There are many things that, at one time, were the exclusive domain of the tinfoil hat brigade. Claims such as the government spying on everyone, or that that same government is engaged in a global plot to enslave its citizens under corporate rule through coercion, outwardly hypocritical violence, fear and intimidation, secrecy, open criminality, and many massive rights violations, all promulgated by a colluding mass media as perfectly normal and certainly not worth informing you about.

Seems like those tinfoil-donning lunatics were onto something; it even turns out that tinfoil is pretty good at blocking out the types of radio waves that can affect a human brain. So these days, when those same crazies talk about visitors from other planets, I’m much more apt to take a few moments to hear them out.

I’m still on the fence about the existence of extraterrestrial creatures. Yes, I think the chance that other life exists out there is extremely good; intelligent life too. But I can’t remember ever seeing a UFO or anything that might look otherwordly so I can’t rely on any personal experience.

When I have to resort to trusting the accounts of others I steer towards those who have some established credibility. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defense,  for example, seems like a pretty solid bet. Not only was Hellyer a rarity among politicians (he had some qualifications for his position!), but he has remained a sensible and balanced public voice maintaining that UFOs are real and being covered up by governments worldwide. Contrasted against the way governments operate, Hellyer’s claims seem even more plausable.

Here’s what he had to say earlier this year at an official-looking “hearing” on UFOs and ETs in Toronto:

The truth is out there.

For once I’m not going to involve Rob Ford in this except to mention that it’s his office that’s involved in the situation. I’m not blaming the man personally, though if you were to tell me that it was his doing then it wouldn’t seem at all out of place.

This all has to do with various Municipal Freedom of Information Act requests to City Hall — Rob Ford’s office, to be specific — that are being basically ignored. The law states that Ford’s office has 30 days to comply, or give reasons for a delay, but the Star is noting that some of their requests are more than a month past-due without so much as a peep from Ford’s office.

This isn’t terribly out of place with today’s increasingly authoritarian, secretive, and oppressive model of government; Canada being no exception. More than one professional journalist group has raised the alarm about this as they discovered the same tactics being used by all the various levels of government.

For the common Joe, it can quickly become prohibitive to keep paying for the little bits and pieces of information (or more likely appeals), that the government deems that he’s worthy to know. That’s because the government has few, if any obligations to Joe.

Instead, almost all of the obligations, requirements, rules, stipulations, demands, laws, by-laws, regulations, and penalties fall on the head of common Joe. The rights, expectations, protections, aegises, mandates, wills, and general declarations of “this is what we can and will do to you” are exclusive to governments and big corpo.

Take the Municipal Freedom of Information Act, as a contextual example. There are a couple of sections in there mentioning your rights, hardly any mention of what happens when your rights under these terms have been violated, and the vast majority of the document describes how you can and will be refused FOIA requests as well as all the ways in which your privacy will not be protected. Within the “Offenses” section, a maximum $5,000 fine is specified as a penalty for six items, one of which potentially punishes a government employee for sharing personal information, and five of which punish you for a broad variety of things. For example, the government implicitly retains the right to lie and mislead you while specifically stipulating that it’s against the law for you to do so to them.

On the flip side of the same coin, while most corporations will break the law and then pass the financial penalty (if any) onto their beholden customers, some large and established organizations are emboldened enough to publicly demand that they are not, and should not be legally required to tell the truth in things like contracts and advertising claims.

Legalese is carefully crafted and such things don’t happen by accident. Most laws and regulations are squarely aimed at the everyday citizen and designed to exclude government and large corporations. This is cold hard reality, publicly expounded and codified.

This is also why it seems that these same groups seem to be getting away with breaking the law. That law, if applied to you or me would see a swift and decisive response before you could bat an eyelash in protest. Not so much if you’re part of a government gang or elite corpo clique. And even if it turns out that they had actually broken a law, that law is just retroactively changed by them or their buddies to make it all good and legal — now it’s even more in line with what the law was intended for!

