Thursday, May 28, 2015

More Useless, Self-Serving Testimony From Blaney-MacKay

Okay. Back to my exhaustive, and essentially pointless, examination of the testimony on C-51, Expansion of State Spying Act, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Last time, we caught out the witless Steven Blaney babbling about irrelevancies when asked clear questions about judicial oversight of the "disruption" activities of CSIS after the warrants have been issued. There is no subsequent oversight and Blaney knew this, so he dissembled and distracted, in his own clumsy way, to avoid having to admit it.

Now, evidently, the stolen majority government gets to have more questions from one of their own trained seals.
     I want to thank the ministers and their officials for attending this meeting this morning and for their input.

    Back in the 1920s my grandparents were experiencing terrorism in what was then known as the Soviet Union. They were refugees in Canada during that time. We've been thankful ever since that the government allowed my grandparents to immigrate here under the refugee program.
    One of the things that is of interest to me is with regard to the changes being made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
    In terms of some of the amendments that this bill proposes, can you clarify why they are needed and why those changes are being made?

That's interesting actually. Dude refers to the terrorism of the Soviet Union. Where the government could spy on everyone, with no oversight. Where they had phony elections. Where human rights could be sacrificed to fight "wreckers" and "saboteurs" and other dangerous enemies of the state. Just like our elites today want to spy on us, and how harper engages in election fraud, and democracy is limited on purpose to only parties of the rich and powerful. And human rights are expendable. And environmentalists are all wreckers and saboteurs. And hunger-strikes by a First Nation Chief is "terrorism" and etc., etc., ...

But Falk's grandparents got to Canada as refugees. But, you know, the were SLAVS, a strange people with no understanding of British traditions of freedom and democracy, and therefore likely to end up eroding Canadian traditions by voting for demagogues, ... and mightn't they have been communist spies themselves??? Or, put another way, weren't those the groundless accusations his grandparents would have had to face in their day, the same way that Muslims or Arabs are generalized as being fundamentalist whack-jobs and death-cultists who are a danger to our society and no doubt recruitment fodder for terrorist groups? Vulnerable to "radicalization" and blah, blah, blah?
But let's hear the answer about the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

    Canada is a welcoming country. Canada is welcoming immigrants from around the world every year. There are more than 200,000 immigrants, new Canadians, coming to Canada. They come and they like, if I can put it this way, our Canadian way of living. My ancestors emigrated from Ireland. That's probably why I'm so skinny; there was not much to eat at that time. 
Gad, what an idiot!

    To get back to your question regarding the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, this is in response to the Supreme Court. In the case of some individuals who could come here and potentially represent a threat to our security, we want to make sure that we clarify the rules under which we are able to protect Canadians while ensuring that we respect their rights.
    That's why we've defined the way in which the information can be processed and also how we can protect national security in that regard. There is also a clearly defined appeal process for any individual. Once again, this is to clarify the procedures under which Canada, when an individual could represent a threat, is dealing with that issue.
    We've actually considered a former decision of the Supreme Court that indicated that we needed to clarify the law. That is why this section is in the bill.

Instead of hearing drivel about why you're skinny, it would help if you actually answered questions with specifics. Just a thought.

    I would only add, Mr. Falk, that this ties in with what Mr. Blaney outlined earlier in terms of the importance of the information sharing that goes on between government departments. I think it would actually shock some Canadians to know that this isn't already happening to the extent that's necessary in this very fluid and evolving threat assessment. The information sharing is extremely important particularly with a department such as immigration. To your very real experience in terms of your family lineage, so many people do come to this country to get out from under the yoke of terrorism, to leave that behind and to come to Canada and avail themselves of the protections that we enjoy in this country, our charter, our Constitution. Our way of life is something that they're quick to embrace.

    In talking about this bill, I think it's new Canadians perhaps who have the greatest perspective on what makes this country great and why they're here and why they're so quick to embrace and participate in the freedoms that we're so fortunate to enjoy. This bill is about enhancing and protecting those freedoms and all Canadians. 

What the fuck was that? Did MacKay think that there weren't enough empty generalities in Blaney's reply, so he thought he'd lard on some more??? I mean, what the fuck?? "Immigrants and refugees respect and admire our freedoms. That's why we'll spy on them more and trade their personal information hither and yon, even to departments that are allowed to share information with foreign governments."

