Archives for April 6, 2012


April6, 2012
Theannouncement, made by Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, sets yet anotherinternational standard against Monsanto’s genetically modified creations. Inaddition to being linked to a plethora health ailments, Sawicki says thatthe pollen originating from this GM strain may actually be devastating the already dwindling bee population.
“Thedecree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain ofmaize in Poland,” Sawicki stated to the press.
Similaropposition to Monsanto occurred on March 9th, when 7 European countries blocked a proposal by theDanish EU presidency which would permit the cultivation of genetically modifiedplants on the entire continent. 
It was France, who in February, lead the chargeagainst GMOs by asking the European Commission to suspend authorization toMonsanto’s genetically modified corn. What’s more, the countrysettled a landmark case in favor of the people over Monsanto, finding thebiotech giant guilty of chemical poisoning.
In a ruling given by acourt in Lyon (southeast France), grain grower PaulFrancois stated that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on theLasso weed killer product label which resulted in neurological problems such asmemory loss and headaches. 
The court ordered an expert opinion to determine thesum of the damages, and to verify the link between Lasso and the reportedillnesses. The result was a guilty charge, paving the way for further legalaction on behalf of injured farmers.
Since1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gatheredabout 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides.However only 47 cases wereeven recognized in the past 10 years.
Nationsare continually taking a stand against Monsanto, with nations likeHungary destroying 1000 acres of GM maize and India slamming Monsanto with‘biopiracycharges.

Illuminati – 2012: The Book The World Does Not Want You To Read

Illuminati - 2012: The Book The World Does Not Want You To Read

Please be aware that this book is written in a writing style that some have not seen before: Direct and to the Point. If you are more concerned about grammar and prose rather than the story, please move on- as this book may not be for you. However, if you are more interested in revealing the truth hidden in the works of a great story, then in this book may lie your answers… Illuminati 2012 – What if everything you have been taught to trust and believe is a lie? What if there is a secret government within our own that has been in place for centuries? What if that organization is using its unimaginable wealth, immense power, and the fervent worship of their god to bring about the end of times? Illuminati – 2012 will take you into the very depths of human corruption and wickedness while it enlightens you to the true meaning of good versus evil and the power of faith that is in all of us. The main character, Ethan Swan is enormously seductive; a young man who is thrust into a surreal world of darkness, lies, and a horrifying truth. “The only question you will be asking yourself upon reading this book, is if this is simply just a work of fiction…or is it something more?” ‘The Truth Awaits For Those Who Seek It…’

List price: $9.95

Buy from


Before anyone comments here that this vice is typical of Islam, it is not. This is an ancient Afghan situation that was removed by the ultra fanatically Islamic Taliban. Now that the Taliban have been weakened, this cultural tradition is reborn. There are not Islamic values. As with so many of the negative things used by Islamophobes, this is cultural, not religious. This does not excuse such behaviour in the least, but it does separate the difference between local cultures and international Islam.

Westernforces fighting in southern Afghanistan had a problem. Too often, soldiers onpatrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy. Theirbehavior suggested he was not the boy’s father. Then, British soldiers foundthat young Afghan men were actually trying to “touch and fondlethem,” military investigator AnnaMaria Cardinalli told me. “Thesoldiers didn’t understand.”

All of this was so disconcerting that the Defense Department hired Cardinalli,a social scientist, to examine this mystery. Her report, “PashtunSexuality,” startled not even one Afghan. But Western forces were shocked ~and repulsed.

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, aslovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandaharand other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boylover. Literally it means “boy player.” The men like to boast aboutit.

“Having a boy has become a custom for us,” Enayatullah, a 42-year-oldin Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. “Whoever wants to show offshould have a boy.”

Baghlan province is in the northeast, but Afghans say pedophilia is mostprevalent among Pashtun men in the south. The Pashtun are Afghanistan’s mostimportant tribe. For centuries, the nation’s leaders have been Pashtun.

President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, from a village near Kandahar, and he has sixbrothers. So the natural question arises: Has anyone in the Karzai family beenbacha baz? Two Afghans with close connections to the Karzai family told me theyknow that at least one family member and perhaps two were bacha baz. Afraid ofretribution, both declined to be identified and would not be more specific forpublication.