Even something as trivially simple as taxes reveals this disparity: if you pay late, they will come after you no questions asked and charge you interest for the privilege. If they mess up and send you a rebate cheque late, or for the wrong amount, would any court seriously entertain an interest charge in your favour? In fact, who do you complain to?

Keep in mind that this isn’t the free market and so we don’t just up and over to a new government. A waxy dead-eyed new figurehead, yeah, but that’s hardly the same thing.

Unchecked, I think it’d obvious where this is headed. However, I also console myself with the fact that some people are cynical about all things corpo-government. In my experience, they don’t really care much for laws that seek only to oppress and control them. Some people don’t need to be told by some pinhead with a lofty title what’s right and what’s wrong. When these same people are in the majority, it doesn’t much matter how much that pinhead insists that he is the moral authority. And no matter how much that pinhead insists that without his laws society would just crumble into a depraved orgy of destruction and death, we know otherwise.

The problem is that right now there is a great deal of complacency, fear, and childish distraction among Canadians. The laws being erected against us are turning into real, physical systems. At the same time, Canadians are unwittingly being chemically lobotomized and mentally damaged while subsisting on a diet of numbing drugs and chemical-laced water, all while consuming mindless media that promotes violence and vulgarity. This confluence of factors may be nothing more than coincidence, but it doesn’t change the facts.

Politicians and money men have been called scoundrels (and much worse), since time immemorial, probably owing to the fact that it’s a perfectly true statement. What we’re just beginning to experience now, however, is what happens when those scoundrels are allowed, encouraged even, to rule over us through fear, violence, and deception.

At one time, my mentions that we are being illegally tracked by our government/corporate owners were derided as conspiracy gibberish, along with the verbatim “tinfoil hat” comments that all such enlightened contrarians regurgitate, despite the reams of independent, corroborative evidence I would trot out.

Then, with the news of NSA spying scandal came confirmation that, yes indeed, this is exactly what’s happening and if anything I didn’t go far enough in my descriptions.

None of it is news to the informed, to be sure, and there is enough independent verification going back many years from the best sources one could find — there’s absolutely no doubt that we are being spied on constantly, and that our government is forcing this on us at the behest of private, for-profit, and for-control interests. Even if you believe the highly incredulous claims that CSEC, Canada’s version of the NSA, is not spying on Canadians, there’s no doubt that our neighbours are only more than willing to do so and to share that information with CSEC:

CSEC relies on its closest foreign intelligence allies, the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand to share the collection burden and the resulting intelligence yield. Canada is a substantial beneficiary of the collaborative effort within the partnership to collect and report on foreign communications.

The issue of why the government is doing this usually pops up at this point. The naive assumption is typically that this is being done for the protection of citizens (terrorism!) and that even if our data is temporarily stored and analyzed, ultimately no one is interested in harvesting all of your innermost secrets.

Of course, I’ve already mentioned that the government is imposing these measures on behalf of power-hungry organizations seeking global domination (is that sufficient motive?), which also sounds like a conspiratorial rambling — if only it weren’t for the fact that CSEC directly states this on their website:

The IT Security Program has earned highly valued global respect and a reputation of technical excellence. It now extends its expertise past its traditional technical clients to those within the Government of Canada who are responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy and program managers. This approach encourages harmonization between Government of Canada’s operational IT security requirements with its business needs and processes.

The IT Security Program will aid the Government of Canada’s effort to make cyber security a business enabler.

It’s fair to say that protecting profits, whether government or corporate, isn’t CSEC’s only job:

During the Cold War, the Establishment’s primary client for signals intelligence was National Defence, and its focus was the military operations of the then Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, Government of Canada requirements have evolved to include a wide variety of political, defence, and security issues of interest to a much broader range of client departments.

While these continue to be key intelligence priorities for Government of Canada decision-makers, increasing focus on protecting the safety of Canadians is prompting greater interest in intelligence on transnational issues, including terrorism.

Here CSEC, under the reliable guise of “terrorism”, is openly promoting surveillance and spying. Note how there’s no mention of protecting citizens from predatory governments or other large organizations with the means and proven willingness to do real harm.