    Thank you, Minister, and that's the way I see it as well, that this bill is a step forward in protecting our rights and freedoms.

    Can you explain briefly what the process is in respect to appealing a decision by a judge during the course of proceedings?

    With respect to immigration?

    Yes, with a security certificate regime.  

    I would suggest that you refer to clause 52 of the bill, which clearly defines the technical way in which an appeal can be targeted. The bill describes how it works. Basically, we base our appeal process on other appeal processes so that it would meet constitutional rights. That's how it is filled. I would say it is a model of appeal that compares to others in similar situations. 

Personally, I would suggest that Blaney actually say how you appeal a security certificate. Instead of telling MP's where to find the information.

52. Subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

72. (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter — a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under this Act is, subject to section 86.1, commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.

Application for judicial review
  •  (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter — a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.
  • Marginal note:Application
    (2) The following provisions govern an application under subsection (1):
    • (a) the application may not be made until any right of appeal that may be provided by this Act is exhausted;
    • (b) subject to paragraph 169(f), notice of the application shall be served on the other party and the application shall be filed in the Registry of the Federal Court (“the Court”) within 15 days, in the case of a matter arising in Canada, or within 60 days, in the case of a matter arising outside Canada, after the day on which the applicant is notified of or otherwise becomes aware of the matter;
    • (c) a judge of the Court may, for special reasons, allow an extended time for filing and serving the application or notice;
    • (d) a judge of the Court shall dispose of the application without delay and in a summary way and, unless a judge of the Court directs otherwise, without personal appearance; and
    • (e) no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory judgment.
So, if you find yourself under indefinite detention and in danger of being deported to a country that violates human rights under the secret evidence of a security certificate, does any of that give you any idea about how you fight back?

More useless testimony from Steven Blaney.

    Thank you, Minister.

    Now we'll go to—
    A voice: Mr. Chair....

    The Chair: Yes. 

    Mr. Chair, I'd like the discretion of the committee to be allowed to ask a question. As you know, a number of us as members of Parliament requested to have—
    The Chair: No.
    Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, we never—

Right. There might be more softball questions from harpercon sycophants to go through!
    No, you don't have the floor. You don't have the floor, I'm sorry. What I will do is the chair will put your request and if I have a majority decision here to allow that to happen, that could take place.

    Do I have unanimous support?
    An hon. member: No.
    The Chair: No we don't.
    Mr. Norlock, please.
Ahem! Yes Mr. Norlock, please!

   Mr. Chair, I have several areas I'd like to hit upon, so through you I would ask the witnesses that I'm about to ask questions if they could be succinct unless they feel it necessary to expand on their answers.
    My first question will be for Mr. Coulombe, the head of CSIS.

    Mr. Coulombe, in the 30-year history of CSIS, how many times has SIRC chastised or found you and your organization to be in breach of the rules under which you operate?

    From memory, I wouldn't do it justice. Prior to that, the certification of the director's annual report to the minister was done by the inspector general for two or three years. Now it's done by SIRC. Again, from memory, in all of those annual reports, the certification was always that our activities were done in conformity with the CSIS Act ministerial direction and it was never an abusive or excessive use of our powers.
 What nauseating tripe. There are several tortured Canadians who would beg to differ. That should be the end of the fucking story there. Ah! I see! Norlock limits Coulombe to criticism from SIRC, not any other investigation. SIRC, which they've spent their time here praising to the skies, while ignoring those who say it is toothless, and then using its lack of criticism of CSIS as a sign of how everything is hunky-dory.
    May I take it from that, that's zero?
You may take it that that's zero from SIRC anyway.
    There has been criticism and recommendation on ways to improve the way we do things but not in terms of breaking the laws.
Except for that torturing business.
    Thank you very much.

    Also, we heard mention in some of the questioning that Judge Mosley had some concerns with regard to the activities of CSIS. What have you done, sir, to address those concerns?

