Use of Feminist Goals and Principles to Attack WikiLeaks

The persecution of Julian Assange is not feminist, it’s political Jun 22, 2015 1:02PM | EMAIL | PRINT Julian Assange has revealed a lot that powerful governments do not want us to know. But what should be made of the rape allegations against him? PhD candidate and former UN adviser Felicity Ruby explains. Julian Assange has now been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for three years. WikiLeaks has revealed a lot that powerful governments do not want us to know. But what should be made of the rape allegations against him? WikiLeaks’ disclosures have been devastating. For the naked government and corporate emperors caught stealing and lying, theirs is the devastation of losing power or acute embarrassment. For citizens unable to seize back illusions, theirs is the devastation of knowing that governments suppress truths, routinely lie and manipulate even more than previously imagined. The most cynical and conspiratorial among us have found devastating detail to justify further re-examination of our belief systems, trust in leaders, our governments, their pretexts and execution of wars with corporate partners. Anyone who has watched the Collateral Murder video or searched through the Cablegate files knows what I mean. WikiLeaks’ disclosures about the distortion and manipulation of UN process, including the theft of biometric data of UN personnel, have shown why diplomacy at the UN has so often failed; the institution has been corrupted, infiltrated and attacked. I suspected this when I worked at the UN. Now I know. But as a feminist and a rape survivor, it’s the debate about feminism, WikiLeaks and Assange that has continued to disturb me the most. The use of feminist goals and principles to attack WikiLeaks has amplified my devastation not only because WikiLeaks has provided the peace and women’s movements with many gifts — troves of evidence, example after example of the crimes and culture of militarised masculinity on the battlefield, in the board room, in the embassy. I would be less worried if the epidemic of violence against women were being addressed as athletically by governments, the media, courts and police as it is in Assange’s case, if arrest warrants and manhunts were occurring with quite the same fervour. Because they are not, I don’t find this selective and concerted effort on one man to be a feminist victory. Rather than “something being better than nothing”, selectivity damages and delegitimises real efforts to address violence against women. Instead of a feminist victory, I see the violations we named and the laws and standards we agitated for being cynically used by forces that are not feminist to try to shut down WikiLeaks, to punish the organisation for revealing the truth about war, corruption and the ineptitude of governments. This is not an investigation of alleged sexual offences in isolation. This case started one month before a Swedish election, and several Swedes involved in the case are prominent members of one party. The case also started within the eight to nine weeks between the release of the Afghan and the Iraq War Logs when the US government was aware that Assange was walking around with access to 251,000 diplomatic cables with intent to publish. This case started when there was a 120-man Pentagon task force in operation. I’ve read everything to do with the allegations — the good, the bad and the ugly — and it seems to me that:     Both women had consensual sex with Assange — quite a lot of it. Neither claims they said no or showed or demonstrated non-consent. That matters a lot, as it happens. Failing to see the difference between what happened and rape insults rape survivors and fails to recognise a continuum of violence that places consensual sex, failure to use a condom and rape in fundamentally different frames.     The senior prosecutor, Eva Finne, took on the case but then dropped the investigation not because she didn’t believe the women — she did — but because she said from the alleged conduct there was no indication of criminality.     One of the women has stated that she felt “railroaded” and has refused to have anything to do with the case. It appears the women have essentially lost any agency; they were not pressing charges; their inquiry to police was about STD testing. If the women were pressing charges and calling for feminist solidarity, it might make sense to offer it. In this case, it doesn’t, because they are not. Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? Wouldn’t it have been in the interests of the women, justice and feminist aspirations in this area for the investigation to have involved swift questioning of Assange when he was in Sweden and making himself available for just this? Why have means routinely used under the mutual legal assistance procedures such as questioning in an embassy or by phone or video link still not been used? The UK Supreme Court has ruled that any person in the UK can now be extradited to anywhere in Europe by any partisan prosecutor, without charge, without having to show any evidence and without proper judicial oversight. I find that as frightening as I do the potential of Assange finding himself temporarily surrendered to the US while his government looks the other way. I hope that my feminist friends and colleagues think more about what is happening here — not only in terms of the cause but also how our movement is being used. If the world is not safe for an organisation like WikiLeaks to provide some of the most devastating revelations — including about militarised masculinity and its routine abuse of women and civilians in war — then it is not safe for any of us, least of all feminists. http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/22/the-persecution-of-julian-assange-is-not-feminist-its-political/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT It's not often that we see this kind of article in the press.  Usually, the press regurgitates the official narrative of the state and says nothing about the massive elephant in the room (the gaping holes and irregularities in both the Sweden police handling and Sweden prosecutor handling of this case); say nothing about important issues such as the use of causes to further hidden political agenda (persecution of WikiLeaks publisher, Assange, in this case); and the press studiously avoids the mention of devastating contradiction of Sweden police allegations by the women themselves. When the press is silent, and when the press distorts the presentation of facts, it enables the powerful to persecute political targets without exposure or challenge. more at: FAQ & Support Justice4Assange https://justice4assange.com/ Collateral Murder WikiLeaks Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 Sunshine Press Uploaded:  3 Apr 2010 ꕤ

Intelligence Services Hoax