The agency, unsurprisingly, works hard at convincing everyone that with every new power they’re granted they’re being extra cautious and rigorous, but such words are hollow and meaningless when cut short by insistence that actual details are top secret and therefore you can’t know about them.

I’m not the only person to point this out, but what is clearly apparent is that the government and all of its shadowy organizations are focused on protecting corporate and government interests while either ignoring are actively eroding individual rights and freedoms. Their words are loud enough by themselves, but their actions practically scream their intent.

This is not only enshrined in both the despicable mandates and lack of any accountability underlying CSEC, CSIS, and other such groups, but we see real-world examples of what is truly important to their operations. Between destroying potentially incriminating evidence, allowing international spying to happen under their noses, being watched over by fraudsters, and championing horrific laws, it’s really hard to see any of them as the cheerful, helpful, protective entities they claim they are.

You can go even further to prove this for yourself by calling any government agency, whether it’s the Canada Revenue Agency or the Public Safety Ministry, and ask the person on the other end the simple and blunt question: does the government work for the people or do the people work for the government? The answer should only be, “but of course the government works for its people!”, and part of that work should include being able to answer this question; however, it’s highly unlikely that this is the response you’ll receive. In fact, you should take a moment to relish the derision and/or idiocy you’ll receive as a response from the people who you’re paying to force you to jump through hoops for — then you’ll be clear about who is expected to bow to who.

This seems so juvenile and simple that few people would bother actually picking up the phone and learning the disturbing truth for themselves. Instead, they will wrap themselves up in yet another layer of delusion and will, by corollary, have answered their own subsequent questions about how governments and corporations are able to get away with this, how people could be so blind and blasé as to allow it to happen, etc.

The question, for those of us who can add two and two, is not whether we’re being tracked and surveilled, it’s what we can do about it. The idiotic claim that, because we’ve done nothing wrong we have nothing to hide can be re-stated equally as simply as because we’ve done nothing wrong you have no right to watch us. In fact, if these agencies are so squeaky clean, why do they obstinately refuse any oversight or inspection? If they didn’t do anything wrong, why do they refuse to answer any questions?

Because it’s one standard for us, the reprehensible child-molesting rabble who should count themselves lucky to be protected from all those nefarious terrorist plots, and another standard for our historically benign and loving government/corporate owners. And when we complain about this inconsistency, we’re reminded in less-than-gentle ways that their 24% support represents a “majority” and if we don’t like it we need to shut the hell up and wait until the next “fair” election.

When we see corporate-backed governments collaboratively going after those standing up for truth, honesty, openness, and justice, even when those people have not broken any laws, while the governments themselves, at the highest levels, are openly breaking law after law and engaging in open fraud and deception, it’s obvious what side of the moral/ethical/legal debate the “authorities” stand on, and moreover, who their number one enemy are.

The sad thing is that the willfully ignorant still expect tanks to roll through the streets in order to recognize the action as a coup, never once thinking that guns and bombs don’t need to be used when gullible fools like them unwittingly and gladly hand over everything to their criminal overlords.

Just so I’m clear, I support neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Sri Lankan government in their ongoing struggle. Yes, I do know a bit of the history of the island, the forced displacement of the indigenous Tamil people, etc., but not enough to take a firm stand either way.

But that’s not my point in writing this anyway.

I want to expose the hypocrisy, arbitrariness, and two-facedness of our government in designating enemies and terrorists, especially now that they’ve pushed the “anti-terrorist” Bill S-7 down the throats of Canadians (the latest in a long line of tyrannical, totalitarian, deadly measures that have only one, logical conclusion).

The Tamil Tigers consider themselves freedom fighters, fighting an evil and corrupt strong-man government (openly and proudly installed and maintaned by the Harper government). Sure, many people wouldn’t agree with that definition of the Tigers, but that’s beside the point — Harper loves him his Sri Lankan “authorities” and has made sure Canada’s been helping out since 2006 while simultaneously ensuring dissent is fully destroyed:

Canadian interest in Sri Lanka is also driven by a foreign policy commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In April 2006, Canada listed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a terrorist organization under the Canadian Criminal Code, and in June 2008, the World Tamil Movement was also added to the list.