    Back in the fall of 2013 when the decision came down, the first thing we did was we stopped doing the activities that were caught in that process. It is very difficult for me to talk about some of the issues because there are still questions that are now in front of the Supreme Court and it would be improper for me to comment on this.
Allow me then! CSIS applied for warrants to spy on two Canadians (already suspected as threats to national security and under investigation here) while they were abroad. Judge Richard Mosley granted CSIS the warrants only to discover that CSIS used them to get the spy agencies of the other Anglo-American countries to spy on them as well.   We all know how well that worked out for Maher Arar, right? Mosley severely criticized CSIS for this deliberate misinterpretation of thier warrant.

    Thank you very much. 

    If I may, Mr. Norlock, as you know, I came in front of this committee to respond to the invitation of the Supreme Court which is to define clearly that CSIS has the mandate to operate here and abroad, to exchange information, to include a witness protection program, and also to protect the confidentiality of a member of CSIS operating. This bill is now in front of the Senate; the Senate is moving forward on it, and I am confident that this bill, which is simply maintaining the existing capability of CSIS, will be approved. 
More bullshit from Blaney. NONE of that has anything to do with telling foreign governments that a Canadian citizen is a terrorism suspect. As Blaney knew at the time. This whole thing is staged. A con.  
     Thank you very much.

    We heard some of the questions from the opposition, a lot on process, etc., etc., but there were no real questions concerning the law.
    My next question would be concerning real-time oversight. As far as I'm concerned, being in the law enforcement community, real-time oversight means somebody standing over you watching what you're doing.

    Commissioner Paulson, do you have real-time oversight over you, somebody following you around, making sure that every move your members make is being verified by some other agency?

    It seems like it sometimes.
    Voices: Oh, oh!

Here we see the deranged levels of entitlement of these "security" agency employees. Their racism and/or incompetence and/or corruption and/or sadism has resulted in the extended torture of at least five Canadian citizens. The security certificate regime has been exposed as a cruel farce. They and the RCMP have manufactured threats out of whole cloth and they target opponents of the Tar Sands as being equivalent to Osama bin Laden. And yet they feel that they're operating under a microscope! Even their most egregious crimes are investigated in closed-door inquiries. CSIS and the RCMP have wasted tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, harassing and abusing people and inventing plots, and they still believe that their work is valuable and being constrained by meddling busy-bodies.
I don't want to hear about the threat from China either. It's only as great as the threat from the United States and neither CSIS nor the RCMP nor the fucking harpercon scum-bag government appear willing to do anything about either of them.

    I'm asking you, are you aware of any police force in Canada that has real-time oversight?

    No, other than the internal processes that we have for supervision and leadership.

How difficult is this? First of all, all police hate oversight. They're all very put upon don'tcha know. Also, the whole "Black Lives Matter" thing in the USA is just cop-hatred. No matter how many compliant arrestees are kicked in the face, or diminutive black females are viciously assaulted while in custody, or First Nations women raped, or Somali refugees sucker-punched or protesters truncheoned, or Polish immigrants tasered into cardiac arrest and then denied medical care, ... and no matter how negligible or even non-existent the consequences for this brutality is, our police forces feel aggrieved that they're being subject to draconian surveillance from all the cop-hating commie-faggots who have somehow taken over this country.
Did you know that sometimes criminals kill police officers? Police officers who CHOSE their line of work? So why do we "civilians" feel that we can complain when or if the police sometimes decide to kill innocent people? Huh? Explain THAT liberal douche-bags!!!
What Norlock and Paulson are doing though is arguing that CSIS only be subjected to the retired politicians, white-collar criminals and occasional retired law-enforcement professional and sympathizer on SIRC, with their annual reports and their mandate to "investigate" complaints about CSIS from the public.

    I've testified a number of times that in my opinion SIRC is a robust review mechanism that has proven over 30 years its value, its impartiality. I've said publicly again a number of times that our organization is a better organization because of the work of SIRC.
Yep. Right on cue. "SIRC"!
    Thank you very much.

    When your members are being trained and being told what their duties are, they are specifically guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how far they can go with regard to the authority given to them. Would I be correct in saying that this is part and parcel of their training, and a major part of it?

    It is part of the training.
     It goes from the charter, flows into the CSIS Act, ministerial directive, and then operational internal policy. They're all linked.

This has gone from stupid to offensive.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock and Mr. Coulombe.

    Now Mr. Garrison, please.

I think I'll end it here. Garrison's questions are of a different quality than those of someone like Norlock or any other CPC hack.

No comments: