I should go on record as saying that politics on campus isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s not a bad thing to expose students to politics, and it isn’t a bad thing to get them involved.

What is bad, however, is when the exposure is done in a duplicitous way such that the students are bamboozled into thinking they’re putting their support behind something they’re not, or worse, if they’re lied to outright.

And using leaked documents from WikiLeaks.org, The Ryerson Free Press recently demonstrated that this is precisely what Conservatives have been busy doing at universities across Ontario (and probably elsewhere), sometimes even misdirecting funds or working with federal funding to try to crush student groups they don’t like.

The leaked materials were posted on WikiLeaks.org over the weekend and add to the growing body of evidence that the Conservative Party has a strategy for interfering in campus student unions. In early 2002, the campus press first learned of a secret Millennium Leadership Fund that the party’s campus wing used to fund candidates in student union elections. Now it appears that strategy has evolved into a campaign to falsely obtain student union funding and destabilize student clubs with a social justice mandate.

Among those present at the workshop were Member of Parliament for Kitchener-Waterloo, Peter Braid and his campaign manager, Aaron Lee-Wudrick. Lee-Wudrick is heard on the recordings providing advice on how to siphon money from students’ unions through “front organizations” that would work to further the goals of the Conservative Party.

…

OPIRGs are campus organizations that are usually funded through a dedicated student levy to coordinate campus campaigns on human rights and social justice.

…

While Lee-Wudrick and O’Connor’s plan to cancel WPIRG’s (Waterloo OPIRG), funding failed in 2002, they boasted that it paved the way for another attempt in 2005, and expressed hope of success in the future.

They also identified student unions, campus radio stations and the Canadian Federation of Students as potential targets of a campaign to eliminate each organization’s funding. “Part of the objective here is to bring people into the Party. That’s a good thing,” said O’Connor. “Young liberals will help you out…and they’re some of the strongest allies on student issues,” he added.

During the workshop, student Conservatives were also coached on how to set up “shell groups” as a way to advance a partisan agenda on campus.

“Yeah we had a front group like that: the Campus Coalition for Liberty. It was really just a front for the Conservatives, but it gave us like two voices.” said Lee-Wudrick.

He added: “Don’t think that the Party doesn’t like that, because they do. They’re things that will help the Party, but it looks like it’s an organically-grown organization and it just stimulated from the grassroots spontaneously. They love that stuff… Remember all of the Rallies for Democracy … that’s just an example of how big those things can get.”

…

In 2002, a secret Millennium Leadership Fund of the youth wing of the Progressive Conservative Party was exposed by the Western Gazette in an article called “Tories plot to infiltrate student government.”

The article referred to an email leaked in March of 2002 in which then OPCCA President Adam Daifallah boasted to fellow party members about Millennium Leadership Fund recipients who were successfully elected that year at Queen’s University, the University of Waterloo and the University of Windsor. According to the Gazette, the Millennium Fund was largely paid for by senior Progressive Conservative members and supporters.

As I watched Diane Finlay’s (Human Resources Minister), announcement on EI reforms being pushed by the Harper regime, it became increasingly obvious that what they’re doing is pushing the corporate yoke on Canadians even further, and at the same pushing them into abject poverty and servitude.

It’s no exaggeration to say that with every announcement, every proposal, they demonstrate their complete subjugation to mega corporations and banks, and almost exclusively at the expense of you and me, the regular citizen.

The details revealed yesterday pretty much match the announcement made today, and it’s pretty terrifying what they’re putting into place. One of the major pieces of this is that Canadians will now be forced to take work that fits their skill set (paraphrased), and is within 70% to 80% of their average income.

So let’s say you were working an office job, or are in seasonal work, and find yourself laid off. You’ve been paying into the system (more money than you’ll ever be able to collect — heaven forbid YOU should benefit from your own labour!), and now need some assistance. The government will now require you to take a lower-paying job if it fits your skills (you can flip burgers, can’t you?), and is within 1 hour of your home (extra commuting doesn’t cost you any more, does it?).

Now you’ve got your lower-earning job, potentially farther away, and it doesn’t matter if you were living on the borderline of debt. So if you can’t make your monthly payments on your credit card or loan or whatever, you’re kinda fucked. Government says, “too bad”, it’s what you deserve for being laid off (if it’s in your control you get no benefits at all).

But it gets worse because your average income is now lower. While you may have been earning $60,000 last year, because of these changes you’re now earning $45,000 a year so your average income is now $52,500. Now if you’re laid off again (and I’m sure we’ll be seeing a dramatic increase in this — the government will see to it), you have to take a job that pays around $39,400.