Now, John Baird, the guy currently running this part of Harper’s shit show, has this to say about the same government that they’ve been brown-nosing and loving up over the past 7 years:

“We’re appalled that Sri Lanka seems poised to host CHOGM and to be chair-in-residence of the Commonwealth for two years,” he told the Guardian.

“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it. We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”

This in-your-face hypocrisy is troubling on many levels, but there are two that stand out above others.

1. It’s excruciatingly obvious that this has nothing to do with “terrorism”, supporting human rights, ensuring equality, etc.; it’s all about arbitrarily (at least, on the surface), vilifying one group or another for reasons of conquest, division, strife, and control.  And while simultaneously decrying our new enemies abroad (but not actually doing anything to back up the vociferous fist-pounding), the government is passing measures designed to go after its own people in the most draconian manner and with complete impunity at home (again, see S-7 for just a smattering).
2. This “these are friends, no, they’re hated enemies” narrative, state of constant and unending war, fear, and domestic subjugation have been spelled out almost exactly in works that were once considered mere horrific works of fiction:
   

This dark and unsettling road that we’re on is nonetheless clearly marked, and has an even more clear destination. It’s not as if history hasn’t shown us example after example of where all of this leads (if we let it), and those who choose to remain ignorant, or worse, supportive of it, also have plenty of first-hand experience to draw on:

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If…if…

We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

The mainstream media are barely naming Bill S-7 (to be debated by MPPs today), and good luck finding anyone in the industry who will provide an accurate list of all the draconian, tyrannical measures that Harper is trying to institute in his “but it’s for terrorism!” bill.

Apparently, the fact that Canadians are to be subjected to the following measures doesn’t warrant so much as a passing comment from most in the news industry (though you can find an occasional aside):

• People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
• The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
• As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
• Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
• A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
• Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
• Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
• These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.

Instead of fully laying out all of these incredibly corrupting and corruptible powers for all Canadians to judge, we have moist bags of flesh like CP24’s former cop-turned-TV-schill Cam Wooley and other “specialists” (most of whom were weather or traffic “specialists” this time last year), leaving out crucial information and instead saying simply that S-7 provides needed new police powers and creates …

“… new offenses for Canadians who become radicalized … with the permission of the Attorney General, [police] can bring a person before a judge and have hearings. They’ll be able to have a lawyer, that sort of thing, but a judge can compel someone to give information on terrorism. Police can, apparently through a well safeguarded process book recognizance and conditions through the courts on someone to prevent terrorism.”

And in 30 seconds, the piddling report is over, followed shortly afterwards by an in-depth, five-minute-long interview with “cultural icon” Kat Con D about her new book. The same reporter who found S-7 “fascinating” now gushingly describes the book as a veritable “work of art”; clearly, this is what really matters!

No one can say that this was  a “Leftie” conspiracy against Rob Ford — the judge who passed the judgment was in favour of the Harper government in the Guergis case.

And despite the blatantly false, grossly uninformed, and incessantly misleading bleating of ardent Ford supporters like CP24’s Stephen Ledrew (I’m sure Jerry Agar won’t be far behind), Hackland’s judgement was not a mere “technicality” (“highly unlikely” to go anywhere, according to Ledrew, mere moments before the verdict was delivered), or based on “Ford helping the kids”.

And despite CP24’s best attempt to spin the verdict by showing the “range of responses” from Twitter, which included one outraged respondent and a question about how long Ford has to appeal, my own experience both online and off (I’m sitting in a downtown coffee shop as I write this), shows an overwhelming amount of joy and a feeling that justice has finally been done. Not a “he got his” feeling, but a “law prevailed as we knew it must” feeling — something I’m sure, based on all the feedback I’ve seen, Ford supporters just can’t wrap their heads around. And there aren’t many of them around anymore (this is why I’ve mused more than once about the real conspiracy, the one that’s propping Ford up).