As for Karzai, an American who worked in and around his palace in an officialcapacity for many months told me that homosexual behavior “wasrampant” among “soldiers and guys on the security detail. They talkedabout boys all the time.”

He added, “I didn’t see Karzai with anyone. He was in his palace most ofthe time.” He, too, declined to be identified.

In Kandahar, population about 500,000, and other towns, dance parties are apopular, often weekly, pastime. Young boys dress up as girls, wearing makeupand bells on their feet, and dance for a dozen or more leering middle-aged menwho throw money at them and then take them home. A recent State Departmentreport called “dancing boys” a “widespread, culturallysanctioned form of male rape.”

So, why are American and NATO forces fighting and dying to defend tens ofthousands of proud pedophiles, certainly more per capita than any other placeon Earth? And how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverseinterpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan mencannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then,they can’t even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she iscovered, head to ankle.

“How can you fall in love if you can’t see her face,” 29-year-oldMohammed Daud told reporters. “We can see the boys, so we can tell whichare beautiful.”

Even after marriage, many men keep their boys, suggesting a loveless life athome. A favored Afghan expression goes: “Women are for children, boys arefor pleasure.” Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage onmenstruation, teach that women are “unclean” and thereforedistasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli’s team “how his wifecould become pregnant,” her report said. When that was explained, he”reacted with disgust” and asked, “How could one feel desire tobe with a woman, who God has made unclean?”

That helps explain why women are hidden away ~ and stoned to death if they areperceived to have misbehaved. Islamic law also forbids homosexuality. But thepedophiles explain that away. It’s not homosexuality, they aver, because theyaren’t in love with their boys.

Addressing the loathsome mistreatment of Afghan women remains a primary goalfor coalition governments, as it should be.

But what about the boys, thousands upon thousands of little boys who arevictims of serial rape over many years, destroying their lives ~ and Afghansociety.

“There’s no issue more horrifying and more deserving of our attention thanthis,” Cardinalli said. “I’m continually haunted by what I saw.”

As one boy, in tow of a man he called “my lord,” told the Reutersreporter: “Once I grow up, I will be an owner, and I will have my ownboys.”


By Ernesto Londono

April 4, 2012
DEHRAZI, Afghanistan ~
The 9-year-old boy withpale skin and big, piercing eyes captivated Mirzahan at first sight.
“He is more handsome thananyone in the village,” the 22-year-old farmer said, explaining why he isgrooming the boy as a sexual partner and companion. There was another importantfactor that made Waheed easy to take on as a bacha bazi, or a boy for pleasure:“He doesn’t have a father, so there is no one to stop this.”
Watch this film”Dancing Boys of Afghanistan,” a PBS investigative documentary from2010.
A growing number ofAfghan children are being coerced into a life of sexual abuse. The practice ofwealthy or prominent Afghans exploiting underage boys as sexual partners whoare often dressed up as women to dance at gatherings is on the rise inpost-Taliban Afghanistan, according to Afghan human rights researchers, Westernofficials and men who participate in the abuse.
“Like it or not, therewas better rule of law under the Taliban,” said Dee Brillenburg Wurth, achild-protection expert at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, whohas sought to persuade the government to address the problem. “They saw it as asin, and they stopped a lot of it.”
Over the past decade, thephenomenon has flourished in Pashtun areas in the south, in several Northernprovinces and even in the capital, according to Afghans who engage in thepractice or have studied it.
Although issues such as women’s rights and moral crimes haveattracted a flood of donor aid and activism in recent years, bacha bazi remainspoorly understood. 
The State Department hasmentioned the practice ~ which is illegal here, as it would be in mostcountries ~ in its annual human rights reports. The 2010 report said members ofAfghanistan’s security forces, who receive training and weapons from theU.S.-led coalition, sexually abused boys “in an environment of criminalimpunity.”
But by and large, foreignpowers in Afghanistan have refrained from drawing attention to the issue. Thereare no reliable statistics on the extent of the problem. 
“It is very sensitive andtaboo in Afghanistan,” said Hayatullah Jawad, head of the Afghan Human RightsResearch and Advocacy Organization, who is based in the northern city ofMazar-e Sharif. “There are a lot of people involved in this case, but no onewants to talk about it.”
A recent interview withMirzahan and a handful of his friends who sexually exploit boys provided a rareglimpse into the lives of men who have taken on bacha bazi. 
y village in Balkh province,accessible only by narrow, unpaved roads and just a few miles from areas wherethe Taliban is fighting the government for dominance. The men insisted thatonly their first names be used. Although the practice of bacha bazi has becomesomething of an open secret in Afghanistan, it is seldom discussed in public orwith outsiders. 
Sitting next to the9-year-old Waheed, who was wearing a pink pants-and-tunic set called a shalwarkameez, Mirzahan said he opted to take on the boy because marrying a womanwould have been prohibitively expensive. The two have not had sex, Mirzahansaid, but that will happen in a few years. For now, Waheed is being introducedto slightly older “danc­ing boys.”
“He is not dancing yet,but he is willing,” Mirzahan said with pride.
“I feel so happy,” theboy said. “They are so beautiful.”
Sitting nearby was23-year-old Assadula, who said he’s an Afghan soldier assigned to a unit in thesouthern province of Kandahar. Assadula said he has been attracted to teenagemales for as long as he can recall. 
Two years ago, he took on a 16-year-old ashis bacha. The relationship will end soon, he said, sitting next to hiscompanion, Jawad, who is now 18.
“When he starts growing abeard, his time will expire, and I will try to find another one who doesn’thave a beard,” Assadula said.
Many of the men who havebachas are also married. But Assadula said he has never been attracted towomen.
“You cannot take wiveseverywhere with you,” he said, referring to the gender segregation in socialsettings that is traditional in Afghanistan. “You cannot take a wife with youto a party, but a boy you can take anywhere.”
Boys who become bachasare seen as property, said Jawad, the human rights researcher. Those who areperceived as being particularly beautiful can be sold for tens of thousands ofdollars. The men who control them sometimes rent them out as dancers atmale-only parties, and some are prostituted.
“This is abuse,” Jawadsaid. “Most of these children are not willing to do this. They do this formoney. Their families are very poor.”
Although the practice isthought to be more widespread in conservative rural areas, it has become commonin Kabul. Mohammed Fahim, a videographer who films the lavish weddings in thecapital, estimated that one in every five weddings he attends in Kabul featuresdancing boys. 
Authorities are wellaware of the phenomenon, he said, as he played a video of a recent party thatfeatured an underage boy with heavy makeup shaking his shoulders seductively asmen sitting on the floor clapped and smiled.
“Police come because theylike it a lot,” Fahim said, referring to parties with dancing boys.
When the boys age beyondtheir prime and get tossed aside, many become pimps or prostitutes, said Afghanphotojournalist Barat Ali Batoor, who spent months chronicling the plight of dancing boys. Someturn to drugs or alcohol, he said. 
“In Afghan society, ifyou are raped or you are abused, you will not have space in society to liveproudly,” he said.
When Batoorcompleted his project on dancing boys, heassumed that nongovernmental organizations would be eager to exhibit his workand raise awareness of the issue. To his surprise, none were. 
“They said: ‘We don’twant to make enemies in Afghanistan,’ ” he said, summarizing the generalresponse. 
Afghan men have exploitedboys as sexual partners for generations, people who have studied the issue say. 
The practice became rampant during the 1980s, when mujahidin commandersfighting Soviet forces became notorious for recruiting young boys while passingthrough villages. In Kandahar during the mid-1990s, the Taliban was born inpart out of public anger that local commanders had married bachas and wereengaging in other morally licentious behavior.
Afghanistan’s legal codesare based mainly on sharia, or Islamic law, which strictly prohibits sodomy.The law also bars sex before marriage. Under Afghan law, men must be at least 18years old and women 16 to marry. 
During the Taliban era,men suspected of having sex with men or boys were executed. In the late 1990s,amid the group’s repressive reign, the practice of bacha bazi went underground.The fall of the Taliban government in late 2001 and the flood of donor moneythat poured into Afghanistan revived the phenomenon. 
Wurth, the U.N. official,who is leaving Kabul soon after three years of work on child-welfare issues inAfghanistan, said the lack of progress on combating the sexual exploitation ofchildren is her biggest regret. Foreign powers have done little to conductthorough research or advocate for policy reforms, she said.
“It’s rampant in certainareas,” Wurth said. “But more than that we can’t say. Nobody has facts andfigures.”
Wurth said she wasencouraged by recent discussions with Afghan government officials, who she saidhave begun to acknowledge the problem and have expressed concern about therising popularity of the practice. The sexual exploitation of boys recruited tothe Afghan police force was one of the reasons it was added in 2010 to a U.N. list ofarmed groups that recruit underage fighters, Wurth said.
But, so far, thegovernment has taken few meaningful steps to discourage the abuse of bachas.Wurth said she was not aware of any prosecutions.
“A kid who is beingsexually exploited, if he reports it, he will end up in prison,” she said.“They become pariahs.”
Moreworld news coverage:

2012 New Dawn Collector’s Edition



Cycles of Time, Ages of Humanity
2012 & the Birth of A New World Age

By Marie D. Jones

The Astrology of 2012
Forecasts for England & Australia

By Helen Sewell

“Something’s Happening Here,
But You Don’t Know What It Is, Do You, Mr. Jones?”

By Jim Dekorne


Brief Reflections on the Mayan 2012 Date

By Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D.

You Have Less Than 298 Days To Live

By Freddy Silva

2012, the Apocalypse & the End of the Age

By Mehmet Sabeheddin

2012, Galactic Maya & José Argüelles
A Profile of the Visionary Who Started It All

By Stephanie South

The Maya, Galactic Alignment & Academic Ignorance

By John Major Jenkins

Living in Our Multi-Dimensional Reality During 2012

By Jim Reed

2012 & the Psychedelic Shamans
Why Their Experiences are Key to Understanding the Message of 2012

By Thomas Razzeto

2012’s Event-Horizon

By Frank Joseph

Childhood’s End
The Agony of Our Collective Puberty

By Jay Weidner & Sharron Rose

Imperial End Times, Progress & the Water Dragon

By Reg Little



Download your copy of this fully illustrated colour 76 page magazine
(iPad compatible e-book)
for only US$7.95



ByRobin Mathews

April4, 2012
“Thesoiled and disgraceful history of the Ministry of the Attorney General of B.C.since 2001 is a faithful representation of the assault on the rule of law andon the integrity of democratic government in Canada in the first 12 years ofthe century.” ~ Robin Mathews
Many people in Canada have never heard of Shirley Bond, B.C.’sSolicitor General, Minister of Public Safety, and Attorney General of theprovince. Nevertheless, she fits snugly into the new role of legislators ~ toblock any acts of responsibility to the electorate, to cover up violations oftrust by government, to sham the relation between large corporations and thelegislators “owned” by the corporations.
She is presently insisting that her attempt to block the AuditorGeneral from investigating all the circumstances of the “unconventional” $6million pay-out to Defence Counsel in the Basi, Virk, and Basi (BC RailScandal) case is a demonstration of her full and willing cooperation with theAuditor General.  Ms. Bond was Deputy Premier when the “deal” was made tochop the (unfinished) trial in order to prevent cross-examination of toppoliticos and corporate actors ~ and to pay the costs of the convicted men ~Dave Basi and Bobby Virk.
The Gordon Campbell/Christy Clark/Shirley Bond Liberalgovernment will never get to the 2013 provincial election if the full story ofthe corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR is told. Thus (I believe), we seeMs. Bond’s game of smoke and mirrors with law and with the integrity of theMinistry of the Attorney General.
The move in Canada ~ and globally, to destroy the rule of law,to assail rights of collective bargaining, to kidnap ownership ofnationally-owned resources by multi-national elites, to turn police forces into“palace armies”, to debase the democratic election process, to hand governingto private interests, and to sell off and ship out the sources of worthwhileemployment (the industrial base) ~ has a number of names.
After the March 29th federal budget the Globe and Mail chose to callthe move in Canada: “Harper’s modest revolution”.
If the matter wasn’t so serious, the Globe’s characterizationwould be laughable. 
The Harper government (Air Canada, Postal Workers) has set aboutwrecking collective bargaining in Canada. 
The Harper forces admitted guilt to an attempted rig of the 2006election (which should have caused major criminal charges, and has not).
The Harper government has been a party to the highly dubioussell-off of STELCO to U.S. interests, and the closing down of ELECTRO-MOTIVEDIESEL by recently new owner CATERPILLAR ~ after insulting the employees byoffering them a 50% wage cut. 
And shortly before sale, a $5 million tax grant went to theCorporation from the Harper government. [With what behind-the-scenesagreements??] 
Expect more of the same under the Harper regime.
In the calculated and highly organized (alleged) Harper Partyattempt to wreck the 2011 election through Robocall electronic tactics, anothermajor attack was made upon the legitimacy of the election process inCanada. 
All indications point to the Conservative Party and itssupporters as the major, overwhelmingly involved force engaged inelection-wrecking. 
That must be said repeatedly. The bully-boy tactics of thepeople with organizations involved and by spokespeople for the Harper force inParliament are intended, I believe, to stop Canadians from saying just that:every indication points to the Conservative Party and its supporters ascreators of the latest attack upon the legitimacy of the election process inCanada.