The UK’s official secrets act, forgeries & facts Part 2 Posted By: Content EditorPosted date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015in: Commentary, OpinionNo Comments By: Sher Khan Seymour Hersh is a Chicago native, and a man who, some would say ‘taken very seriously’ by the White House since 1960’s, let alone the menials in the corridors of power. Hersh’s 10,000-word article about the events surrounding Osama bin Laden’s killing on 1st May 2011 was published by the London Review of Books in May 2015. It has created a global stir amongst the powers that be, to put it mildly. Clearly, Hersh has touched a nerve that has triggered a tsunami of counter efforts by the US Government. The summarized version of his article on the ‘staged’ killing of OBL is; “Almost everything that has been said or written about this massively documented event (9/11), including the White House’s version of the killing of OBL, isn’t true”! Hersh was the courageous journalist, who first reported the U.S. military’s stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons used during the Vietnam War. His 1969 account of U.S. Army atrocities in the Vietnamese village of ‘Mai Lai’ was the show stopper for the Vietnam War. He has the distinction of unearthing some of the most consequential US Government shenanigans of the past half-century. His investigative reporting exposed the Nixon administration’s efforts to destabilize Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973. His 1973 article about the Watergate burglary defendants, who were paid hush money with funds from Nixon’s re-election campaign, eventually lead to Nixon’s resignation. Hersh exposed the illegal spying by the CIA in 1974 along with the Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program. Hersh also exposed the gun-running and drug-smuggling by Panamanian dictator and CIA man, Manuel Noriega in 1986. Hersh exposed Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s alleged war crimes during the Persian Gulf War. He also exposed the 2004 abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghuraib prison. Robert Mirald, a critic of Seymour Hersh, wrote a book about him in 2013 and wrote; “He explodes onto page one, his critics say ‘it ain’t so’, and yet in the end he’s proven to be correct. Over time, Hersh’s accounts stand up”. On June 19th, 2015 Press TV Reported: “Senior members of the Bush administration are being sued by an international team of lawyers, led by former attorney general Ramsey Clark, over the illegal war in Iraq.” The lawsuit was filed on May 27 2015, on behalf of a widowed Iraqi mother, Sundus Saleh, against former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. According to the complaint filed in the US Court of Appeals, Bush administration officials “broke the law in conspiring and committing the crime of aggression against the people of Iraq.” “The invasion resulted in the total destruction of a beautiful, peaceful country,” said Sundas Saleh. “The invasion didn’t destroy only the country’s infrastructure, buildings and heritage; it destroyed millions of families and their dreams.” On 17 June 2015, a top US Federal Court ruled, that the people held for months on end for immigration violations following Sept. 11, 2001, can now sue top government officials for racial profiling and other abuses. The split decision from a three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals came after more than a decade of litigation and is likely to lead to increased scrutiny of the US Government’s behavior following the 2001 terror attack. Judges Rosemary Pooler and Richard Wesley, who gave the landmark verdict, wrote in their 109-page decision:- “We simply cannot conclude at this stage that concern for the safety of our nation justified the violation of the constitutional rights on which this nation was built”. It is evident to those, sitting in the corridors of power that, what has been researched and written by Seymour Hersh in May 2015, about the ‘staged’ killing of OBL has a lot of merit. Gauging by his previous track record of meticulous research, the history would eventually prove his narrations right. This Magnus Opus of Sy’s work has shaken the United States Government and its allies to the core. If the facts would surface, as it seems that they will now, then the US Government and its allies shall be risking a lot more than just the US$ 6 Trillion that has already been spent by the US Tax payers since the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The razor sharp article by Seymour Hersh and the law suit filed by the former US Attorney General perhaps encouraged the landmark decision against Bush and Co. for their deeds post 9/11. All these happenings make a strong case for the moral stand taken by Edward Snowdon in unraveling of the hidden dark facts behind the so-called ‘war on terror’ and the mass surveillance on a global scale by the NSA and GCHQ. UK Government’s Communications Headquarters or simply GCHQ started its work in the earlier part of 1940’s if not before and had more staff working for it then MI6 and MI5 combined, according to a book titled, ‘GCHQ’, written in 2011 by Richard Aldrich. Its deep cover work and activities have shaped and continue to shape international events since 1940’s, leading to regime changes favouring British interests around the world. Needless to say, the UK Government never really acknowledged GCHQ, as the structured shadow intelligence organization, operating above the remit of governmental oversight, until 1976-77. British investigative journalist par excellence, Duncan Campbell became famous in the UK as the ‘C’ in the infamous ABC Official Secrets Act case of 1977-78. The case was initiated because of the first public exposure of the deeds of GCHQ acting above the law. The UK government prosecuted two journalists and an ex soldier, for discussing the existence of GCHQ and its shadow workings globally. The ABC case (named after the three defendants, Aubrey, Berry and Campbell) ended in November, 1978, causing grave embarrassment for the UK government. Thus, Duncan Campbell was the journalist who revealed the existence of the global British electronic intelligence agency GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), in his 1976 article titled, ‘The Eavesdroppers’. His story led to the “ABC” trial in 1978, and the UK government’s failed attempt to jail him for up to 30 years under the Official Secrets Act laws. Duncan Campbell exposed that the GCHQ, along with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) was operating a massive global electronic surveillance network from locations around Britain, without any parliamentary accountability or any public scrutiny. Campbell’s co-author, Mark Hosenball was deported on the grounds of being a threat to the UK’s national security. After the story about the GCHQ, Campbell became a target for British intelligence, which started to illegally track his activities. In 1980, Duncan Campbell published a