I can honestly say that I knew in my heart of hearts that this had to be the verdict. As I’ve stated in numerous previous posts, the judge’s job is to make sure that the law is followed, and in this case the law was very clear. Ultimately, as Ruby, the lawyer who brought the case against Ford, said in a televised conference shortly after the verdict was released, Rob Ford did this to Rob Ford. That was so plainly and painfully obvious to anyone who read the details of the case that any judgment to the contrary would’ve been a shock, not the other way around. Not that it’s stopping Ledrew and the CP24 team from trying to push this lie into the “range of responses” and trying their damnedest to steer the conversation in this direction.

But if you still don’t believe how un-shocked I am at this verdict, just scroll back through a few past Ford conflict of interest posts on TCL and compare the language I used to that used by the judge himself (be sure to read the whole judgement while you’re at it):

Hackland: “In view of the respondent’s leadership role in ensuring integrity in municipal government, it is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement (concerning his football foundation) and a dismissive and confrontational attitude to the Integrity Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the respondent’s actions were characterized by ignorance of the law and a lack of diligence in securing professional advice, amounting to wilful blindness. As such, I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”

TCL: “The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.”

Hackland: “For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the respondent contravened s. 5 of the MCIA when he spoke and voted on a matter in which he had a pecuniary interest at the meeting of Toronto City Council on February 7, 2012, and that his actions were not done by reason of inadvertence or a good faith error in judgment.”

TCL: “This can easily be seen as vote buying — you donate to Rob’s foundation, he gets you tax receipts and special favours when he gets into the Mayor’s seat. Even if that never happens (though with Ford, it most likely would), the chance of it happening is eliminated by having things like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (in fact, that’s the sole reason for this law to exist in the first place!) Maybe Robbie didn’t know that it could be perceived this way? Not a fucking chance.”

Hackland: “In assessing errors in judgment, just as it may be relevant to consider the position of a novice elected councillor with limited experience with conflict of interest issues, it is also appropriate to consider the responsibilities of the respondent as a long-serving councillor and Mayor. In my opinion, a high standard must be expected from an elected official in a position of leadership and responsibility. Toronto’s current Code of Conduct is modelled on the recommendations of The Honourable Denise Bellamy, who conducted the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, in 2005, when the respondent was a member of City Council.

TCL: “Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.”

I could go on but it’s kind of beating a dead horse. And I have to be upfront and say that I’m definitely not the only person to point out these “discrepancies” in Ford’s thinking and statements.

But no matter what I think or say, it’s very satisfying at the end of all of this to know that common sense, as reflected in law, has prevailed. On occasion, the law actually works!

Ford is now busily figuring out how to spend the next two weeks before he has to give up his seat. Apparently there’s an appeal in the works and we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to be hearing of this outrage. In the meantime, though, City Council is thinking about if they should appoint an interim mayor or if there should be a by-election. Ford won’t be barred from this so presumably he could run (and win), once again. Considering the amount of bad blood he’s racked up so far though, even if he throws his name into the ring, I can’t see him winning again. Sorry, Ledrew, but you’re wrong on that one too.

You’ve probably read the hubbub about the US’ use of drones in Afghanistan.

In case you haven’t, drones are the unmanned, remote controlled planes that the US has taken a liking to in order to kill people abroad with basically no risk to their own personnel. And the Americans are killing lots of innocent people in their incessant search for those scary terrorists. Lots.

Obama even has an extra-judicial “kill list” for the people he feels need to get blowed up real good.

Obviously, with Al Qaeda hiding in people’s assholes, it’s necessary to bring a barrage of indiscriminate hell fire down on those turban-wearing heathen overseas (and put electroshock collars on any suspicious Americans at home, just in case) .

Those terrorists sure are scary, aren’t they? So are all those criminals lurking just outside everyone’s doors in the bushes. That’s why it’s necessary for the TSA pedophiles (sorry, “authorities”), to rape (sorry, “search”) you at random anywhere you may go now, and why it’s also become necessary to deploy those drones domestically. And of course they need to be armed (despite assurance to the contrary).

Okay, so why am I talking about this?