In addition, using its proxy power in the Enbridge Corporation,the Harper forces are attacking freedom of assembly in Canada.  In theNorth yesterday, the Northern Gateway hearing was closed down because,apparently, Enbridge representatives were offended by a school teacher andpupils showing signs opposed to the Gateway development.
Enbridge was trying to say that they will not engage with thepopulation democratically.  They want militarized agreement with theircorporate decisions.
Proof that the Harper government was in on the mini-blow againstdemocracy is given by its complete silence in the face of the Enbridge action.
That is not nearly all. With this column, I am sending informationthat has come to me from Kelly Marie Richard.  In short, she was (as sheand I believe firmly) corruptly prevented from carrying out an action forDental Malpractice by CGI (Information Technology firm with other wideninginterests), the RCMP, some of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench judiciary, andothers. 
Her allegation (extending from that experience) in what isattached with this column is, in short, that Stephen Harper is cutting budgetand employees at Department of National Defense and Public Safety and isreplacing with employees from CGI.  In essence he is privatizing,secretly, operations of federal government.
Kelly Marie Richard has investigated CGI for some years and hasrecorded hundreds of CGI employees in Federal Government Departments and CrownCorporations WORKING FOR CGI.
We should not fail to recognize that since the taking ofgovernment in B.C. by what is fairly called the Gordon Campbell/Christy Clarkforces (2001) ALL of the same kinds of moves have been visible in BritishColumbia ~ except, so far, proof of election rigging.
The breaches of trust, the violations of the rule of law, thecontracts entered into (at least partly) in secrecy, the sell-out of wealthowned by the people of the province, the dirty cronyism, the cover-up of(perhaps) criminal activity within government, and much, much, much more aretoo vast and extensive to deal with here.
Here, I will deal with a centre devoted to the wreckage of therule of law in British Columbia ~ by which I mean the Ministry of the AttorneyGeneral. 
Since the arrival of the Gordon Campbell/Christy Clarkgovernment it may be said that NOT ONE Attorney General has served without atleast one (discovered) ugly, unprincipled action destroying the credibility ofthe Office. How many other violations of trust the Attorneys General haveengaged in may come out in future investigations.
It has been said that the Attorney General preceding ShirleyBond resigned because he was pushed (apparently to act politically) by PremierChristy Clark, and ~ perhaps ~ because he could read the writing on the wall ~that the Liberals have no chance in the next election (2013). 
That may be so.  But before going, he was charged withfiddling and delaying the HST referendum.  And there is more.
Not one … not one Attorney General since the arrival of theGordon Campbell/Christy Clark government, I allege, has conducted himself orherself without reason on the part of the electorate strongly to suspecthis/her actions.
Since Attorneys General hold a special and important place inrelation to the rule of law, their unbroken failure since 2001 in B.C. is asymbol of the betrayal of democratic process in the country. 
Attorneys General have a key role.  They are responsiblefor the courts and justice, and they are responsible for advising the cabineton all matters of law in relation to any cabinet action.  They sit both ascabinet members and ~ at the same time ~ must have the integrity to insist uponfully lawful practice by cabinet.
It is a tough role that calls for integrity, principle, andcalm.
Let us look at the record.
In 2003, Geoff Plant, Attorney General (2001-2005), and AllanSeckel, Deputy Attorney General, flagrantly violated the legislation governing theappointment of Special Prosecutors and appointed to the BC Rail Scandal Basi,Virk, and Basi case a man with whom they had both been partners and colleaguesfor years. As a result, nothing William Berardino did as Special (Crown)Prosecutor can be accepted.  Any British Columbian who believes Mr.Berardino worked for the political ends of the Gordon Campbell/Christy Clarkgovernments may fairly hold that belief.
Geoff Plant’s successor, Wally Oppal (2005-09), besmirched hisreputation and position in at least two major ways. He did everything he couldas Attorney General in the legislature and outside of it under questioning toinsist every matter concerning the BC Rail Scandal was “sub judice” ~ that isto say in active consideration by the Courts.  That was simply not true.
