Canadians Governments and their Reign of Domestic Terrorism? No
one has the right to ignite a war and lead an occupation and armies to conquer
people, invading them and make them suffer all kinds of torture, murder,
expulsion, displacement, bombing and terrorism by different lethal prohibited
weapons and then come and speak as the savior of the people or a defender of
the rights.
Muqtada al Sadir
When the white men came we had the land and they have the Bibles;
now they have the land and we have the Bibles.
Chief Dan George
Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance
On a July day in 1990, a confrontation propelled Native issues in
Kanehsatake and the village of Oka, Quebec, into the international
spotlight. Director Alanis Obomsawin spent 78 nerve-wracking days and
nights filming the armed stand-off between the Mohawks, the Quebec
police and the Canadian army. This powerful documentary takes you right
into the action of an age-old Aboriginal struggle. The result is a
portrait of the people behind the barricades.
Who could understand the terrible inhumanity that our
children experience in the notorious concentration camps of the
Children’s Aid Societies? Only those children; who went through for the
same horrors of psychological and physical torture could describe: “The Criminals Policies
dictated by government delinquents.”Human rights violations that
Canadian politicians invented to perpetuate the destruction and the
death of marginalized children! .- Nadir
Siguencia
Motherisk review could have Canada-wide implications Child protection agencies in provinces
outside of Ontario have relied on hair drug tests from the Motherisk lab
at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Steve Russell
/ Toronto Star
Order this photo
Motherisk lab at the Hospital for Sick Children, hair drug and
alcohol tests have been used as evidence in child protection and
criminal cases in at least four provinces and one territory outside
Ontario, a Star investigation has found.
Ontario’s review of the controversial Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at the Hospital for Sick Children could have profound implications for child welfare agencies and courts across Canada.
Motherisk’s hair drug and alcohol tests have
been used as evidence in child protection and criminal cases in at least
four provinces and one territory outside Ontario, a Star investigation
has found.
In Nova Scotia, for instance, there are 49
cases “that are currently open before the courts that have used the
services of the Motherisk testing program,” according to Lori Errington,
spokeswoman for the province’s community services department.
With the exception of the Halifax region,
which uses a different lab, Errington said, “all regions in the
provincial system use Motherisk services.”
“The province will use a different forensic testing lab and will monitor the outcome of the review in Ontario,” she said.
Errington said she could not quantify past
cases that may have relied on Motherisk’s analysis, or provide numbers
for cases that were handled by Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services,
which is an external agency that operates alongside the provincial
system.
Sick Kids suspended all non-research
operations of Motherisk last week after questions about the lab’s
policies and procedures were raised by an internal audit and an
independent provincial review, which was launched last year following a
Star probe.
The Ontario government has continued to defend
the other work done by Motherisk, which includes counseling pregnant
women on which medications are safe to take.
Shelley Hounsell-Gray, a managing family
lawyer with Nova Scotia Legal Aid in Dartmouth, said the province’s past
reliance on Motherisk is “a big concern.”
“If you can’t rely in the evidence that’s
being presented against your client then you are concerned that the
outcome is unjust,” she said, adding that “there is no easy fix” in
cases where children were removed from a parent.
Sick Kids spokeswoman Gwen Burrows said
Motherisk has provided drug testing services for clients in British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Northwest
Territories over the last year.
Burrows did not provide information about previous years.
When Motherisk’s services were halted, 60
clients — nearly one-third of the lab’s total clients — were based
outside of Ontario, Burrows said. All clients who used Motherisk in the
past year were notified by letter of the suspension of services, she
said.
Stephanie Cadieux, B.C.’s children and family
development minister, said in an email, “We have only recently been made
aware of the Ontario government’s review and the suspended operations
of Motherisk.”
“I have not been briefed on this issue and any further comment would be premature,” she said.
Spokeswomen for the governments of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and P.E.I. told the Star that child welfare agencies in
those provinces do not use Motherisk’s hair testing services.
The governments of New Brunswick, Quebec,
Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, the Northwest Territories
and Nunavut did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Sick Kids has not provided detail about the
questions that led to the decision to halt lab operations pending the
outcome of the provincial review.
A survey of Canadian legal databases reveals a
handful of past criminal and child protection cases that used
Motherisk’s analysis in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, but this
may be just “the tip of the iceberg,” said Ontario Justice Marvin Zuker.
Databases such as the Canadian Legal
Information Institute (CanLII) include only those decisions judges
believe will be of interest, which means they capture a small fraction
of total rulings, Zuker said.
“All provinces that used the Motherisk program
. . . could certainly be subject to the same type of review,” said
Zuker, who was a family court judge in Toronto for more than 20 years
before moving to criminal court in 2012. “It could be huge.”
In each of the cases listed in CanLII or
Quicklaw, another legal database, substance abuse was one of many
factors that led to the outcome:
- Citing concerns about their mother’s
“untreated drug addictions,” male companions and prolonged involvement
with child protective services, a New Brunswick judge gave guardianship
of her three children to the province in 2011. Her access to them was
preserved. Motherisk manager Joey Gareri testified that an earlier test
of the mother’s hair showed “a consistent pattern of repeated cocaine
use” over a six-month period, and either cannabis exposure or use during
a later time frame. Another hair test was positive only for codeine, he
said.
- In 2013, a mother was found guilty in a
Quebec criminal court of endangering the health of a child and
possession of the drug GHB after the child drank GHB from a bottle she
had left out. Gareri testified that a hair sample from the child, taken
at a hospital in Ottawa, showed passive exposure to cocaine. The judge
found it “highly plausible” the exposure happened at a neighbour’s home.