Well, a blog post I wrote earlier this year seems to really be hitting a nerve with readers, and I think those same readers would be shocked to see what’s just around the corner right here in Canada (the stuff I mentioned in that post is just a drop in the bucket).

Although I don’t like to discuss bummer subjects like this, it’s best we all get to collectively standing up against the crap that Harper and his Conservative buddies have in store for us (to be fair, the Liberals are just an arm of the same group of criminals these days).

You see, biggie defense contractor Raytheon put in a bid, a while back, with the Canadian military, which was actively seeking its own fleet of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). On the surface, this might seem like a good thing — we gotta bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, don’t we? Even if you agree with that, you have to question where exactly those UAVs would be used since Peter MacKay announced (about half a year back), that we’re getting out of Afghanistan.

It would’ve been speculation, of course, that UAVs would be used domestically here in Canada in the same capacity as in the US, without some sort of official-sounding documentation. I figured the government’s own website would be fairly official:

Beyond Afghanistan:

A long term UAV solution, in the form of the Joint UAV Surveillance Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) Program, is currently being developed that will include domestic and deployed operational UAV capabilities.

By the way, you may want to have a look at, and save, the link soon: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/mobil/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2719. When I originally researched this story, I had linked to the desktop version of that tidbit and it’s since mysteriously disappeared.

Of course, the story doesn’t end with announcements for future plans. The Canadian military is in full swing and purchasing fully weaponized UAVs for a variety of missions (to be deployed at home at some point, keep in mind).

But at least the domestic deployment not happening yet, is it?

Of course it is.

RCMP are now deploying their drones over Manitoba, claiming they’re just for monitoring traffic accidents and dangerous situations. Maybe the drones are actually for those pesky environmental “terrorists”? They’re already flying in Ontario looking for drugs, which is an excuse to do just about anything these days. And yes, it’s both law enforcement and military flying the sky-bound killing machines for use right here in Canada and abroad (including places pretty far away from Afghanistan).

In fact, if you do a search on Google, it’s a good bet that you’ll find plenty of additional information that I missed — it’s almost commonplace now (if you’ve been paying attention).

And do I believe that these things will be deployed over Toronto any time soon? I’d be shocked to hear that they haven’t been buzzing my apartment for quite some time now. And that goes for every atrocious activity that the US is engaged in domestically too — Harper’s track record demonstrates he gets all wet at the mere thought of it all.

Surveillance and possible death from above, unlicensed proctology from below — the future sounds like a big ball of fun!

I was planning on going down to Caribana today but the heat and humidity were so oppressive, I thought better of it early on.

And that wasn’t the only thing that was oppressive:

Police, volunteers and private security guarded entrances to the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival, patting people down and searching bags before they entered.

A network of barricades and fences kept the public back from the dancers with glitter-dusted skin and colourful headdresses as they made their way down Toronto’s Lakeshore Blvd.

“There’s so much fences that I can’t hardly see anything,” said Ann James, a nurse from Bloomfield, CT., who was trying to find her way to the end of the parade route.

Pat downs? I thought there weren’t going to be any pat downs! And I thought they were supposed to be reserved only for the saps in the bleachers … you know, all the lowlife criminal scrum like families and the elderly that attend the parade.

And now that I think about it, I’m certain that I mentioned that this was going to turn out to basically be security theatre intended to intimidate the general public.

And now, having mentioning these things (and incidents involving police acting as simply armed thugs, not enforcers of the law), I’m sad to report that they happened last night and today exactly as I predicted.

In fact, Sarah and I decided to go out for some chicken wings in the evening and I don’t remember seeing such a ridiculous number of cops on the streets since the G20. There were cops from all over; Peel Region, Waterloo, Halton. And they were parading around in gaggles of anywhere from four to ten at intervals of — and I’m not exaggerating in any way — every single block around the city core. At times there were more cops than pedestrians.

And I can’t tell you the number of parking enforcement cops that simply strolled by cars parked in front of fire hydrants and blocking intersections, right in front of our wing place, no more than a meter away from us and clearly visible through a huge glass pane window. To put it another way, the police weren’t enforcing the law, they were out to make sure we all saw their presence.

