Canadian Police State on the way?

http://murraydobbin.ca/2010/06/29/is-this-what-a-police-state-looks-like

One Protester's View of the G20 Weekend

Thanks to Green Thumb, a member of the CAPP FB group.

Quote

My friend and I had planned to attend the G420 parade and peacefully demonstrate, unfortunately we were late arriving and the GO train stopped running to Union Station and we had to get off at Danforth, take the subway, then walk south to the protest area. While doing this a few unmarked SUV's raced into an intersection, blocked it off very forcefully yelling at people that they cannot walk down the street, I believe it was North of the protests on Yonge. We took a right turn and saw more police down the street and went down an alley which was unguarded. We were in! We walked around for awhile looking at some of the broken windows commenting how sad it was that people would be so violent and completely unproductive.

Eventually, we found a march which we joined up with, it was a mixture of groups including CAW, first nations and water rights. We marched peacefully chanting for some time until the riot police in full gear stepped out into the street and stopped us. We chanted let us through for some time and then a parade ended up on the other side of the street too also facing another line of police. After an hour, maybe less, all four sides of the intersection had a protest group blocked by police. The police then went about bullying people and splitting the group by use of riot police. I cannot stress enough everything here was entirely peaceful, probably 15,000 people.

After that I went for dinner at a friends downtown apartment and watched on TV. We saw what was occurring on Queen street and made sure to avoid that type of violence. We found another protest parade who was holding a sit in and had been surrounded by riot police, blocking in the sitters. Crowds started forming chanting "let them out, let them out" which the riot police eventually did and everyone started to march and chant. We managed to get down by the fence where we had a very small demonstration then continued to march. We marched over to the Novotel Hotel, where the French delegation and possibly a German delegate were staying. We sat down right in front of the hotel and began a demonstration. After 5-10 minutes riot police showed up in front of us and demanded we move. We told them this was a peaceful sitdown protest and nobody would be leaving. After some negotiations and many threats on the part of the riot police, who were all dressed up in gas masks and all, it was agreed that if everyone in the crowd gave the peace sign the riot line would step aside and allow us to continue to march. Unfortunately this was just a trick to keep everyone there, in the time it took us to get everyone to give the peace sign at the same time another police line formed behind us trapping us. The lines then began charging forward and grabbing people. They eventually arrested everyone, 200-300 peaceful protesters, including 2 reporters, 1 for the National Post and an independent one. The NP reported received some facial damage, a cut or a black eye, there were so many people who were injured I forget which was on who.

So now begins the saga and the G20 Detention Center which I have named the G20 Torture center. When I arrived the entire bus of innocents I was with were placed in a holding cage which did have a bathroom and we were provided with water, at this point everything was OK. As the night went on the place got busier and busier and the conditions got worse and worse. Up to processing everything was O.K. they were very unorganized keeping tracked of everyones personal belongings though. Once through processing things took a hard U-turn to torture town. In the area I was in 6 people forced to sit a 6 foot by 9 foot concrete slab covered in an 8 foot high cage. Every person got 2 square feet, not even close to enough room to sleep, therefore we were deprived of sleep and forced to sit in incredibly uncomfortable positions, I believe this is called torture.

In addition to the basic conditions bathrooms were hard to come by the same as water, both you had to beg the guards for. Then the guards would laugh and snicker and eventually take you to the bathroom, water you had to wait for the set times for it to be handed out. Then you would get a very small sytrofoam cup (of all things), and only 1. In addition, there was no access to lawyers or the telephone. I argued for 20 hours before I was allowed to speak on the phone to tell my family I was OK and not dead. I had been told 1 minute before going to the phone that they were being used then a different officer took me, one I had built a relationship with over the course of his shift and had been asking to use the phone the entire time, so he relented. There were about 15 phones and nobody was on any of them. I was told they didn't have enough guards to allow people to use the phones. I doubt I need to point out by access to a phone is a Charter Right and cannot be denied.

Now I will talk about the guards personally, some were extremely nice people and I felt bad that the ISU would put them into such a position, but others seemed to revel in torturing the protesters, one officer dressed in riot gear told me and I quote "I enjoy bashing the heads of protesters." But please keep in mind many of the guards were extremely nice and treated me and the other protesters with the most respect possible, and it was returned for the most part.