Repeat this for a number of years and pretty soon the government will expect everyone to work for minimum wage. Typically it’ll take about 9 to 10 years to halve someone’s salary, especially if they’re dependent on seasonal work in provinces that have few other alternatives. And even in provinces that do, this is a great incentive to drop salaries — eventually, the government will force people to work for a pittance so why not?

Using that $60,000 per year example, that would take about 30 years. Here’s the math (note that each year we take the average pay):

Year 1 – $60,000 x 75% = $45,000
Year 2 – ($45,000 + $60,000) / 2 x 75% =  $52,500
Year 3 – ($45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 3  x 75% = $39,362
Year 4 – ($39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 4  x 75% = $37,052
Year 5 – ($37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 5  x 75% = $35,199
Year 6 – ($35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 6  x 75% = $33,732
Year 7 – ($33,732 + $35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 7  x 75% = $32,527
…

Year 30 – $22,836

So after 30 years of service to the corporate economy, you can expect to be getting close to minimum wage (if unchanged from today).

This assumes, of course, that the average income is calculated since the beginning of this system. If the term is limited, say 5 years, the income shrinks more quickly. And what about those “penalties for repeat users”? That hasn’t been fleshed out but you can bet it’ll make the slippery slope down to serfdom even faster.

In any event, no part of this will benefit workers or their families unless they happen to luck out with generous companies (how realistic is that?).

In the meantime, we can likely expect the Harper government to bend over backwards for banks (who are already robbing us blind), and huge corporations who will undoubtedly benefit greatly from slave labour.

Just a short blurb from my other blog; straight from Ontario’s green fields to your dinner table!

Doesn’t matter that most experts believe that pesticides are not the ideal solution. Doesn’t matter that most weed varieties are not “Roundup” (a Monsanto pesticide) glyphosate-resistant – a chemical which, according to Health Canada “is acutely toxic to rats via the oral or dermal route at doses as low as 3800 mg/kg”. Doesn’t matter that researchers are already discovering 2,4-D resistant weeds growing in fields. Doesn’t matter that 2,4-D doubles the chance developing leukemia, and is linked to sterility, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and other health effects according to the Ontario College of Physicians. Doesn’t matter that Health Canada banned the product for “aquatic” use. Doesn’t matter that prior to 1995 it was banned outright but under pressure from the US and OECD, and relying heavily on studies from the chemical’s manufacturers, and even making a reference to the very same College of Physicians report mentioned above, it’s now a-okay!

Read the rest here: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=2986

…then please spread. You don’t have to link back to me, just let people know what Dow, Monsanto, and other chemical companies are trying to do to our food!

Hard to know where to begin on the recent report by the RCMP exonerating itself (surprise surprise) of any wrongdoing during the G20 summit here in Toronto. How about responsibility, for starters. Well, you all remember the infamous kettling incident where the police just rounded up everyone walking through the street, encircled them, and kept them standing in the rain for hours? Who was responsible for that again?

Bill Blair said, yeah, the Toronto Police gave the orders:

“I do acknowledge the operational command decisions were being made by a Toronto police superintendant who was the operational commander at the time here in Toronto,” he said.

How very interesting, considering the RCMP report claims that they were calling the shots.

 The RCMP assumed the role of security lead by authority of the G8 Summit Privileges and Immunities Order, 2010-2, and the G20 Summit Privileges and Immunities Order, 2010. These orders created the legal basis for Canada to host the Summits and, accordingly, provided the RCMP with authority pursuant to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act to take the lead role for security of the events.

The decision makers for the G8, in descending order, were the Executive Steering Committee, the UCC Commander, the Area Commander and the Site Commander. POUcommanders, if deployed, were given authority to make decisions with respect to the tactics and equipment to be used during time-sensitive operational situations. A similar matrix was created for the G20, but an added level of Jurisdictional Commander, e.g. the MICC Commander, appeared below Site Commander to reflect the addition of the MICC.

When asked what his [ISU’s Lead] expectations were of the UCC Commander and the TACC Commander in this situation, the ISU Lead stated that he would only expect the UCC Commander to get involved if there had been a strategic need to do so (e.g. need for additional resources). The ISU Lead was clear that the kettling was a tactical decision—that is to say, it was made by the Toronto Police Service.

Even more interesting is the claim that the RCMP broke their own rules in kettling protesters:

The RCMP reluctantly participated in kettling protesters at the G20 riots in Toronto in 2010, under orders from the local police, even though the controversial crowd-control technique is not part of the Mounties’ playbook.