You may, at this point, be wondering if the word “despotism” was accurate in the title of this post. After all, it’s a pretty weighty word with lots of nasty connotations. Well, how about we let Encyclopedia Britannica explain (and while you watch, keep the banking bailouts, growing disparity between rich and poor, government censorship and gagging, and the near dictatorial pronouncements and oppressive, repressive laws and practices coming from both down south and here from Harper’s Canada, in the back of your mind):

Remember yesterday when I was talking about the seeming unwillingness of the government to curb violence? I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice this, but the only conclusions that people are drawing are that Harper and his cadre are doing this either through sheer incompetence or some level of meat-headed obstinance that simply won’t allow them to do anything else.

Except what if there’s a third option? One in which this is a cold, calculating move designed to get us all under the yoke of a tyrannical government. I mean, you only have to look as far back as Bills C-11, C-10, or C-38 (the Omnibus Crime Bill) to see exactly where they want to take Canada, and it’s a very ugly direction indeed; Orwellian, even — and that is not an exaggeration by any means.

And if you doubt that, today’s news offers an early glimpse into the plan made incarnate at this year’s Caribana (you know everyone still calls it that!) Here’s just a sample of what they deem is “normal” for private security (these aren’t even sworn police officers, and this is in a public place):

Security guards will be searching visitors’ bags for alcohol, drugs and weapons.

[Organizer Stephen] Weir said the people who usually purchase bleacher seats are seniors, families with young children and tourists. He doesn’t expect pat-downs will be part of the screening process.

Oh, he “doesn’t expect” pat downs will be used on children? That means that, yes, most certainly the troglodyte security goons will most definitely be grabbing at your kids’ genitals, a la US TSA gropings. And since these are mostly elderly and kids and families sitting in the bleachers, off course they need to be the subjects of a security crack-down. They are, after all, typical of the most despicable criminals out there. Makes sense, right?

People are unfairly linking us with an event in another part of the city that was really tragic, but we should be doing this.

Oh, it’s unfair. We don’t have a violent event, so of course we’ll be frisking people. And only the the law-abiding citizens who paid for their tickets; everyone else just walking around on the street won’t be subject to this. Makes sense, right?

If you’ve brought in food and non-alcoholic beverages, we don’t care. But if someone tries to bring in drugs or alcohol or projectiles and the worst-case scenario, a weapon, we have police standing by.

So what exactly is the point of security then? You know, it’s one thing to watch the crowd for sketchy people, but frisking people and rifling through their bags, especially when they’re families, elderly, and kids, has only one purpose, and it’s exactly the same purpose that the police at the G20 were put out in such force and ended up breaking the law in far larger numbers than even the demonstrators (who actually had larger numbers): fear and intimidation.

If you doubt this, read the official reports on the G20 (I’m sure I link to them from this blog somewhere). Does that help to answer why the police didn’t give a fuck when the vandals were wrecking Toronto? They weren’t there to serve and protect — it’s that simple.

They are not there to help you, they’re there to teach you to kow tow to authority, to demand that you allow flabby fucks to manhandle your kids, to scare you into obeying whatever commands they issue, even if they themselves have no more authority than the average citizen on the street. It’s important to repeat this last part, because in a public place like the Caribana parade, you have as many rights as any pudgy fuck with a pseudo-badge and a hard-on for fondling your wife’s breasts. And if you don’t like it, you can be sure that there will be hundreds of security cameras recording your every move, without your knowledge or permission, exactly as described in Orwell’s 1984.

Just today I saw two police cruisers in Allan Gardens and four bicycle cops for a total of eight uniforms busting an old man. One of the officers was doing a little jig while two others were laughing up a storm; the old guy just stood there looking down at the ground. Ridiculous? Of course not, it’s fear and intimidation; they’re doing their jobs!

You know, if the evidence fits then whatever the theory it supports must necessarily be true, and frankly all the crap that the mayor and the mainstream keep throwing at us makes no sense at all (see above).

Q.E.D.