But as telling, in an attempt to get an action in processagainst the alleged Bountiful bigamists, he also violated the procedure toappoint Special (Crown) Prosecutors. He went “Special Prosecutor shopping”,which means he was determined to start a case whether experts believed a casewas legitimate or not.
The first two “distinguished” lawyers he approached said no casecould be taken until a higher court ruled whether religious bigamy waspermissible under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Oppal shouldhave followed the advice of the first Special Prosecutor appointed.  Instead,he went from Special Prosecutor to Special Prosecutor until he could get whathe wanted ~ a trial (I believe, for purely political reasons).
When Mr. Oppal’s game was exposed in the first hours of thetrial, the Supreme Court judge stopped the action, then and there and, ineffect, threw it out.  A case conducted by the accused against Wally Oppalupheld the action to throw the case out of court and the decision that he hadacted wrongfully.
As a result Wally Oppal was appointed to the lucrative post as Commissionerto head the Inquiry into the matters concerning the Vancouver Downtown Eastsidewomen murdered at the Pickton Farm.  Many believe it is a sham procedurein which Mr. Oppal prevents questions being asked about matters that would beembarrassing to police or government.
When Wally Oppal was defeated at the polls, he was succeeded asAttorney General by Michael de Jong (2009-10).
Clearly, people inside government were becoming aware that theBritish Columbia public were concerned the Special Crown Prosecutor process wasbeing used for political ends by the Gordon Campbell government.
Related ~ as suspected corruption ~ but not as a link to the BCRail Scandal, the new Solicitor General Kash Heed was alleged to have beeninvolved in election irregularities.  The Special Prosecutor appointed tolook into his actions ~ Terrence Robertson ~ was found to be in conflict ofinterest and was replaced by Special Prosecutor Peter Wilson.
Attorney General Michael de Jong decided to conduct a reviewof  the Special Prosecutor appointment process.  To do so, he went toa vice president of UBC.  That was imprudent, since UBC is in amaster/servant relation with the B.C. government which can ~ at any time ~ doharm to the operations of the university. A reviewer of government behaviourfrom UBC can be suspected of prejudice in his/her work. Stephen Owen’s Reportdid nothing to allay that suspicion.
Michael de Jong appointed Stephen Owen to do the review in Mayof 2010.  Mr. Owen is a vice president in charge of relations withgovernments – a role that might well restrain him from making a judgementagainst the B.C. government.
I wrote Mr. Owen a formal letter on the matter of the wrongfulappointment of William Berardino as Special Prosecutor in the Basi, Virk, andBasi case.  Mr. Owen did not acknowledge my letter.  He did notmention the Berardino matter in his review.  He interviewed, however,Janet Winteringham who was a part of the Berardino prosecution team.  Andhe interviewed Michael de Jong.
His report in July of 2010 recorded that “there is pride andconfidence in the special prosecutor system”.  He said the process ofappointment is appropriate.  And he reported that “the special prosecutorsystem in British Columbia works well in the public interest”.
When Michael de Jong left the Attorney General position, it wasfilled by Barry Penner from 2010 to 2011.  News stories and commentary onthe short time Barry Penner was Attorney General give the impression he waspushed by Premier Christy Clark to act politically in the position. Mr. Penneris said to have pushed back, and then to have resigned from the legislature.
Nevertheless, seeking an opinion on the money paid for legalcosts to employees of government who are convicted or who plead guilty tocrimes, Attorney General Penner sought expert advice on thatnon-question.  A school child could answer it.
He should not have sought a review from the President and ViceChancellor of the University of British Columbia for the same reason Michael deJong should not have sought advice from a Vice President of UBC.  UBC issupported by the ever-changing budget of governments in power.  UBC agentsmay be accused of   conflict of interest when they provide advice toB.C. government. They may be accused of toadying and seeking favour.
President and Vice Chancellor Stephen Toope should ~ for thesame reason ~ have refused.  He should have told Attorney General Pennerthat there are nearly 11,000 lawyers at work in B.C., thousands of whom have noconnection whatever to B.C. government.
President Toope should have said “Use one of thoselawyers”.  He didn’t. 
He accepted the request.  His acceptance, as I see it, wasuneasy.  For he wrote at the beginning of his report that he was“Professor Stephen Toope”, and he wrote that he was responding “in my personalcapacity” ~ which he probably knew was so much rhetorical nonsense.  Hecould not ~ at will ~ cease to be the President and Vice Chancellor ofUBC.  Period.
