January 10, 2011
Like death and taxes somethings are as plain & certain as the nose on one’s face. White-settler governments lie all the time.
Albeit not as openly nor as obvious as it had been done in the very recent ‘past’ , public perceptions & all. Rather things are now done in a round-about way , using terms that do not mean what many presume or expect them to mean. After all there is a huge difference, between what is supposedly legal,and that which is honorable,moral and just.
One such example is the “duty to consult“…
That is the governments of Canada (Federal,Provincial & Municipal) have a “duty to consult” with Indigenous peoples regarding any development etc, on their traditional territories .Much is being made of this notion , indeed certain white-people are constantly patting themselves on the back for finally doing right by Indigenous Peoples.
Unfortunately its nothing but wordsmithing …
The Cnd government will & does interpret “duty to consult” to mean anything it wants it to mean,as long as it means, that in the end the government gets it’s way. A duty is the one thing it is not, just more of the same-ol, same-ol.
Just as First Nations Peoples of B.C & Ontario have found out,regarding mine development the Inuit of Nunavut are now discovering this reality for themselves.
Using settler courts and laws in hopes of inducing settler-governments to do the right thing & act honorably, is an exercise in futility. The powers that be just change their laws or interpret their laws in their favour , failing that, they stall, double-talk, & stall some more . So much for the supposedly sacrosanct notion of the ‘ rule of law’,that Canada always goes on about.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
December 8, 2010
Australia’s Foreign minister Kevin Rudd had this to say today regarding the leak of U.S Embassy cables…
It was also reveled today that the U.S is seeking the extradition of Julian Assange.
With that in mind it should be obvious to all what’s really going on here regarding the Swedish extradition request,Sweden being a ‘covert’ ally of NATO and all. Only a fool would believe that the timing of Sweden’s highly irregular extradition request -based on phony rape & molestation charges – is mere coincidence.
“In Sweden it’s quite bizarre though, because the chief prosecutor, the director of public prosecution in Sweden dropped the entire case against him, saying there was absolutely nothing for him to face, back in September. And then, a few weeks ago, after the intervention of a Swedish politician, a new prosecutor, not in Stockholm, where Julian and these women had been, but in Gothenburg, began a new case, which of course has resulted in these warrants and of course the Interpol red notice being put out across this week.
It does seem to be a political stunt, I mean, I have, and his Swedish lawyer, have been trying to get in touch with the prosecutors since August. Now, usually, it’s the prosecutor who does the pursuing, not the pursued. And in this particular case, Julian Assange has tried to vindicate himself, has tried to meet with the prosecutors, to have his good name restored.”
“Change we can all believe in”,courtesy of His O’ness and lest we forget Hillary Clinton.
The more things change the more they stay the same,all governments lie,all the time.
December 7, 2010
Who would have thought
Indeed I had to do a double-take after reading that, lest I be mistaken. Sweden you say ? Surely this can not be correct ? After all Sweden is often held up as the premier example of the social-democratic welfare state ?
But upon closer examination -as is the case with many things in life- the actual reality seems to be at odds with commonly held perceptions. For instance while accusation and reports of rape in Sweden are by far the highest at 46.5 per 100,000,the conviction rate of only 10% is one of the lowest in Europe. More on this later…
And remember the righteous outrage of people around the world regarding the U.S government’s Empire’s use of extraordinary rendition .Well apparently Sweden was knowingly in the loop & provided assistance in the form of landing rights and the like. Now given Sweden’s long social-democratic tradition & its subsequent reputation, how can this be ? In fact where was Sweden’s supposedly exemplary social-democratic tradition then ?
Well pretty much where it is today,i.e collaborating with the Empire. This time round to silence an individual . That being Julian Assange 39- the founder of Wikileaks – in fact they are attempting to destroy his reputation and possibly imprison him for daring to very publicly confirm what many of us have long known, the Empire has no clothes. And lest anyone have anymore doubts,when push comes to shove the government will & can fuck you over if it so desires. Surprise,surprise & despite all the “checks and balances” of our supposedly democratic system.
That’s where, in this particular case, Sweden’s very broad & very bizarre rape laws come in handy.
Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape . Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual
To pile injustice onto suspicion ,ala Swedish “social-democracy”…
The women here are near to and over 30 and have international experience, some of it working in Swedish government embassies. There is no suggestion of drugs nor identity concealment. Far from it. Both women boasted of their celebrity connection to Assange after the events that they would now see him destroyed for..