series of articles about the British Intelligence overstepping their constitutional limits. The articles revealed the likely location of Britain’s communications tapping centers. Duncan Campbell also exposed the potential financial burden of the intelligence services on the British tax payers. Campbell’s work for the BBC’s Panorama programme investigation the UK security services was blocked by the Downing Street according to the 2011, National Archives cache of Downing Street correspondence released on the issue. Several Private and Confidential Memos detailed the Prime Minister Lady Thatcher and her advisors attempting to block or ban the programme. The memos also revealed the historic paranoia of the British Government about the impact of Campbell’s work, along with other investigative journalists like him, and their level of motivation to expose the hidden facts. His ground breaking research on GCHQ and the subsequent publishing of the stories about the British intelligence agencies caused grave concern at the highest levels of the British government. In 1980 he exposed the role of the United States National Security Agency’s (NSA) Menwith Hill Station, Yorkshire and its role in illegal interception of worldwide communications with the complicit cooperation of the GCHQ. Campbell was injured in a cycling accident in 1984 and it was revealed through secret memo’s that Special Branch officers were given his bicycle pannier and papers. At the precise moment his house was also raided on a search warrant. In 1987, Campbell was invited by the BBC to write and present a six-part documentary series the Secret Society. Before running the programme, and reviewing its blunt and factual content, the BBC top management got nervous and approached the government for advice. The British Government’s reaction resulted in the raid at the BBC’s Scottish headquarters including Campbell’s home. The Special Branch seized the films that were recorded as, The Zircon Affair. Zircon revealed the existence of a secret £500m British spy satellite programme of the same name. Campbell’s investigation detailed how the government policy was being decided by a group of unaccountable committees operating beyond the scrutiny of parliament and the public. Eventually, the Zircon films were returned, but the BBC chose not to release the episodes. The redacted and much altered version appeared on Channel 4 in 1991. In 1988, Campbell revealed the existence of the GCHQ’s top secret ECHELON project. Due to Campbell’s work, finally in 1997, the ECHELON become controversial throughout the world. In 1998, Campbell was asked by the European Parliament to report on the development of surveillance technology and the risk of abuse of economic information, especially in relation to the ECHELON system. His report, “Interception Capabilities 2000” was approved by the European Parliament in April 1999, and tabled at the EU Parliament in February 2000. In July 2000, the EU Parliament appointed a committee of 36 MEPs to further investigate the ECHELON system. The efforts to block ECHELON fell apart since 9/11 happened and the world got ‘exposed’ to a new ‘global terrorism’ threat. In 1997 Campbell became one of the founding members of the Centre for Public Integrity in Washington D.C. The Center helped found the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). ICIJ is designed to be a cross border investigative outfit “focusing on issues that do not stop at national frontiers.” In 2002, Campbell became part of an investigation into the role of private security firms and lobbyist groups in the wars being waged across the globe by the US and UK. The investigation titled, ‘Making a Killing: The Business of War’ exposed the increasing use of private security firms and mercenaries and the how the multi-billion dollar defense industry’s lobbying methods lack any accountability. In 2006, the ICIJ started a project with a much wider scope. The investigation focused on how the global trade funds terrorism, organized crime and how the tax sheltering/loss of tax revenues hurt the developing economies from where the big business earn billions of dollars and avoids paying taxes by using shell companies. Finally In 2013, ICIJ began publishing the results of its investigation linking tax havens to the global movement of money to avoid tax. The investigation called “Offshore Leaks,” is one of the largest journalism collaboration in the modern history. The data from this collaboration forms the core of the material that has been published in series of stories by the Guardian, Sunday Times, and Sydney Morning Herald etc. The citizens of the British Common Wealth, the Overseas Territories and in particular our direct reading audiences in the Cayman Islands are often dismissive of the sporadic evidence against the FCO with skepticism. The message and the writ of the British Governance through their UK appointed representatives in the OT’s such as Cayman is that; there can be no wrong on part of the Crown and its law enforcement entities, and anything said or brought against their abuse of power it is either malicious or ‘forged’. The suppression of Operation Tempura report, the Aina Report, the recent review of the performance of the Office of the DPP and so many others in the past, by the successive Governors of the Cayman Islands, perfectly fit the pattern of ‘secrecy’ and suppression in the mother country, UK. The Crown appointed Auditor Generals are way too trigger happy to blast the locally elected members of the legislative assembly and their ‘mismanagement’ of the tax payers dollars, they would not dare raise their pen to ink any gross wastage of public money paid out for this fancy reports, by the very tax payers of the Cayman Islands, who have every right to read the findings of the reports that they fund. The Auditor General cannot also criticize the DPP or the Attorney General for prosecuting cases that fall flat on their face in the courts, resulting in wastage of public funds and at times paying huge settlement costs. The Auditor General can also not write or comment in the RCIP’s funding and spending nor can comment on the covert operations funding in the country. The spending by the Crown is simply off the charts. The 2003 Iraq War’s Chilcot Inquiry, Lord Janners Child Abuse inquiry, Ex British PM Edward Heath’s child abuse inquiry and the UK Met Police sex abuse inquiry to name a few are all suppressed or not made public in the UK in the name of ‘public interest’. The cherry on the top is the Scotts Report commissioned in 1992 to investigate the 1980’s large export of lethal weapons to Iraq including chemical and biological warfare equipment. The equipment was sold under the able guidance of the FCO. The inquiry never saw the light of the day. UK went to war with the very country it supplied weapons to, during the 1980’s. So much for facts Mr. Blair! So here is the question, Do we really need to ‘forge’ any more evidence to prosecute those sitting in the corridors of power at the very top or are the rules of engagement different for the common man, who is at the receiving end of the law? It seems that those who enact and impose the laws are above it at all, every times, for as long as ‘we’ allow the sun to never set on the British Empire. The first part of this commentary was published in Tuesday, 11 July’s edition of The Cayman Reporter. It is available online at www.caymanreporter.com http://www.caymanreporter.com/2015/08/12/uks-official-secrets-act-forgeries-facts-part-2/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT So much info in this article. Lots of interesting things I didn't know about. Need to do some more reading, I think.  