Sunday, March 15, 2015

“Canadian Conservative Government and their Reign of Domestic Terrorism”



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.

                                    

                                 News Toronto & GTA


Torontonians protest 'Orwellian' terror bill

2040

By , Toronto Sun
First posted: | Updated:

IMAGE 1 OF 18


                                                                                                                   

Thursday, March 12, 2015

CANADIAN MEDIA: ACCOMPLICES OF THE DESTRUCTION AND THE DEATH OF MARGINALIZED CHILDREN!



 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
News / Crime

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.

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.
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.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. .- Harry Truman

“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.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney promised CSIS would not use new powers to target lawful protest or artistic expression.
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.”