Sadly, most people will just go along with our descent, much to the resounding joy of Harper and his underlings who see their hellish visions of a “modern” society coming to life, and these people will cower in fear and bow to “the authorities” (whoever they claim to be), whenever they’re told to.

This is just the very beginning.

Don’t think so?

Let’s look at the facts.

First he starts making plans for the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he invites others to run against his opponents in the same election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he scales back on his election promise to privatize garbage collection until the same 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then a leaked letter reveals he’s stopped planning for the next two years and instead wants to start again after the 2014 election, presumably because he’s given up.

Then he shows Canada what “champion” he is by waffling out of his weight loss program week after week, presumably because he’s given up.

Not necessarily in this order, but you get the idea.

Now the Toronto Star reveals that RoFo has cut his Mayorly activities by over 60%, presumably because he’s given up.

Here’s a smattering of his absentee agenda:

In January 2012, Ford averaged 11 meetings a week compared with 33 in January 2011, his first full month as mayor. In February 2012, he had 15 meetings scheduled each week, compared with an average of 34 a year earlier.

…

According to sources that include former and current staff, Ford often does not leave his home until noon. His itineraries indicate that daily staff briefings are held at about 9:30 a.m., but on those late days, the sources say, Ford participates by phone or not at all. Some days he never appears in his office. Ford has always spent much of his time outside the walls of city hall, doing his famous one-on-one constituency work, but even that has dropped off drastically.

…

The mayor routinely doesn’t show up for long-scheduled events and meetings with officials. On Wednesday, Councillor Peter Milczyn had to step in for him at a VIA Rail speaking engagement. He has cancelled five of the last nine weekly weigh-ins — often the only time Ford takes media questions for the week — including one on Tuesday.

On numerous occasions, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday, the mayor’s brother, Doug Ford, or other close allies have been called upon at the last minute to meet foreign dignitaries or visiting officials. Holyday said there have been only “a couple of times” where he’s had less than an hour’s notice and that, as deputy mayor, it’s his job to fill this role.

The mayor was supposed to meet his Calgary counterpart, Naheed Nenshi, at an event held at the Corus building on Sept. 20, but Ford never showed up.

Ford also hasn’t held a formal meeting with many prominent Toronto leaders in more than a year, including United Way Toronto CEO Susan McIsaac, Board of Trade president Carol Wilding, Ryerson University president Sheldon Levy or CivicAction’s CEO, Mitzie Hunter. He has never attended a Federation of Canadian Municipalities event.

…

Ford’s own committee chairs don’t regularly meet directly with the mayor to discuss policy. For example, Norm Kelly, who chairs the parks and environment committee, says the mayor is very accessible, although he concedes that the last specific formal meeting he can remember was during Occupy Toronto, which was last November.

Ford’s cadre of yes-men continue to defend him, claiming that he helps out people on a one-to-one basis:

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, one of his staunchest supporters, said looking at the mayor’s itinerary alone doesn’t speak for the work he does.

“The reality is he does a lot of spontaneous work. If constituents call, he’s on it. So you won’t see that on his schedule. He calls people back on a regular basis, and I know he does that.”

There’s only one problem with that kind of thing (assuming it’s true); in a city of 2.5 million people, he would necessarily have to pick and choose who to help. To help each one equally, he would have to be responding to about 1,700 calls a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

To believe that he can adequately do this is clearly insane, yet this is the excuse that Rob Ford uses for not performing his duties as Mayor. Not to mention that, even if the excuse is actually true, Ford has to pick and choose which of his buddies and allies get his attention, and based on his “I hate all charity” agenda, those would would probably be the same petty dictators and millionaire corporate hobnobs who hang out in his back yard.

Clearly Rob Ford doesn’t understand what a Mayor’s job is, and it’s exactly why he shouldn’t have one.

—

By the way, Sarah and I are forming a little group to get the wheels moving on Rob Ford’s ouster. We’re meeting at a central downtown location tonight to get some initial ideas together — if you’d like to drop by at the next one (most likely over drinks), please drop me a line and I’ll send you the details.