The United States federal officials demonstrate their lack of respect for the rest of the world:
India Is Furious Over US Strip Search Of Diplomat Facing Fraud Charges
The “fraud charges” consist of this:
US authorities say she not only paid a domestic servant a fraction of the minimum wage but also lied in a visa application for the employee, an Indian national who has since absconded.
See also my earlier post: Tax Treaty in conflict with Canada’s Human Rights Act
Another angle that we must consider is the Canadian Human Rights Act, which upholds ChearsBigEars view that we may sue the banks for the intention to violate Charter rights. This is on the basis of the following (section 12):
12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that Continue reading
The Chicago Tribune reports: IRS not fully ready for law against offshore tax evasion: watchdog
One of the signs of a bad regulatory law is the inability of a government bureaucracy to implement it. The IRS apparently suffers from inadequate resources. Whereas Obama signed FATCA into law in 2010, the IRS is not ready to handle load nearly four years later:
Between 200,000 and 400,000 foreign banks, investment funds and insurers companies are expected to register with the IRS to comply with the law, TIGTA said.
This would be hilarious if the consequences of FATCA weren’t already so sad. Still, I experience great Schadenfreude over the farcical incompetence of the IRS.
Blaze has done some groundwork and written a long comment (see below), explaining in a nutshell what seems to be our current options under the current human rights laws in Canada. My personal take on Blaze’s comments is that it reveals an impasse–it shows how the “pass the buck” system works in Canada. The reason that you can’t take legal action is that nobody wants to take responsibility for what the banks are doing. Apparently, no human rights lawyers are interested either (at least the ones we’ve consulted), not even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in litigating against FATCA, not yet–not until the conspiracy to take away rights results in more direct harm.
In the comments to our post about launching a class action lawsuit against TD Bank, we learned that a constitutional lawyer Joe Arvay does not believe it is time to launch a lawsuit, but in his opinion it would be more propitious to wait for an IGA between Canada and the United States. Another lawyer says that it would not be good to launch a conspiracy lawsuit based upon “intent” alone, as Gwen reports:
I just spoke to my friend who is a lawyer and he said even with their stated intent to comply with FATCA in the absence of an IGA, no case can be brought until they actually do implement the policy. Intent is not a crime in the eyes of the law except in the case of criminal intent such as murder. So, as much as I want to slam them with a lawsuit, I think we do have to wait until they implement and then get an injunction to stop them from continuing and then sue them for violation of our charter rights. So damn frustrating!
[I]ntent is a mental process. Suppose I intend to harm someone, but I do nothing to fulfill my intent. The law is not broken. But conspiracy is more than that. If I hire a hitman to kill that person, I’ve committed conspiracy to commit murder. The banks have hired FATCA officers with the sole purpose of implementing a procedure whereby they can systematically deprive Canadians of their rights. This is far beyond intent. This is spending money to pay the salaries of the hitmen, the Delores Umbridges.
This weekend I spoke at length with a concerned Canadian citizen (ChearsBigEars) who believes that the time to launch the mother of all class actions lawsuits against the banks has already arrived. Why should we wait until the banks actually deprive Canadian citizens of their Charter rights? What if the banks are already in the process of planning to violate those rights? Would that not constitute a conspiracy to violate their rights?
Suppose TD Bank decided to ban some minority–let’s say anyone who is not white. Now they put out an advertisement that they wish to hire a bouncer who will stand at the door and prevent non-white people from entering the bank. Would those people who are about to have their rights violated have to wait until they were bounced or could they go ahead and launch a lawsuit based upon a conspiracy to violate Charter rights? My contact suggests that we can go ahead and sue the banks in a class action lawsuit and that we should do it right away, and it should be for one billion CDN dollars, to reflect the seriousness of this rights violation and the actual damages that are being inflicted by the United States as a result of the banks’ plan to implement FATCA. We can do this because TD Bank (et al.) has put out placement ads asking for FATCA compliance officers–not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that they have already spent putting a system in place to discriminate against comfortable and concerned clients. Here is plea that he sent me to share with the readers of the Isaac Brock Society: Continue reading
TD Bank’s vow to make the FATCA experience “comfortable” for the affected clients invoked a powerful impression on my psyche, one which remained ineffable for a few days. I’ve written about a paternalist leadership style, and certainly this fits: the US federal government and its representatives exhibit most of the characteristics of paternalism in its relations with other countries and this is becoming increasingly intolerable.
However, it was yesterday as I watched again the Harry Potter series that I began to grasp better the idea that was eluding me. Through her characters, J. K. Rowling pegs certain stereotypes in our day: the incompetent politician, Cornelius Fudge, the unscrupulous reporter, Rita Skeeter, and the sickly sweet bureaucrat, Delores Umbridge. Despite her feminine pink attire and her pictures of kitty-cats on the wall, Umbridge is a torturer and an abuser of human rights. Thus, she promises through her overt femininity to make torture and banishment a comfortable experience.
Toronto Centre Debates Reports
(used with permission)
Report 1 – Rogers TV – Some Candidates Debate – Nov. 13/13
Report 2 – St. Michael’s College Attempted Debate – Nov. 16/13
Report 3 – Toronto Centre “FATCA Centric” ALL Candidates – Nov. 18/13
Introduction – Equality of Canadian Citizenship – Are Some Canadians less equal than others?
The November 18 debate was the only Toronto Centre “All Candidates Debate“. It was/is the only debate to which each and every Toronto Centre candidate was invited. It was also a specific opportunity to discuss FATCA – The U.S. “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” – an extraterritorial law which the U.S. is trying to impose on Canada. It was also the only debate to focus on a topic of clear national importance. Continue reading
I spoke with CCTV’s Kristiaan Yeo a couple weeks ago. I’ve only learned today that the report is available on Youtube:
I thought when doing this interview: Speak on CBC to a potential 30 million viewers; speak on CBS to a potential 300 million viewers; speak on China Central Television to a potential 1.3 billion viewers.
I mentioned the New Berlin Wall as the reason I expatriated. I am pleased that CCTV chose to retain that particular sound bite out of the approximately 45 minute interview that Kristiaan Yeo did with me.
A reader of Isaac Brock sent me the following letter:
Dear CBA:
It’s time for your organization to start standing up for your customers on this issue. You can do much more than encourage the Government to sign onto an egregious foreign governments demand (IGA) to throw Canadian sovereignty out the window to simply protect your members bottom lines.
There comes a time when every person and or organization has to take a principled stand and now is that time for your organization. When the government of Canada says no to signing onto an IGA, which would be tantamount to political suicide, it’s going to land squarely in your court. Are you going to compromise the rights of your loyal customers to respond to what amounts to IRS extortion? Do you think your members and shareholders would support a strong, principled, well funded resistance? Absolutely, once they know the facts. Get the facts out there. Spend some of our money edifying people on this issue. Use the press, use your members resources like the annual rational for increasing fee structures.
It is what it is: The school yard bully wants your lunch money. How do we instruct our kids to handle bully’s? Bully’s don’t expect a fight. It’s time you guys gave them one. It’s time you guys gave something meaningful back to your loyal customers and helped the government of Canada on this issue. Stand up and show some courage and initiative.
I’ll be the first one in line to sign onto a class action if any of my banks ask me where I was born. I’m a Canadian ….end of story.
Sincerely,
[Name withheld by request]