He appears to me to have done in his review more gently whatStephen Owen did in his ~ that is, okay  government behaviour. Observe what he writes:
“The Ministry of Attorney General officials have workeddiligently to respond to requests for indemnification that require the exerciseof discretion.  Using firmly established common law method, the officialscharged with exercising discretion have justified their decisions by drawingout principles present in existing cases and analogizing those principles tonew circumstances.  [My capital letters.] AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FROM THEDOCUMENTS TO WHICH I HAVE HAD ACCESS, THE RESULTS TO DATE HAVE BEENPRINCIPLED….” (p. 29)
A wise Attorney General would have accepted that document andbeen very content with it.  But Barry Penner had resigned.  ShirleyBond had become the new Attorney General and received the report from Presidentand Vice Chancellor of UBC, Stephen Toope.  She decided to push the mattera little further, not content with the victory won.
She wrote a letter to Stephen Toope after receiving theReport.  And she asked him a question which he publishes. President Toopeshould have included the whole letter from Shirley Bond, but he only includedthe question.
Her question, in short, asked if government employees areconvicted or plead guilty, should government require that the employees payback, (the term used is to provide “reimbursement” of) the money paid for theircosts during the case?
President and Vice Chancellor Stephen Toope replies in nouncertain terms: the convicted should pay back.  In his letter to AttorneyGeneral Shirley Bond on November 8, 2010 he writes the following:
“…my view is that for criminal indemnities, conviction(including the case of a guilty plea) should trigger a claim for fullreimbursement.  Guilt in a criminal case necessarily means that a publicservant was not acting in the scope of his or her duties or in the course ofemployment.  No BC government employment duty can require the commissionof a criminal offence.  No valid purpose articulated in any report wouldbe served by allowing indemnification in such cases, because there is no publicinterest in protecting the public servant from the full consequences (includingfinancial consequences) of criminal liability.
It follows that the requirement of reimbursement in the case ofcriminal conviction should be mandatory and not the subject of the exercise ofdiscretion.”
That has placed Attorney General Shirley Bond in a toughposition, for her government has decided to engage in “the exercise ofdiscretion” and to pay the $6 million costs of the two men who pled guilty tocriminal offences.  The statements of the President and Vice Chancellor ofUBC, in addition, add power to the requests of the Auditor General of B.C. forall information leading to the payment of that sum.
But Shirley Bond knows, I think, that the payment ~ as it stands~ cannot be defended, for it was, in effect ~ many, many British Columbiansbelieve ~ a payment of hush money, a payment to get the accused out of thecourtroom, and the trial ended, before other, higher placed government andcorporate officials became involved in charges of wrongdoing. 
The “exercise of discretion” in that case was used to protectthe powerful wrongdoers in the BC Rail Scandal. It was undertaken to block andprevent the fair administration of justice. And so Shirley Bond, under theprotestation of giving every help possible to the Auditor General, appears tobe blocking every access to information about the process of agreeing to thepayment.
She is the last (and the present) Attorney General since2001.  And she appears to be hip-deep in abuse of the powers of theMinistry of the Attorney General. She is keeping the foul reputation of theGordon Campbell/Christy Clark Ministry of the Attorney General alive … andflourishing.
Since the beginning of the Gordon Campbell/Christy Clark Liberalgovernment in B.C., it has been perfectly in accord with the ideology andpractice of the Stephen Harper neoliberals in Ottawa. 
That is why Gordon Campbell was made Canadian High Commissionerin London after he was forced out of the premiership in B.C.
That is why Christy Clark has hired Harper aides to be herclosest advisors and why she exults in photo-ops with Stephen Harper.
The soiled and disgraceful history of the Ministry of theAttorney General of B.C. since 2001 is a faithful representation of the assaulton the rule of law and on the integrity of democratic government in Canada inthe first 12 years of the century. 
Unless the direction is reversed, the country may expect deeplytroubled times marked by violence and increasing class conflict.