Not up to it now.  Really tired & having trouble just taking this in. Duncan Campbell was sort of like Assange Mark I. I'm just about falling asleep, and all I have to say for the time being is: same crap, different decade Nothing ever changes. Those in power were always corrupt and continue to be corrupt. The corruption and the abuse of power never ends. And it is a different law for them. So intelligence agencies are: violators of law violators of civil liberties violators of democratic process servants of corporate interests footsoldiers of the powerful and corrupt Robin Hood in reverse: take from the poor (public) to lavishly fund their own existence take from poor (public) & give to rich, funding the manifestation of corporate agendas start wars, on behalf of corporate interests, leaving the poor (public) to foot the corporate bill - for generations liars who deceive public: claiming 'national interests' & 'security' etc ... and get the public to underwrite that, too. It's an intelligence services and democracy is a hoax. ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  A good companion piece might be: 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état HERE [No time for labels.  Will pass out if I don't lie down - now.  lol] ꕤ

Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists

https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canada-illegally-spied-on-environmental-activists There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists By Rachel Browne August 12, 2015 | 8:35 pm A federal watchdog committee is set to begin a round of secret hearings to probe complaints that Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has been illegally snooping on environmental activists working against oil pipeline projects. In 2014 the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints against CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accusing both agencies of spying on environmental and First Nations groups who were organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude west from Alberta to BC. The groups allegedly subjected to surveillance include the Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and ForestEthics Advocacy. "This kind of activity, what's being alleged, has no place in democracy. The government and its spy agencies should not be busy surveilling and gathering intelligences on citizenships who are simply living their lives and participating in their communities," Josh Paterson, BCCLA's executive director, told VICE News. "There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people they don't agree with. And Canada should not be one of them." The BCCLA's complaints, based on government documents obtained under access to information requests, further allege the spy agency also shared their intelligence about "radicalized environmentalist" groups with the National Energy Board. CSIS has long denied the BCCLA's allegations. "CSIS investigates — and advises government on — threats to national security, and that does not include peaceful protest and dissent," a CSIS spokesperson told the CBC last year. New federal anti-terror legislation, known as Bill C-51, that recently came into force gives CSIS more powers to probe and disrupt extremist activities and has raised further worries that environmental and aboriginal groups in Canada could be subjected to more surveillance than ever before. This week, the Guardian reported on the great lengths the Conservative government has undertaken to protect two major pipeline projects — Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan — from environmental and First Nations groups. According to documents obtained under access to information by Greenpeace, the government is spending $30 million over two years on domestic and international "outreach activities" to promote the oil sands industry in Alberta. That's on top of the $22 million the government spent in 2014 on a similar ad campaign in the US. The three-day hearings held by the committee that oversees CSIS start today in Vancouver and are shrouded in secrecy — media and members of the public are barred from attending. This afternoon, Paterson will testify for the complainants. And tomorrow, witnesses from groups allegedly spied on will testify about their experiences. But it's unclear when CSIS will argue its side. As part of its disclosure ahead of the hearings, Paterson says CSIS has provided only printouts from its website and has said that a senior spy service manager, known only as "Robert," will testify at some point. CSIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from VICE News. "It's so secretive that we likely won't know until after it has taken place and it makes this whole hearing super bizarre as an accountability mechanism. We have no ability to know what CSIS' argument is, what their evidence is, we can't respond to their arguments, our lawyers are not able to interact with what CSIS is saying," said Paterson. He added that the BCCLA is not suggesting that a hearing about spying should never be held in secret, especially if there are legitimate concerns about national security or if it would put people in danger. "But here, the government's documents have made clear that there was no threat, that there was no question that these groups were engaged in anything other than peaceful activities. And so we really question why more information can't be disclosed by CSIS about what they were doing." Last week, Alexandra Swann, a volunteer with the Dogwood Initiative, opened up about how the purported spying revelations have impacted her activism. "Finding out had a chilling effect for me. Suddenly, I was very concerned how far it had extended," she wrote on the BCCLA's website. "Was I personally named somewhere? Had they investigated my online activities? Read my emails? I realized the right to privacy was a myth in this country, and that being a decent person was no barrier to illegal scrutiny by people far more powerful than me." Paterson said that witnesses will testify that the allegations about widespread CSIS surveillance has turned many people off from community activism. "We're going to be hearing evidence from