After speaking to a lawyer I was released a couple hours later since they were nearing the 24 hour limit of holding me without charge, I would point out they told me all day they were waiting for paperwork to release me which is total bullshit. Coincidentally everyones paperwork arrives nearly 24 hours after they were arrested, bullshit. When I left I was pleasantly surprised by a waiting group of protesters whom cheered and gave me some proper food. The food in the torture center was a piece of processed cheese on a bun, nothing else, no nutrition at all.

My friend was also arrested and was placed in a holding cell with 40 people zip tied for 24 hours, with a 15 year old kid. I haven't had a chance to talk to him much to get his story but he said he is going to write it up so I will share that as well.

Unquote.

Identifiers of a Fascist State

With profound thanks to:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4113.htm
I have paraphrased from the above reference. I leave you to make your own conclusions, but my reading is that Canada, under PM Harper satisfied 12 of the 14 qualifiers to a greater or lesser extent.


Begins:
These identifiers were developed from an examination of the following regimes:
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
ends.

The Politics of Fear: Tough on crime, soft on truth

Soft on truth

By Susan Riley, The Ottawa CitizenFebruary 12, 2010 4:03 AM

When you look beyond the paternalism, cynicism, genuine concern -- whatever motives drive the Harper government's punitive approach to crime -- only one question matters. Is it effective?

Will closing Vancouver's safe injection site, Insite, reduce drug addiction and related crime? Will imposing six-month minimum jail sentences on anyone caught with as few as five marijuana plants inhibit pot-smoking among teenagers? Will expanding prisons reduce violence in our streets?

Most legal experts, criminologists, addiction researchers and street-level health workers, along with many police chiefs and past reports from Parliamentary committees, say "no" -- as does the experience of other "tough-on-crime" jurisdictions.

It may be emotionally satisfying to punish evil, or express revulsion, with harsher sentences, but it is widely held -- by those who actually work in the field -- that prevention, better policing, services for the mentally ill and poverty alleviation are more useful if the goal is to make communities safer. The Liberals even used to believe that, before they became bashful.

But this government mistrusts experts, rejects evidence that doesn't confirm its own beliefs and dismisses critics as weak and deluded. It seems to believe most criminals, like willful teenagers, only need the threat of a few months in the slammer to see the light -- downplaying the fact that so many crimes are impulsive, and so many criminals mentally ill, addicted, or scarred by horrific abuse themselves. Not the types, in other words, to consider consequences before they act.

And curiously, despite its righteousness, the government isn't above resorting to mendacity itself. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, for instance, have excoriated the "Liberal-dominated" Senate for, in Harper's words "eviscerating law and order measures urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians."

In fact, as Senate Liberal leader James Cowan outlined convincingly this week, it was the unexpected prorogation of Parliament that "gutted" the Conservative anti-crime agenda.

Last session, the government introduced 19 crime bills and 11 were still before the Commons at prorogation. Of the eight that went to the Senate, four were passed. Two were still being debated when Harper pulled the plug, and another -- a Senate-initiated attempt to end the long-gun registry -- was withdrawn after a similar Commons bill passed.

Another bill, which would prevent convicts from subtracting two days from their sentences for every one day already served, was passed by the Senate in October and only died because cabinet didn't enact it quickly enough.

Nor was a bill cracking down on auto theft stalled in the Senate for six months, as Nicholson claimed -- at least, not entirely by Liberal senators. The delay was partly the result of a scheduled summer break.

Only the marijuana bill -- it would impose a mandatory minimum six months in jail for anyone caught with five or more plants -- was significantly amended. After hearing from a parade of witnesses that mandatory minimums are ineffective in dealing with drug crimes (a conclusion backed by a 2001 justice department report), Liberal Senators voted to leave it to judges to decide sentences for anyone caught with fewer than 200 plants.

An irritated Nicholson has vowed to reintroduce the bill in March, when Parliament resumes -- but here's another curiosity. The Hill Times reported recently that, in 1988, Nicholson, then a Progressive Conservative MP, was vice-chair of a Commons committee that recommended against mandatory minimums, except for repeat violent sex offenders. Asked about this apparent change of heart, the minister's spokes-person noted the drug world and values have changed. But the facts haven't. As New Democrat Libby Davies noted: "What they are doing is not based on evidence, whatsoever. It's a political stance."

The same can be said of Harper's implacable resistance to Insite -- a modest clinic in Vancouver's downtown east side, where addicts can get clean needles and access to medical care. The clinic doesn't provide drugs, but, through a legal exemption, allows addicts to administer their own narcotics.