Then there is this bizarre proposal,i.e adult consent does not always mean real consent …
Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange’s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution “Development Unit” could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange’s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time he allegedly committed it. She would need to. There is no precedent for it. The Swedes are making it up as they go along.
Make sure you read the entire article linked to above, to get an idea of just how bizarre the rape & gender laws are in Sweden. Imagine paternalism ,feminism and do-gooder attitudes all rolled into one & taken to the extreme.
It’s all just so coincidental don’t you think.
Indeed one need not be a conspiracy hound to imply or believe that the U.S government Empire put a lot of pressure on Sweden regarding Julian Assange. Again it would not be the first time that the two countries have worked together to subvert the democratic & human rights of individuals,supposedly innocent until proven guilty. Well at least according to the social-democratic principles that I am familiar with.
One can only hope for, democracy’s sake, that British law is not so complying and the Swedish extradition request gets tossed into the trash where it belongs.
For all the latest on this foolishness & WikiLeaks in general be sure to read & bookmark WL Central
December 2, 2010
h/t Harpers mag
UPDATE ; Reporters Without Borders on the hounding of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
“Reporters Without Borders condemns the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure being directed at cablegate.wikileaks.org, the website dedicated to the US diplomatic cables. The organization is also concerned by some of the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
November 13, 2010
Apparently some of the politicians and people of Oklahoma
So much so they passed Measure 755 ,which…
forbids the use of international and Shari’ah law in state courts. As of the time of writing (Nov 2 2010), it has passed, winning nearly 70% of the vote.
Hello , Shari’ah law is not a codified set of laws ,it`s an ideal…
Shari’ah is, for Muslims, the “path to the water”; the texts that normatively define a moral life and the means to God and heaven in the life to come. But Shari’ah is an ideal. Muslims, across countries and centuries, have only ever been able to interpret revelation, producing readings of Shari’ah which are never fully conclusive, because Islam recognizes no central authority to define those readings once and for all. Thus Islam’s decentralization, its many competing discourses, all pushing and pulling around a body of texts that are nearly universally agreed upon—but over whose interpretations most debates never end.
That said its easy to smirk at the seemingly gullibility of the average Oklahoman .
But given the ubiquitous references & never-ending yammering, on the Canadian talk radio circuit,in regards to Shari’ah law & its supposed “eminent imposition“ on us hapless Christians. One has to wonder when a Canadian politician will propose a similar ,head-the-boogy-man-off -at-the pass-law.
Read more at, Religious Dispatches
Well I`ll be gobsmacked.
It would seem Canada Ontario has already been down that path.Indeed, in terms of kookiness Ontario is years(5) ahead of them Okies, yahoo go Ontario …
Damn how dumb & fearful are some people, a flock of sheep comes to mind.
As of February 23, 2006 the Act to amend the Arbitration Act of 1991 ,became law.
The state and only the state will decided what is best for families, regardless of the wishes of ones family ones beliefs and or sensibilities. Welcome to the nightmare as per; do-gooders,over zealous feminists,the ignorant, confused liberals,conservatives & progressives bah,bah,bah…
May 30, 2010
Change you can believe in, but actual change…
Well that’s just not going to be happening anytime soon. Like they say the prove is in the pudding.
And that prove was there for all to read with the release of the “National Security Strategy” by the White House.
Under the heading of , “Strengthen the Power of Our Example”:
The increased risk of terrorism necessitates a capacity to detain and interrogate suspected violent extremists, but that framework must align with our laws to be effective and sustainable. When we are able, we will prosecute terrorists in Federal courts or in reformed military commissions that are fair, legitimate, and effective. For detainees who cannot be prosecuted—but pose a danger to the American people—we must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards. We must have fair procedures and a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. And keeping with our Constitutional system, it will be subject to checks and balances. The goal is an approach that can be sustained by future Administrations, with support from both political parties and all three branches of government…@
….”For detainees who cannot be prosecuted—but pose a danger to the American people” …what exactly does that mean ?
O, on second thoughts I get it now… its kinda like what Dubya use to do, i.e , no-crime-no-proof-no-problem-lock-em-up,hell throw away the keys.