witnesses who say people are refusing to sign petitions because they don't want their names out there because they're worried about what security agencies might do," he said. "We're also going to hear evidence from a new Canadian hoping to have Canadian citizenship who also didn't want to sign a petition because she was afraid of upsetting the government. And others who were fearful of volunteering with community organizations because it might draw unwanted attention from community organizations. The BCCLA says it will consider asking the oversight committee to issue summonses to the CSIS employees listed on the documents. The committee's probe is expected to take more than a year. Follow Rachel Browne on Twitter: @rp_browne https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canadas-spy-agency-snooped-on-environmental-activists ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------- ---------------------- COMMENT This is huge. Look at all the public funds that are being spent on *corporations*. Capitalists are anti communism and anti welfare, but they're happy with 'corporate socialism' - ie receiving public funds, bail-outs etc & 'austerity' is never a problem for corporations:  they get rewarded for being crooks. The Canadian government sounds like a corporate 'fascist' / totalitarian nightmare that's developing all over. It's just more and more of the same that's going on everywhere. Governments in bed with corporate interests, at the expense of the public, and governments / government agencies abusing their power. ꕤ

Canada - CSIS Illegal Spying on Enrironmental Activists - Lawsuit | Bill C-51 Gives CSIS Power to Break Law & Violate Constitution

CSIS spy exposé triggers federal hearings By Linda Solomon Wood & Jenny Uechi in News | August 12th 2015 A Vancouver Observer investigation has prompted hearings about whether the RCMP and CSIS broke the law by spying on environmental groups. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) began hearing arguments today in Vancouver by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) regarding the Harper government's extensive spying on groups critical of the tar sands. The spying was revealed in documents obtained by National Observer's sister publication, Vancouver Observer, in 2013. "We wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been for the Vancouver Observer," said BCCLA executive director Josh Paterson. The Observer investigation showed the National Energy Board (NEB) coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor groups opposing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline: The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show. Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate. The federal government spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association, BCCLA will argue, Paterson said. The hearings opened in a cloak of secrecy. The government barred reporters from photographing people going in or out of the court to prevent them from capturing the image of a secret agent. No media were allowed to observe or report on the hearings and the public is not allowed to attend. But Paterson spoke this morning about what he expected to happen behind closed doors. "Clearly, if there were issues of national security at stake — if there were information that would compromise the safety of agents in the field — you could see why a hearing might take place in secret," he said. "What we know from government documents makes clear that there was no threat to national security, that these groups were operating peacefully. So we don’t understand why at the very least CSIS can’t make more documents public about its activities," he added. "We’re arguing that CSIS broke the law by gathering intelligence about the democratic activities of Canadians in relation to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. We'll see through these hearings that spies and police though surveillance intimidate people until they feel like they don’t want to participate in the democratic process." CSIS spying exposed through FOIs In November 2013, Matt Millar, then a reporter for Vancouver Observer, obtained Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that showed the NEB coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor several groups, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, Leadnow, Dogwood Initiative and the Council of Canadians. The FOI material revealed that the NEB was arranging police protection for Enbridge and TransCanada staff, while keeping a close eye on their critics. Vancouver Observer subsequently reported that Canada's chief spy watchdog, Chuck Strahl, then head of SIRC, had registered as a lobbyist for Enbridge. Further investigations revealed that Strahl, a former Conservative cabinet minister, had been contracted by Enbridge since 2011. The stories prompted the BCCLA to file a complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists, Paterson said. They also led to Strahl's resignation due to perceived conflict of interest. "This stems from documents that were released to the Vancouver Observer that suggested that the RCMP and CSIS had gathered intelligence and shared intelligence on citizens group," said Paterson. "These were groups that were either assisting people to participate in the process, or organizing people to protest against the proposed pipeline. That is part of the life of a democracy and that should be welcomed." "Instead, we see that the government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. This is highly problematic, and potentially a violation of people’s charter rights," Paterson said. national energy board, CSIS, spying on environmentalists, government spying, RCMP Screenshot of email in which Rick Garber, NEB's "Group Leader of Security," discussing monitoring of First Nations pipeline critics in Prince Rupert. Hearings taking place in atmosphere of secrecy CSIS has disclosed very little information heading into the three-day hearings, BCCLA lawyer Paul Champ told the Canadian Press. Paterson said he hopes for a fair ruling by SIRC, but is disturbed by aspects of secrecy that might thwart a just process. "There’s a whole extra-secret part of the hearings that we’re not allowed to attend. Just CSIS and their lawyers will be there, and they’ll make their case in secret. They won’t even tell us when it’s going to happen. We’ll receive a redacted transcript." Yves Fortier, a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee who was revealed to be a former TransCanada board member who still held shares in the company, will be part of the committee reviewing this case, he said. "[Fortier] himself is by all accounts an upstanding individual of impeccable reputation," Paterson said. "However, he did used to be on a board of a pipeline company whose name is mentioned in these documents. We had asked for him to step aside based on the appearance of bias." In November