Intended to get addicts out of back alleys and reduce the transmission of disease through dirty needles, the pioneering clinic has considerable community support: leading B.C. politicians, provincial courts, Vancouver police, doctors and, after initial resistance, local businesses. But the Harper government has announced it will challenge the special exemption at the Supreme Court, because it believes the clinic encourages drug use.

It doesn't bother providing facts, or even arguments; it appeals, as usual, to resentment, ignorance and frightening headlines that obscure the fact that crime rates have been declining. And, with the brave exception of Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, most of Harper's political opponents, including those who know better, are afraid to object. If Conservatives were as concerned with victims as they claim to be, the effectiveness of crime-fighting measures would be paramount -- not their political appeal. And they'd be counselling wisdom in this complex issue, not revenge.

Susan Riley writes on national issues. E-mail: sriley.work@gmail.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

This is Your Brain on Capitalism

Saw this today in the Post, and suddenly understood the shape of things to come.
Jim

This is your brain on capitalism

Robert Fulford, National Post Published: Saturday, November 28, 2009



Drugs that reshape our character could become the defining industrial products of the century.

When Theodore Dalrymple practised psychiatry in Britain a few years ago he noticed that many of his indigent female patients lived sad lives, and looked rather sad, but never once complained of sadness. Instead, they told him they were depressed.

They had learned to speak the language. As he explained in one of his excellent magazine articles, his patients knew he had a pill to give them for depression whereas he could do nothing for sadness except suggest they re-organize their lives. In many cases he might have suggested they leave the abusive and neglectful men who were spreading melancholy in all directions. His patients didn't want to hear that.

They wanted pills, which he was able to provide.

In a sense, they understood the future of medicine better than he did. As a therapist, he imagined helping them work through life problems but science, public health services and pharmaceutical corporations were all moving elsewhere, away from talk therapy and toward the blossoming field of psychotropic drugs and the unfolding marvels of neuroscience.

Old-fashioned therapists still find good work to do but neuroscience has usurped the prestige that psychoanalysis and related forms of therapy possessed during the twentieth century. The neuroscientists have -- as C.P. Snow said about scientists in general in a famous lecture 50 years ago -- "the future in their bones." They have taught the world to regard joy as dopamine activity in the brain's reward centres and melancholy as serotonin deficiency.

The implications are large enough to reshape society and create a new economy, "Neurocapitalism." That's the title of a provocative article by Ewa Hess, a Zurich journalist, and Hennric Jokeit, a Zurich University neuropsychologist, in Merkur, a Berlin cultural review (kindly translated for those who don't read German by the excellent online Eurozine).

Psychotropic drugs are moving beyond curing the demonstrably sick. Increasingly, they are used by mainly healthy people to alter "character virtues," such as self-confidence and trust. Hess and Jokeit report that current medical journals go much farther, describing neuroscientific research into "love, hate, envy, Schadenfreude, mourning, altruism and lying." The expectation (and the reason for research funding) is that whatever neuroscientists identify can be modified by pharmaceuticals.

As Hess and Jokeit see it, psychotropic drugs could become the defining industrial products of this century. They choose the term "neurocapitalism" because the new drugs, in theory, answer the need of capitalism for more effective human beings and the need of individuals to make themselves successful in the marketplace.

Researchers are manipulating the nature of the human animal and challenging the very "self " at the core of human life. Almost everyone who touches this field understands that it raises delicate moral issues. Unfortunately, almost no one knows how to draw a line separating legitimate medical needs from purely frivolous desires. Where in the continuum would we place "neuro-enhancers" that propose to add years to a pilot's career or change someone from a B-to an A+ student? Drugs in this category can be rationalized as "compensatory" or "moderate enhancement," comparable to glasses worn to correct eyesight.




Even if medical ethicists could determine which drugs are legitimate and which are not, how would their judgment be enforced? Nation by nation? Through international treaties? It seems unlikely.

Hess and Jokeit, who have their misgivings about neuroscience and show no enthusiasm for capitalism, nevertheless point out that the freedom of individuals (as well as corporations) is involved. Pharmacological intervention expands the autonomy of people "to act in their own best interests or to their own detriment." That may turn out to be the most popular guiding principle; certainly it will have the drug companies behind it. It may be that medical ethics, confronted by unprecedented discoveries, lacking any relevant principles from the past, will never cobble together a moral structure it can apply to this largely unknowable science. Perhaps it is already happening much too fast.

robert.fulford@utoronto.ca