So right out of the gate we have the Toronto Police claiming to give orders to the RCMP while the RCMP claims it was in charge (a number of times), and then admitting to using tactics contrary to its own “playbook”. The a TPS tactical decision overrides the RCMP’s stated policies? And who’s in charge again?

Moreover, it is the RCMP stated policy “always” to give crowds a way out.

Then there’s the back-pedaling being done on Bill Blair’s secret law (suddenly and without warning applying it to half of downtown Toronto , even when many people directly asked, certainly made it “secret”):

Documentation provided to the Commission indicates that the Public Works Protection Act regulation was enacted in response to concerns expressed by the Toronto Police Service that officers would not be able to demand identification from those wishing to enter the area in which the Summit was taking place.

“Wishing to enter”? Funny, that’s not how it was either interpreted or enforced. In fact, the law says a few different things that don’t coincide:

Powers of guard or peace officer

3.A guard or peace officer,

(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;

(b) may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and

(c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3.

There was no provision for arrest if you didn’t “show your papers” simply walking around the fence, even though that’s exactly what the cops did, even though it’s obvious that this really only applied to people wanting to get inside the “Public Works” area. There’s also a lesser-known tidbit from around that time:

The Integrated Security Unit, comprised of security bodies including the Toronto police, RCMP and OPP, were concerned that lawyers were advising radical activist groups that police have limited right to question, identify and detain individuals near the fenced secure area downtown, Mukherjee said.

Blair made the request after ISU members decided extending the powers in the act, which covers buildings including Union Station and Toronto police headquarters, to the G20 fence, he said.

“The decision makers felt that a clearer articulation of what those limits are would be useful. It was not chief Blair alone. It was the ISU,” said [Police Services Board chair] Alok Mukherjee.

How about that? The RCMP claims in their report it was Toronto Police Services alone that “expressed concern” (i.e. wanted to terrorize people on the street without warrant), yet articles from that time show the RCMP (and the OPP) were in on the push for the secret law right from the get-go.

One of the more blatant lies maintained in the RCMP report is that police acted in good faith by “pre-arresting” people before they had a chance to cause trouble at the G20:

During the lead up to the commencement of the [G20] Summit, intelligence led threat assessments will be prepared by the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG). These reports will document threat levels relating to terrorism threats and planned protest threats.

The ongoing intelligence from these reports will have an impact on the deployment of human and material resources, where the potential for confrontation between protestors and police personnel are likely to occur. G20 Operations personnel conducted Vulnerability Risk Assessments in Toronto in December 2009 of the proposed venue, airport and hotels.

All “targeting” will be based upon criminal predicate: Suspects will be determined based upon their proven willingness, capacity and intention to commit criminal acts and/or create situations that pose public safety concerns.

The RCMP conclusion:

Finding No. 8: The JIG appropriately identified and assessed criminal threats to the Summits.

That a fact? Of the 70 or so pre-arrests that were “appropriately identified and assessed criminal threats”, how many of the charges stuck? Literally none. In fact, this was pretty much par for the course during all police actions during the G20, yet the cops managed to completely miss actual trouble-makers, and this more than once.

These are just three examples in the report. I haven’t even read the whole thing and already I’m finding the stench of bullshit unbearable. If you’re willing to hold your nose long enough and find more “inconsistencies”, I’d love to hear from you and append them here. I’m sure it’s filled with examples of this kind of crap which the mainstream media are missing in favour of easy-to-read, highlighted admissions of failure.

So Sarah and I took a trip down to University Avenue to visit with Janet Leiper, the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Toronto. I’m pretty sure you can guess that the topic of discussion was our less than lustrous mayor and his continuing antics. Specifically, we were curious to know what steps could be taken to oust the man (and I use that word lightly), and what her office’s role could be in that.

Janet is a surprisingly youthful and slim woman (for someone who listens to the bitching and moaning of the city all day), and was very cordial in welcoming us to her office — something that rarely takes place (most people just call). It wasn’t a big space, shared only with her assistant Wendy, and was filled mostly with office supplies, bulky office equipment, books, desks, and one small round table around which we sat.

She began by opening a weighty volume, the City of Toronto Code of Conduct for Members of Council and explaining that this, for the most part, was the territory that she treads. Then she drew a three-slice pie diagram explaining that, out of the three slices of a Member’s responsibility, she was responsible for interpreting complaints related to their conduct (the other two being legal / criminal responsibilities, and political responsibilities). To put it another way, the Code of Conduct is what she’s responsible for admonishing. Should the matter be criminal or a failure of political responsibility, her role would be only to advise people to take it up with others under whom these jurisdictions fall.