It was not a factor in the decision.
- Last year, a judge in Sydney, N.S., sided
with the province, and removed a young boy from his parents permanently,
with no access, citing concerns about violence, substance abuse and a
history of agency involvement with the mother’s other children. Gareri
testified that hair samples from both parents at various periods showed
on-and-off cocaine use and inconclusive results regarding alcohol
consumption.
Children’s aid societies in Ontario relied
heavily on Motherisk’s hair drug and alcohol tests as proof of parental
substance abuse until late last year, when a Court of Appeal decision
cast doubt on evidence the lab presented in the 2009 criminal trial of
Toronto mom Tamara Broomfield, and prompted the Star investigation.
In November, the province appointed a retired
judge to assess the reliability and adequacy of five years worth of hair
drug tests performed by Motherisk from 2005 to 2010.
Toronto lawyer Daniel Brown,
who tried in 2010 to get the trial judge to reopen Broomfield’s case to
re-examine the medical evidence, said Sick Kids has a duty to make
public “the scope of the problem and the issues uncovered” as soon as
possible.
“There may be other people like Tamara
Broomfield across this country, who were convicted on this type of
science, that may not be reliable,” Brown said.
Broomfield was sentenced to seven years in
jail after Motherisk director Gideon Koren testified that hair tests of
her toddler’s hair showed he had regularly ingested large doses of
cocaine for more than a year leading up to a 2005 cocaine overdose that
left him brain-damaged.
Her cocaine convictions were tossed in October
after evidence from an expert witness for the defence criticized
Motherisk’s preparation and analysis of the hair sample. Broomfield
dropped her appeals of other child-abuse convictions related to the boy.
“Neither the power that governs the oppressors, nor the prison walls could hide my voice of protest to denounce the Canadian State Crimes” .- Nadir Siguencia
“Canada Government and their Reign of Terror”The Canadian government in order
to expand its domestic terrorism against the underclass, and to maintain in the
impunity the crimes committed by private and state institutions approved the
Bill C-51. This new anti-terrorist law gives broader powers to the repressive
forces of this country for persecute and torturing children, women, poor
families, social activists, and human rights defenders. Also with the anti-
terrorist bill C-51; the will of the regime is to impose fear, terror, and
persecution in opponents and other vulnerable people. His intention is to hide
the extreme poverty, homelessness across the country, absence of a subsidized
transportation for poor families, and the derisory monthly pensions for elderly
people.News / Canada
Conservative ministers downplay concerns terror bill
infringes on freedoms
Conservative
ministers Steven Blaney and Peter MacKay attempt to quell criticism that the
new anti-terror bill is too broad.
Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS
file photo
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney
promised CSIS would not use new powers to target lawful protest or artistic
expression.
By:Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Tue Mar 10 2015
OTTAWA — The Conservative
government’s top public safety and justice officials sought to quell criticism
that its new anti-terror bill is too broad and would unnecessarily infringe
rights and freedoms.
At the first hearing to begin the
Commons’ detailed study of Bill C-51,
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney clarified a couple of provisions that have
been the subject of widespread criticism.
Bill C-51 allows sharing of
Canadians’ private information among some 17 departments and agencies and it
allows CSIS, with a judge’s prior approval, to “disrupt” perceived threats with
actions that would infringe Charter rights.
However, Blaney said the new
definition of threats to national security, which includes activity that
interferes with “the economic or financial stability of Canada” or with
critical infrastructure, will only apply to information-sharing provisions.
Blaney said that definition would
not be used when it comes to granting CSIS broad new powers to disrupt
activities of suspected threats to national security.
He said the spy agency would
continue to use its new powers against threats to national security as they
have been defined in the CSIS Act for the past 30 years.
He said the agency will not target
lawful protest, advocacy or artistic expression, nor will the
information-sharing provisions.
Both Blaney and Justice Minister
Peter MacKay defended the ability to have 17 departments and agencies share
much more information among themselves as a measure that will close gaps and
modernize the federal regime.
Blaney raised the hypothetical
example of someone in the Middle East who may show up at a consular office,
wounded and seeking a new passport, claiming he’d lost his. Blaney suggested in
that case it would raise suspicions but officials couldn’t share the
information to determine if the individual was a threat.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson later
raised what he said was a recent “real” example of where a suspicious person,
wounded, showed up in Turkey attempting to return to Canada, saying there were
barriers to sharing that information widely. He said the new legislation would
have helped in that case, and said he welcomed many other of its provisions
including the information-sharing powers and the new lower thresholds that will
ease the ability to get peace bonds, or restrictive conditions on the liberty
of persons suspected of conspiring to commit terrorist acts.
Blaney and MacKay also vigorously
defended terrorist propaganda provisions, saying they would target only
material that would encourage, glorify or incite acts that would constitute
terror offences under the Criminal Code, and not target “broader” expressions.
Several academic critics have
suggested that the new provisions would in effect chill legitimate dissent or
speech, for example it could be used against an individual urging support for
those fighting Russia’s incursions in Crimea or Ukraine.
Blaney used tough language in
defending the ability to curb such speech.
“The Holocaust did not begin in the
gas chambers; it started with words,” he said, turning aside Opposition
objections.
Blaney also took square aim at the
Opposition for failing to be supportive and respectful of law enforcement and
security officials who are protecting Canadians, suggesting that they do not
understand the real threat comes from the “radical jihadi terrorists who have
declared war on us.”
