the legislative branch at the Department of Justice, until he became a whistleblower and was suspended without pay in late 2012.

He filed documents in December of that year accusing the department of working under "faint hope" — approving legislation even if it has a "combined likelihood of five per cent or less" of being upheld by the courts.

He argued that Ottawa has a duty to introduce charter-compliant legislation — or, at least, tell the public when legislation doesn't pass the test.

The government disagreed, saying that it only needs to do so if legislation is "manifestly unconstitutional, such that no credible argument exists in support of it."

If a lawyer raises an issue with legislation, and management isn't worried, internal documents instruct government lawyers to "proceed to complete drafting or examination (blue-stamping)."

"Blue-stamping" is bureaucrat lingo for approving.

So, even if a piece of legislation has a 99 per cent chance of being defeated by the courts, government policy is to forge ahead.

That throws some cold water on MacKay's now-infamous refrain that even the government's most controversial pieces of legislation are vetted to be charter-compliant.

In other words, Harper deliberately and constantly tries to engage our courts in a pissing contest for his own perverse, political objectives.  Enacting laws that you know full well offend the Charter is patently vexatious and an abuse of the legislative and judicial processes. It's a behaviour that holds the nation itself in contempt.  It's the product of a troubled personality.

In Defence of the Charter

It's been the whipping boy of the right ever since Preston Manning created the Reform Party and it's been lambasted at every turn by the right ever since. It's our Charter of Rights and it's now 25-years old.

The extremist right (that includes our current government) likes to depict the Charter as a curtain behind which criminals lurk to escape prosecution and punishment. Rarely does the public hear about what the Charter does for Canadians, and it does plenty for us.

The National Post published a story today that grudgingly admits close to 60% of Canadians believe the Charter is serving us well and then sort of implies that may be because Canadians are also ignorant of its provisions, notably the "notwithstanding" clause.

I think Canadians do misunderstand the Charter, its purposes, how it works and what it does for each of us. Part of that is because our kids aren't learning enough about it in school. Another big part, however, can be blamed on those who have used it as a political football to create fear and anger in those they would have vote for them. I'm talking about the extremist right.

What the Post story misses is that, if people did know more about the Charter, their approval rating would be a lot higher, a lot higher.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave

I was never enamoured of the Star Spangled Banner. Like most national anthems, it is stilted and awkward and just a bit creepy, like joining strangers in a group hug. I guess I've just got too much "true patriot love."

Ever since the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, I keep coming back to the last line of the American anthem and I've come to really appreciate what it says. To me at least, it's the best, single line of any anthem I've ever heard.

Land of the free, home of the brave. Even if that was always a blend of myth and reality, the past five years have shown how directly linked are a people's bravery and their freedom.

In the greater scheme of global conflict, the casualties inflicted in the al-Qaeda attacks were actually pretty modest. Roughly 3,000 killed. You would have to look pretty far down the list of human suffering before you got to that one. But look what it did to the American people, the folks from the Home of the Brave.

The September 11th attacks inflicted real terror on the American people. Who watched the WTC towers collapse, one after the other, and wasn't profoundly troubled? Outside of bin Laden's inner circle, those images sent shockwaves around the entire world.

No one can fault Americans for being fearful on that day and in the days immediately after when they had to wonder if there were more attacks looming. What surprised me, however, was how persistent and deep that fear turned out to be. Remember the day when Tom Ridge asked his fellow citizens to lay in supplies of duct tape and plastic sheeting, just in case? Store shelves were torn bare of the stuff and across the U.S. people raced to hermetically seal up their homes in fear of a non-existent danger. It was then that I realized how far America had fallen from being the Home of the Brave.

As I watched Americans being fed a diet of fear by al-Qaeda and then by their own leaders, I saw how ready they were to give up their freedoms in exchange for empty assurances of their safety. The Patriot Act, warrantless wire taps, secret and indefinite detention without charge or benefit of counsel, data mining, illegal warmaking, each marking a surrender of basic freedoms and human rights.

Bravery is only tangible when the brave resist what threatens them. If they capitulate to those who infect them with fear, they just as quickly lose their hold on their freedoms.

Those of us lucky enough to have been spared this defining moment of truth need to profit from this lesson. We need to reflect on our rights and what they really mean to us and our society. We need to recall how each of those rights has been paid for - in blood - and often more than once. We need to understand that, if we fail to defend those rights, there are and have always been those who would strip us of them.