Does anyone else see the connection between this article and FATCA? If you are against internet surveillance, you are for child pornography. If you are against FATCA, you are for tax evasion.
Jess Kline at National Post writes:
In trying to defend the government’s lawful access legislation last year, then public safety minister Vic Toews said that Canadians can either “stand with us, or with the child pornographers.” Given that the proposed Internet-spying legislation was incredibly unpopular, this statement didn’t sit well with many people. Surely law-abiding citizens could object to living in an online surveillance state without siding with child pornographers.
Indeed, the backlash against the Tories’ lawful access legislation was so harsh the last time around, they eventually promised the shelve the idea for good.
“We will not be proceeding with Bill C-30 and any attempts that we will continue to have to modernize the Criminal Code will not contain the measures contained in C-30,” said former justice minister Rob Nicholson in February. “We’ve listened to the concerns of Canadians who have been very clear on this.”
Well, that wasn’t exactly true. The Conservative strategy appears to have been to lay low for awhile, pick another cause de jure and reintroduce the legislation under a different name.
Read the full article here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/26/jesse-kline-tories-bully-canadians-into-accepting-internet-surveillance-bill/
@WhiteKat
Harper is a Straussian…which politicians of that ideology believe that the elite should rule and it is perfectly okay to lie to the public. Tonight’s news only shows what they are…They just do not tell the truth so they can protect themselves.
The Tories are wanna be Americans, so this is not a surprise. What is disheartening is the number of Canadian so willing to throw away our privacy rights b/c the Cons promise them material trinkets.
Materialism trumps all. Even in Canada.
@YogaGirl
Definitely materialism is becoming more noticeable in Canada. Maybe it is all the American media influence.
I do find Canadians are getting more apathetic. That find that so irritating.
Why Care About the N.S.A.? via @nytimes A short video. Pay attention. You SHOULD care.. http://nyti.ms/186E6wN
Feerdom will set you free!
Ummmm…this isn’t a political discussion website. Please take this discussion elsewhere.
@Just Me
I could not view the video on NYT
Interesting question: Is the Isaac Brock Society a place for political discussion?
I thought it was, provided that the discussion relates to the issue of justice and freedom for US persons abroad. In fact, please have another look at our disclaimer on the right hand side where we promise an open discussion on the issues that concern us. We know that FATCA will violate the sovereignty of Canada. Some feel that giving away Canadians’ private information through sharing with NSA is kith and kin to FATCA. I agree.
So feel free to defend the Harper government, if that is what you want to do. It is an open discussion.
Thanks for the post, WhiteKat! and for the great video, Just Me. Don’t we wish more of ‘US Persons’ who live outside the US and all of our neighbours would as well pay attention to FATCA and the rights we all will easily lose if not.
Petros is right. If you want to lose so many rights, give your arguments — convince us it’s a wise thing.
Diane Francis and her ‘great idea’ of US and Canada merging should be waking up ALL Canadians. Many comments there from outraged and awake persons http://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/jonathan-kay-diane-francis-plan-to-merge-canada-and-the-united-states-has-many-many-problems/.
Same as with the CBC article by James Fitz-Morris — now at 947 comments http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-banks-to-be-compelled-to-share-clients-info-with-u-s-1.2437975, the most recent ”
There’s may be one day left to add YOUR comments.
@ Pierre D;
re; “this isn’t a political discussion website.” What?
What is not ‘political’?
Our issues here are at essence ‘political’. Systems of imposed taxation, and countries engaging in treaty or other negotiations, and governments making decisions determining the fate of citizens and residents is political. Submitting to or resisting the US extraterritorial incursions is political. Manipulating the citizenry is ‘political’.
ex. “1.of or relating to the government or public affairs of a country. ” https://www.google.ca/search?q=political&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=WwqWUpnjDKGSyAGMyYCYDQ
It is SPECIFIC current governments in the US and Canada, with specific current leaders in power that are weighing their specific personal and political options and agendas and priorities – and who are busily engaged in political negotiations to decide the fate of our personal assets and personal information.
It is valid to point out trends and interconnections.
Pierre D — I agree with badger. This is all political, what our governments are deciding about our ‘US Person’ fates. So many issues are related to what is going on with FATCA and what we need to do to wake up to it and fight it. I agreed with many of your earlier comments, but don’t understand your most recent one.
@Pierre D
What exactly are you objecting too? I am curious iii
I like stirring up sh!t, but didn’t think this post was going to do that!
@Pierre,
I can’t see how you don’t think this post belongs here. It must hit a nerve somehow.
@Calgary411,
It was me, not Trish who posted this post. 🙂
@Just Me
I tried again and got the video to work…It is very relevant to our fight against FATCA.
It is now on my FB page, sent to all the Cdn Politicians I have been writing to. and also all my email list.
Sorry, WhiteKat!!! I’ll change that.
While I understand that the Canadian-centric aspect of the post isn’t relevant to FATCA for those not living in Canada for Canadians it is simply another piece of our sovereignty issues. Increasingly, our govt is adopting USG policies and tactics, which in turn make it more, not less, likely that something like FATCA will be adopted and implemented.