of 2013, Vancouver Observer broke the news that Harper government officials and spies met with industry officials in Ottawa. In the shadow of Bill C-51 In February 2014 the BCCLA filed a complaint with the review committee after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security. The complaint cited reports the spy service had shared information with the National Energy Board about "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board’s hearings on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which would see Alberta crude flow westward to the B.C. coast. The passage of government security legislation that gives CSIS new powers to disrupt extremist activity has only heightened concerns about government monitoring of environmental and aboriginal protesters who oppose oil pipelines. Paterson is adamant that Bill C-51 has given CSIS far greater powers to break the law and even to violate the constitution. "They have to get a warrant from a judge but that gives us no comfort at all. It’s not the job of judges to break the law but to protect the constitution," he said. "This motivates CSIS to go to judges and say, 'Here’s what we’re planning,' but CSIS has a long history of breaching its duty of candor." "The only thing they’re not allowed to do is violate someone’s sexual integrity, to kill someone or to subvert justice," Paterson adderd. "Short of that, they’re being given the power to break the law and violate the constitution." CSIS did not immediately respond to questions about the process. SIRC has been reached for comment, but did not respond before publication time. — with files from the Canadian Press http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/12/news/csis-spy-expos%C3%A9-triggers-federal-hearings CSIS = Canadian Security Intelligence Service Main national security agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service SIRC = Security Intelligence Review Committee supposedly independent agency to oversee CSIS inefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists ACTIVIST'S PERSPECTIVE Hey CSIS. If you're listening, we're going to hold your spying to account. By Kai Nagata     August 13, 2015 http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/08/hey-csis-if-youre-listening-were-going-to-hold-your-spying ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- --------------------- COMMENT Wealth of reasons not to give intelligence agencies greater powers. Canada's is shocking & the 'watchdog' (from other articles I've read), is completely toothless. More spying on those engaged in democratic activities  - ie those protesting environmental issues, in this case. Tons of information here.  And what applies in Canada, applies elsewhere.  As in, this is what happens when you give intelligence agencies unchecked power.  It's not used for the benefit of the community; it's used against the community, to further corporate interests (by look of this). Canada sounds bent. ꕤ

ANDREA VANCE - 'NZ spies want greater powers'

NZ spies want greater powers ANDREA VANCE Last updated 12:18, August 13 2015 Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. STEPHEN RUSSELL/FAIRFAX MEDIA Grapes grow in a vineyard around the GSCB monitoring station in the Waihopai Valley near Blenheim. The release of a "hit list" by Islamic State with a Kiwi's name on it comes as New Zealand's spy agencies demand greater surveillance powers. Emergency anti-terror laws passed last year were promoted as measures to stop foreign fighters leaving for conflicts in Syria and Iraq. However, they also allowed the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) to monitor any terrorist suspects for 24 hours without a warrant. Additionally the reforms permitted the spy agency to conduct video surveillance on private property in cases of suspected terrorism. The new laws came on the back of expanded powers handed to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) in 2013. Caught out illegally spying on Kiwis, the foreign agency was now sanctioned to use its technology and agents to carry out surveillance on behalf of the police, SIS and Defence Force. Terrorism suppression legislation, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, designated terrorist groups and created offences around financing and allowed for the freezing of assets. It also incorporated international obligations, establishing offences relating to recruiting, bombing and handling explosives. It also meant planning a terrorist act, or making a "credible" threat, was illegal even if it was not carried out. Five years later, the law was amended and now allowed for the Prime Minister to designate which groups were considered terrorists, where previously it was the role of the high court. A review of that legislation was abandoned by the Government in 2012. Interception warrants - for monitoring communications - could be done under a range of laws such as the SIS and GCSB Acts and the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987. But security services were pushing for more, arguing current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology. Canada, Australia and the UK are in the process of pushing through tough anti-terror laws which they said were needed to counter jihadis. British Prime Minister David Cameron last month outlined a five-year plan to counter extremism, focused on how ideology was communicated - but critics fear it would curb freedom of speech. The GCSB legislation established a review of the security services, which was currently being carried out by former deputy prime minister Sir Michael Cullen and lawyer Dame Patsy Reddy. On Tuesday, SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge said the legislation governing her agency needed to change. SIS and GCSB minister Chris Finlayson refused to rule out expanded surveillance powers when questioned in Parliament this week. SOURCE http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/71090362/nz-spies-want-greater-powers ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------    Foreign intel - GCSB - here Internal intel - NZSIS - here Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General- here ---------------------- COMMENT Wow, that was some interesting NZ information in the look ups. Both agencies have a record of spectacularly overstepping their bounds and unlawfully violating civil liberties, yet more power is sought. Some confusion on my part as to who is responsible.  If I understand correctly, it's John 'Teflon' Key, according to convention (Wikipedia). But it looks like responsibility for intel has maybe been hand-balled. Assume from the article that the minister responsible for both agencies is the attorney-general, Christopher Finlayson.  Did Key handball it to the attorney-general, or is Key ultimately responsible and overseeing the attorney-general? Alternatively, is this really attorney-general territory in practice? It looks like Finlayson's minister in charge of SIS (Security Intelligence Services), going by his profile.  