Or as Glenn Greenwald states…
Welcome to the one party state of A-merry-ca
May 4, 2010
And thank god for that…
I posted on this a while back about…
…self described human rights advocate/ law-suit-instigator extraordinaire, Richard Warman (god-bless his heart) has unleashed his paternalistic self-righteousness,yet again .
His target this time , anonymous commentators,specifically those that comment on web sites that he has a particular “fondness” for.
In a nut shell Warman wants the state to pass a law,which would force website owners/administrators (without first having to show cause) to disclose the names and IP addresses of those who would dare say bad/rude things about others,in particular himself.
Remember we are talking about comments here,not actions. Comments made during on-line conversations & debates. Usually on personal blogs & websites discussing political & social issues,subjects that can very easily go from passionate (but respectable) debate to juvenile name calling. Jeez…welcome to life…@
Anyway as the title implies Richard Warman has lost yet another “case”…
The targets of his latest suit, Connie & Mark Fournier of Free Dominion -a one stop talk shop for all your bigotry needs,will not have to disclose the ISP’s & e-mail addresses of the eight anonymous commentators who posted comments that Warman did not like.
The idea that Warman , a lawyer who should know better,would even launch such a suit defies common sense. On top of it all, Richard Warman’s actions have given ‘Free Domain’ much more publicity than they deserve,or that the site would have ever gotten otherwise.
Perhaps Mr Warman over looked the adage…’any publicity good or bad is better than none’ ? Then again maybe that’s the point publicity,albeit for himself ?
That said ,we all know which side is having the last laugh now yet again…
Way-to-go Richard for helping to boost ‘Free Dominion’s’ credibility & visibility. Just like you did for Marc Lemire & ‘Freedomsite.org’ ,in-fact just 7 short months ago.
The boy’s on a roll…
H/T Big City Lib
November 4, 2009
Well there’s Victory and then there’s “victory”…
In a lengthy written decision, Justice Nicole Garson gave the aboriginal people of the west coast of Vancouver Island the right to harvest and sell fish and other seafood in their territory, although the right is not unrestricted and must be negotiated with B.C. and Canada over the next two years…@
It should be said though that the court’s decision is just one of similar past rulings,now sitting on dusty shelf(s) , that have recognized First Nation rights. Rights, & laws, that are not only obvious & supported by International law & convention ,but also virtually impossible to deny no matter the criteria used,i.e legally,ethically or morally .
No need to hire an overpriced lawyer(s) to tell you that !
Sure the Tribal Council got a judge to recognize what is in fact quite obvious. Again at least to those people who understand the undeniable facts , indigenous peoples are nations with sovereign rights.
Not “inherent rights” but sovereign rights.
Implementation(when & if it even takes place) that respects the spirit and intent of these legal rulings,the only thing that will makes these rulings worth more than the paper they are written on, rarely if ever come even close to meeting the raised expectations of First Nations peoples.
The only way Indigenous peoples are going to regain power and control over their lives and territories is by exerting pressure,i.e by practicing their sovereign rights rather than seeking permission through the use of whitestream courts and laws.
A route that has proven to be pretty much a dead end.
Brings to mind a statement,aimed at his fellow Indian Act Chief’s, by former AFN National Chief David Ahenakew …”we lack the guts to implement the things we say we want”.
It should also not be forgotten that these same courts & laws are part and parcel of the same system that colonized & subjugated Indigenous peoples in the first place,infact still do. To believe that these same laws [and a native leadership working within & beholding to the Indian Act ] can now be used to liberate Indigenous peoples is quite naive,an assertion easily backed up by simply reviewing the historical & practical record.
Indeed ,when push comes to shove the government has and will always interpret such rulings in it’s favor,failing that the government will just outright ignore ,including it’s own laws, and or play word games.
The courts are often used by the government to stall,frustrate and delay.I believe it was Joe Gosnell (Nisga’a) who once stated, “you grow old at the negotiating table”.
But only time will tell I suppose,although I wouldn’t be holding my breath.
The likelihood of this ruling resulting in any meaningful change,again judging by the record to-date,are slim indeed.
One need only look to Delgamuukw ,a battle that consumed many long years and the precious/limited financial resource of Indigenous Peoples,all to finally get the courts to admit(partially) that there is such a thing as aboriginal title,duh really how “generous” of “white folk”,heh.
Despite Delgamuukw not much has changed on the practical side. First Nations are still fighting to this day,many years later,for basic rights that should be a given,given Delgamuukw ?