It is political. FATCA is political. Our financial institutions have long been political extensions of our govts. Govt overreach is a problem and increasing intrusions and micromanaging is behind all of it.
To fair though, I believe that IBS members in other countries should feel free to suggest equally relevant posts to contributors here or to post them themselves if they have posting privileges.
jmo
@Yogagirl,
So, do you think Pierre doesn’t live in Canada? Regardless, whether he does or he doesn’t (I suspect he does), this website was started by Canadians, so it is naturally going to contain more Canadian material. I can’t see anything unfair about that; it is what it is.
Also, no one from Brock has told non-Canadian Brockers what they can or cannot post. Pierre is the one who is doing that, wherever he is from.
@All
I just found this.. It seems the UN unanimously adopted a resolution to protect the right to privacy against unlawful surveillance. Article is dated today… I wonder if we can go to the UN to ask for decision if FATCA violates our rights and freedom?
http://in.news.yahoo.com/un-body-adopts-resolution-protect-individuals-universal-privacy-051333579.html
Good find, northernstar.
There are no comments yet.
Speaking of Spying, it is very relevant and political in New Zealand.. (and Australia too, I might add)
John Key Says Yanks Not Spying on Him
Thursday, 31 October 2013, 10:22 am
Press Release: Anti Bases Campaign
JOHN KEY SAYS YANKS NOT SPYING ON HIM
John Key says that he’s allowed to wear big boy’s pants because New Zealand is a member of The Club (Five Eyes, formally known as the UKUSA Agreement), which he says means that the intelligence agencies of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand don’t spy on each other’s countries. He reckons it specifically means that the US National Security Agency (NSA) does not spy on him.
To which the Anti-Bases Campaign says – pull the other one, John, this one’s got a bug in it.
Of course the NSA spies on its “allies and friends” in Five Eyes. Why wouldn’t they? They’re spying on all their other “friends”.
ABC says its dollars to doughnuts that NSA has been, is, and will be spying on Key. So will the other Big Brothers in Five Eyes. Indeed it is highly likely that the NSA will have subcontracted the job to one of the allied agencies to spy on the smallest of the small fry.
But don’t just take ABC’s word for it that the NSA spies on its Five Eyes allies, or that the constituent agencies are used to spy on other member countries. After all, we might be “anti-American conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind”.
No, take the word of one of the spooks who worked inside the system. And we’re not talking about Edward Snowden.
In 2001 (just after 11/9, as it turned out) ABC organised a national speaking tour by former Canadian spook turned author, Mike Frost. We did so because he had written, in 1994, an insider’s book called “Spyworld: Inside The Canadian And American Intelligence Establishments”.
Here are some relevant extracts from Bob Leonard’s review of it in our newsletter Peace Researcher (23, June 2001, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/frostspy.htm).
“Mike Frost is not the first spy to spill the beans… But Frost’s is the only firsthand account (to our knowledge) of the inner workings of America’s National Security Agency (NSA) and its Canadian sibling agency just over the border, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Frost was an employee of the CSE for 19 years and spent plenty of time at NSA as well in training and liaison.
“Embassy collection even involves the Americans spying on the Canadians. In his many trips to College Park for NSA briefing, Frost learned of techniques for disguising antennas on the roofs of embassies. He and his colleagues quickly concluded that Canada was not immune to NSA spying. ‘The Americans don’t care who they commit espionage against, on the principle that they may get something that’s useful to their country. They routinely collect foreign intelligence against everybody’.
“In 1983, CSE was asked to spy for GCHQ at the behest of Margaret Thatcher. ‘…it seems as if Margaret Thatcher [then British Prime Minister] thinks two of the Ministers in her Cabinet are not ‘on-side’… She wants to find out if they are’. CSE carried out the intercepts: ‘We never stopped to question the morality of doing what amounted to dirty tricks for a partisan politician, for her very personal reasons, in a foreign land. After all, we weren’t spying on Canadians…that time anyway’”.
So there you have it, from the horse’s mouth. And why would Margaret Thatcher ask GCHQ to subcontract Canadian intelligence to spy for her within Britain, on her own Tory Cabinet colleagues, no less? So that British intelligence would have plausible deniability, if the spying was discovered.
Frost also revealed that Canadian intelligence spied on the US, for trade and economic reasons. He detailed how CSE bugged the car phone of the US Ambassador to Canada to find out what the US would charge China to sell it wheat. And then Canada successfully underbid the US. This was seen as a routine State aid to Canadian business.
The examples given by Frost happened decades ago, when Communists, not terrorists, were used as the justification for the spy agencies crimes and abuses, but the only things that have changed since then is that spying on allies and friends has become more extensive and systematic. It has got worse, not better.
So, John Key is kidding nobody when he reckons that NSA doesn’t spy on him. It is also guaranteed that they will be spying on NZ’s Ministers and trade officials in connection with the secret talks to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The US will want to know things like how hard NZ really will fight to gain the “holy grail” of dairy products access to the US, and how hard NZ will fight to save Pharmac which the US drug transnational corporations want rid of.