The role of the Integrity Commissioner is, for the most part, to smooth over relations so that, for example, when some Council member is having a tiff with another member, she can recommend that the two apologize. Her recommendations are the definitive word on whether or not the Code of Conduct has been breached and, when it’s something big, her recommendation is brought to Council for a vote for action. Janet is also a lawyer (this gig is only a part-time role for her), so she is basically the professional vetting of whether or not the Code has been breached — if she says yes, there doesn’t need to be any question about it. However, if a member of Council breaks a rule beyond simply the Code, it’s taken one step higher to the courts, precisely why Rob Ford is being tackled by Clayton Ruby.

We were told, in no uncertain terms, that we were more than welcome to contact Janet’s office any time we felt that the Code of Conduct was being breached, and even if it wasn’t specifically spelled out “in the letter” of the code, we could go by “the spirit” of the document which is spelled out in the preamble. In other words, even if the thing doesn’t mention a specific infraction, there are certain overarching elements that cover what the Code is supposed to be about. These include:

• Members of Council shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner;
• Members of Council should be committed to performing their functions with integrity and to avoiding the improper use of the influence of their office, and conflicts of interest, both apparent and real;
• Members of Council are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny; and
• Members of Council shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the Federal Parliament and Ontario Legislature, and the laws and policies adopted by City Council

So let’s say you believe that the Mayor had a conflict of interest in using public money to fund his high school football team — start by having a gander of the Code of Conduct. If you can find anything specific covering such an action (or you believe the spirit of the thing has been breached), you should go right ahead and file a complaint with the Integrity Commissioner. That complaint can be private, or it can be formal (which will require an affidavit and some other paperwork), the second accusation obviously being the more serious one (and one that the Commissioner is able to discuss publicly). The Commissioner’s office will then investigate the complaint and provide a recommendation. That recommendation can be brought before Council for a vote, or she can recommend that you get a lawyer and they can take it from there.

In any event, the Office of the Integrity Commissioner is a great place to start if you think that members of Council have broken the rules. Just be sure to point out which part of the Code you think they’ve breached (she can’t actually recommend things like that, it would make her seem biased). Even if you’re not 100% sure, you can ask — that’s exactly why she’s there!

And, if I can share the one major take-away that this visit left me with: getting involved with the machinations of City Hall (or any level of government), is not at all difficult! Even if you don’t know exactly how to proceed with something like a complaint, all you have to do is ask and you will be directed to the right place. You’ll learn more about how the city works in 30 minutes than you could by reading all the newspapers around town, and along the way you’ll discover that most of these mechanisms are actually in place primarily for citizens, not just Council members, reporters, and others who would end up interpreting things for you.

And it’s exceedingly easy in most cases. I started with an email which resulted in an appointment for a phone call. We misunderstood and actually went down to the Integrity Commissioner’s office, but that’s usually way more effort than you’d have to put in.

We said our goodbyes, took the elevator down to street level, out onto University, and made our way up to discuss what we’d just learned over bevvies. While we didn’t actually do anything, the meeting emboldened us to take further steps to get our buffoon of a mayor under control. The bravado came from knowing we’re both just regular Joes off the street; we have no legal training, no lawyers, no money to back us, and no connections to support us, yet we have as much power to file a formal complaint that could oust the mayor (or any member of Council) as anyone else!

If I can recommend just one thing, if you’re frustrated with Mayor Ford or his minions, if things seem to be spinning wildly out of control, if City Hall seems to be working against you, the citizen, and not with you, don’t be afraid to get in touch with someone like the Integrity Commissioner and find out what steps to take to fix things. It’s easy, friendly, and even if you don’t get the answer you need right away, you’ll be pointed in the right direction.

Ford’s buddies at the Sun, the daily tabloid rag of Toronto, call his renewed threats on graffiti a “bleak future for graffiti vandals”, once again demonstrating a clear inability to see the reality of what such idiotic pronouncements produce. Or maybe they can’t read. Or maybe they don’t want to face reality. Either way, it’s quite obvious what his Rotundness’ comments will result in, no matter how much bluster his idiot supporters produce (hot air doesn’t remove paint, believe it or not).

Destroying anything and everything on a wall doesn’t actually work, and neither does calling 911 when we see someone painting on walls. I wonder what asinine stupidity Ford will follow up with this time. I’m also looking forward to seeing all the renewed vigour with which Ford will be represented in graffiti around the city. Seems like everyone but meathead and his hand-up-his-brother’s-ass brother can’t seem to see what’s happening around them. Then again, they can barely tell what’s happening in their own heads so I guess it’s not surprising.