Don't see anything re the foreign intel agency, GCSB. Freedom of speech Civil liberties are definitely on the line, if this lot's going to have a crack at controlling how ideology is communicated' expanding their already considerable powers. Everybody's freedom of speech is civil liberties are at risk - not just a select group, because anybody can become be designated a 'threat' - eg.  NZSIS designated 20 apartheid protesters of the 1980s as 'subversives' and put them on what is presumably a secret surveillance list. Edit:  GCSB - also caught spying illegally / see Kitteridge Report. For government agencies known to spy on activists, animal activists and, by implication, NZ political parties (see Gillchrist 10 years paid NZ govt spy & the NZSIS), these organisations (and the govt that controls them) ought to be kept in check, rather than awarded further powers.   They've already have proven they don't abide by existing laws.  'More' power isn't what they need. NZSIS spying on students and university staff, under the pretext of protecting New Zealanders from 'weapons of mass destruction' is hilarious.  Don't know whether the humour's in the Wikipedia entry, or if they really did use that insane excuse.  Didn't look further than the Wikipedia entry. If it's left to John Key and his government to designate 'terrorist' targets for surveillance by these agencies, the danger is that Teflon will chose on the basis of political considerations - like preservation of power.  lol Note also:  anyone who is deemed a political or like threat (as in threat to maintenance of power, cover-ups etc), is likely labelled 'terrorist'. For example, Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) was labelled 'terrorist' by the Americans ... for exposing US war crimes!   People, this is comedy gold. Instead of writing that propaganda show for the BBC, mocking the serious danger Assange is in, had those entertainment writers given even a cursory look at intelligence agencies, they'd have found themselves comedy gold.    Never going to happen.  Just as mainstream journalism seldom challenges those in power in any meaningful way, entertainment writers apparently also dare not challenge the powerful.  Like hyenas, they despicably attack the target of the powerful. --- Hey, New Zealand This Is What Happens When Intel Agencies Have Unchecked Power spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. MORE - here + MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists PS This post is a mess, but I'll let it stand as testimony to my stupidity.  lol Don't know what I was thinking.  Must have got confused by the mention of the UK implementations.   Same deal, whether it's speech or privacy issue, so it all stands. PPS If they're using the argument that "current laws were outdated and did not keep pace with technology," they're probably wanting to amp up digital surveillance in NZ, I'm guessing. ꕤ

Transcript: WikiLeaks - €100,000 reward for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

TRANSCRIPT [ For quotation purposes, confirm audio beforehand.] SOURCE - VIDEO [11:00] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&t=1m34s ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- WikiLeaks is raising €100,000 reward for the Trans-Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) Narrator WikiLeaks is raising a €100,000 reward for Europe's most wanted secret: the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP). John Pilger Investigative Journalist This is something enormous. It is about a final control, and it's the United States saying: there maybe another power in the world, but we will be the ultimate power. Julian Assange Editor in Chief Wikileaks The TTIP is the most important thing that is happening in Europe right now. It's a secretive deal, being negotiated between Europe and the United States. Narrator Once signed, it will cement a key part of the US government's plan to create a new global block that will ensure the dominance of its largest companies, and to understand why, we need to go back to the 1950s. [COMMERCIAL CLIP - CHEVROLET] After the second world war, the United States accounted for half of the world's economy. Its influence was unmatched by any country and it was able to write the early rules of international trade to its advantage. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in this context, and the US dicated rules that favoured American business. But as economies like China and India joined the WTO, it became a more democratised arena and the US found it harder to control its decision making. John Pilger Investigative Journalist At the WTO Doha rounds, India spoke up and Brazil spoke up, and the US lost control. Pascal Lamy WTO Chief I think it's no use beating around the bush. This meeting has collapsed. Narrator The US felt it needed a new strategy to maintain its global dominance, so in the classical American style, they went big. To bypass the WTO, they're creating the biggest international agreements that the world has ever seen. They're called the Three Big Ts: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ; the Trans-Atlantic Trade &  Investment Partnership (TTIP); the Trade In Services Agreement (TiSA); and they're all being negotiated in secret, right now. John Pilger Investigative Journalist We only found out when WikiLeaks was able to leak parts of them. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want What's interesting when you look across all of these deals, whether it be TTIP, TPP or TiSA, China is excluded. But also Brasil, Russia, India, South Africa. They're all excluded, because those are the emerging economies. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism What is not often understood is that these agreements are part of a geopolitical war. This is a new war which is taking place between the United States and China. The United States is very scared of the rise of China, so it has moved to militarily encircle it through what is called 'the pivot to Asia'. And now it's moving onto doing that economically. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks The basic idea which comes across from reading US strategy papers, is the construction of a new grand enclosure, and to put inside this grand enclosure: the United States; 51 other countries; 1.6 billion people; and two-thirds of global GDP; to integrate Latin America away from Brazil and towards the United States;  to integrate South-East Asia away from China and towards the United States; and  to integrate Western Europe, pulling it away from Eurasia as a whole and towards the Atlantic. Narrator Of the Three Big Ts, WikiLeaks has revealed four (4) chapters of the TTP, which affects twelve (12) countries and the Americas and South-east Asia. We also obtained and released the core text of TiSA, which affects fifty-two (52) countries, including the EU. But nearly all of TiSA is still secret. When signed, TTIP will cover half of global GDP and will affect every European State, yet European parliamentarians have serious restrictions in accessing the proposed agreement Jean Lambert Member of the European Parliament Green Party Yeah, I found it incredible as well, but - for something that is a trade agreement, not a matter of life and death in terms of security where maybe you can understand some restrictions (and we don't even like those very much), but for a trade agreement? You know, that we can't actually make notes about what it is that we're reading; issues that we might want to take away to look into, which actually might reassure us, you know, if we really were able to sort of take this away and look at it in depth. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want We don't have access to the key documents, the most important ones. Because the devil is in the detail, when it comes to trade agreements, you kneed to know exactly what's in the text, so that you can assess what the impact's going to be. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks If EU parliamentarians want to see the TTIP, they have to call the US embassy and make an appointment. Appointments are only available two (2) days a week for two (2) hour time slots. Only two (2) parliamentarians are permitted at once. They go to the US embassy, they have to hand in every electronic device, so they cannot possibly make a copy. They must agree to keep everything confidential and they are led to a secure reading room where two (2) US embassy guards watch everything that they do. How can EU parliamentarians possibly understand what they're negotiating for Europe under these circumstances? Narrator The world's biggest corporations don't have the same problem. They have been receiving VIP access from day one, and have had abundant influence in the negotiations. John Pilger Investigative Journalist People - the likes of you and I - are excluded. Governments, to a great extent, are excluded. Those who are included are the multinational corporations. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism These agreements are basically corporate ownership agreements. The funny thing about free trade agreements as we understand them is they often have nothing to do wiht trade, in the sense of the mutual lowering of tarrifs. What they are about is enshrining an investor rights regime in the respective countries, and ensuring that corporations can run wild in the respective economies, with very, very little regulation or impingement by government or authorities. Claire Provost Centre for Investigative Journalism These treaties will have huge, huge, implications, for literally almost every critical issue that individual citizens in our community would care about: health, education, the environment, privacy, and access to medicines, and the list could go on. Narrator One of the most criticised aspects of TTIP is a system called the Investor State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. It's a secretive, international tribunal that allows companies to sue states over virtually anything that they can claim affects their investment. Claire Provost Centre for Investigative Journalism If a protest affects their profits, they can sue. If laws affect their profits, they can sue. If new regulations might impact where or what they want to do with their money, they can sue. John Hilary Executive Director War on Want This is a new power which will be handed over to the US corporations to sue the governments of Europe in a parallel judicial system which is available to them alone. So, people have no access to it. Domestic firms have no access to it. Governments have no access to it. It's just the foreign investors; in this case, US corporations. Narrator Based on ISDS history, critics argue that European state sovereignty and democracy are at serious risk. Previous law suits include Swedish company Vattenfall suing the German state for $3.7 billion for phasing out nuclear energy. British-American tobacco sued Australia for passing a law limiting cigarette advertising. The French company Veolia sued Egypt for raising the minimum wage. TTIP advocates say that in order for the EU and the US to become a single market, regulatory barriers need to be eliminated. This way, for example, a US seatbelt manufacturer already selling seatbelts to domestically wouldn't need to test for safety a second time as the EU would agree to recognise the US safety standards. They argue that this would save costs, create jobs and lower prices for consumers, but just how safe are US standards? John Hilary Executive Director War on Want So, in the US, seventy percent (70%) of all processed food sold in supermarkets contains genetically modified ingredients. Whereas in the European Union, we've said quite clearly we don't want GM ingredients in our food chain. Similarly, in the US 90% of all beef is produced using growth hormones which have been found to be carcinogenic in humans, so they're banned in the European Union, and what the US government is saying is that, under TTIP, under the free trade rules they want to bring in, European consumers don't get the right to choose. Narrator TTIP includes all of the most important public sectors in Europe, including education, water, railways, postal services, and, most controversially, it also includes public health services. Matt Kennard Centre for Investigative Journalism What is so scary about this is that corporations want to lock in their power. So they not only want increased power, they want to make impossible for sovereign governments to reverse the changes which are going to give them power. So, for example, with TTIP, if it passes with ISDS in it, the privatisation of the National Health Service (NHS) which is happening in the UK can never be reversed. John Pilger Investigative Journalist What is democratic about an enormous imposition of power on countries whose citizens have no way of knowing what's going on, of debating it, or influencing their government in its decision. That's anti-democratic. Julian Assange Editor in Chief WikiLeaks The history of these agreements shows that they're very difficult to change, unless people can see what's in them, and that's why they're kept secret. Because when the contents are revealed, it generates an opposition. Narrator: WikiLeaks has had considerable delaying the TPP and opening up the debate around it, and the TiSA, by releasing the draft texts. A publication of an earlier proposed US-EU agreement, the ACTA, killed it entirely. WikiLeaks is raising a €100,000 reward for Europe's most wanted secret: the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Help the world become a more transparent place. Do your part. Go to: www.wikileaks.org/ttip-reward SOURCE - VIDEO [11:00] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&t=1m34s ꕤ