It’s no defence to say “everyone’s doing it”. So, does that mean that the GCSB is using Waihopai to bug Obama’s mobile phone? That’s a very likely scenario, isn’t it?
New Zealand needs to close Waihopai and the GCSB, get out of the international criminal enterprise which is Five Eyes, and develop a truly independent defence and foreign policy.
ABC’s message to John Key is – you’ve spent too long away from Christchurch. Forget about Five Eyes; learn from Cantabrians and become one eyed.
Thanks northernstar. I see that the article says; “US delegate Elizabeth Cousens told the committee that the United States was pleased to support ‘privacy rights and the right to freedom of expression’.”
Yet the US does not “support ‘privacy rights’ in the context of our Canadian accounts – held with non-US family and business partners. Nor the privacy rights of the non-US organizations, employers, estates, etc. which we are forced to report on to the IRS via FBARs.
I also see that the US wants to be exempted from complying with Canadian laws on sovereign Canadian soil in yet another context http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/30/us_wants_exemption_from_canadian_law_for_crossborder_officers_rcmp_memo_says.html
Will we be bullied into allowing that too?
US surveillance of Canadians. US taxation of Canadian citizens and legal residents. Now, US law enforcement personnel want to operate on Canadian soil without complying with Canadian laws.
All crucial sovereignty issues for Canadians. All serious extraterritorial incursions by the US. All instances where the US would never ever let Canada or any other country do the same. It is all part and parcel of the same thing – the US elevates ‘might makes right’ over all other considerations. That apparently has replaced any other national motto.
I understand PierreD’s desire to keep Isaac Brock focussed on the issues affecting US persons abroad. That is the issue that unites us. I also understand the reason why Whitekat views this post to be relevant. Perhaps, Pierre (who I’ve actually met and is definitely Canadian–as his previous comments indicate) is not comfortable with the overtly critical nature of this post towards the current government. That is how the post struck me as well–I am not totally comfortable with it, even though I believe that it is relevant to the discussion.
As for the governments record on other issues, I am neither a defender nor a detractor. As regards its policies vis-a-vis the US, I am a critic and a defender. I praise finance minister Flaherty’s public statements about FATCA; I appreciate that he has said that the CRA will not collect FBAR penalties. I don’t understand, given what he has said, how they can negotiate an IGA. I am not always comfortable about the way people have criticized the current government, because I don’t believe that either of the two other major parties would do an overall better job at running the federal government.
I think our job, thus, is to criticize the government with regard to its handling of FATCA and other issues related to Canadian sovereignty, and try to lobby it to take a stronger stance in support of Canadian autonomy. The problem is that co-operation with the US comes with a price, whether it is over matters of security or taxes. I am not happy with any level of co-operation that threatens Canada’s ability to run her own affairs.
Petros, you summed up for me why these issues are so entwined and interrelated:
You say ;
…”I think our job, thus, is to criticize the government with regard to its handling of FATCA and other issues related to Canadian sovereignty, and try to lobby it to take a stronger stance in support of Canadian autonomy. The problem is that co-operation with the US comes with a price, whether it is over matters of security or taxes. I am not happy with any level of co-operation that threatens Canada’s ability to run her own affairs.”
These instances all demonstrate an aggressive extraterritorial US intent to rig things in line with specific US interests, at the cost of Canadian sovereignty and autonomy, and also at the cost of our human and civil rights and wellbeing (as frequently the US does to domestic US citizen and resident rights as well). There could never be equal reciprocity, nor equal benefit – even if we agreed that there could be any ethical reason to accede. The US Congress would also never allow another country to do what the US proposes to do in these instances. These instances come up repeatedly, and raise concomitant issues of sovereignty, lack of reciprocity, unilateral action by the US, application of threats, force and coercion, breach of civil and human rights, unethical outcomes, lack of recourse/redress, etc.
They are interrelated and have common principles at stake.
I applaud Flaherty’s early statements on FATCA, but in light of the serious flaws already existent in the US-Canada Tax treaty, I have to wonder why so many citizens, voters and taxpayers in Canada are already subjected to the huge gaps in it as it stands – and which FATCA then just builds on. The Department of Finance had to have known about the US punitive treatment of RESPs, RDSPs and TFSAs. And didn’t say anything to warn us, or to get them exempted.
Good comments Petros and Badger
As an aside, as I see it, what you say applies here in NZ too.
Pierre should really tell us what he meant, however, I took his comment to be directed at some of the other comments, not the post (for want of a better word), which were critical of Harper/CPCs and not particularly relevant to the post topic or CBT/FATCA/etc.
I think it’s safe to say that most folks here lean left. However, not all do, and certainly the Canadian public at large does not all lean that way. In order to be taken seriously and not come off as just another forum where partisans squabble/rant/whinge re party politics and personalities, I think it behooves us to keep topics and comments focused on the issues that unite us.
For every person who thinks Harper eats kittens for breakfast, there’s likely another who thinks he walks on water. I don’t know if we need both types of people on our side in order to succeed, but it sure can’t hurt to have them.
And, FTR, I am not suggesting any kind of formal moderation or censorship.
My 2 cents, YMMV.