Robin can be reached at:

Draconian Cybersecurity Bills

Draconian Cybersecurity Bills

by Stephen Lendman

Bipartisan complicity’s involved in hyping cyber threats. At issue
is promoting draconian cybersecurity legislation.

Obama supports congressional effects. Internet freedom’s at stake.
So are other civil liberties.

On March 8, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conducted a
mock New York cyber attack. At issue was gaining support for pending
Senate legislation.

White House spokesperson Caitlin Hayden called the stunt a way to
give “senators….an appreciation for new legislative authorities that
would help the U.S. government prevent and more quickly respond to
cyber attacks.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said:

“The fact that we could be subject to a catastrophic attack under
the right circumstances and we now know some of the things that would
help us to protect against such an attack, that’s why it’s important
now for the Congress to take this up.”

Destroying a free and open Internet and other civil liberties is no
way to do it. Power grab politics are in play. Major media scoundrels
are silent.

The past decade witnessed a systematic war on freedom. It last
vestiges are being attacked. Unless stopped, tyranny will gain full
control. It practically has it now.

Bipartisan complicity’s on board to seize it. So is Obama. Bad as
things are now, the worst is yet to come.

In recent years, various cybersecurity bills were introduced. Recent
House and Senate versions are the latest threat.

On November 30, 2011, HR 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act of 2011 was introduced. It’s pending for further
consideration. On February 14, a companion Senate version was offered –
S. 2105: Cybersecurity Act of 2012. It also awaits further

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said the House version
gives “companies or the government free rein to bypass existing laws in
order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even
shut down access to online services for ‘cybersecurity purposes.’ “

Companies are urged to share information with each other and
Washington. At issue is allegedly foiling potential cyber attacks. In
fact, the bill attacks vital freedoms.

Claiming a possible cyber threat, the bill lets government and
business bypass existing laws. They include prohibiting
telecommunication companies from monitoring routine communications. The
bill permit it as long as done in “good faith.”

Likely abuse is obvious. For example, bill language says “cyber
threat intelligence” and “cybersecurity purpose” mean “theft or
misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual
property, or personally identifiable information.”

EFF calls it “a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s
supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against
cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use
it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement
of intellectual property.”

As a result, ISPs could block or prevent access to accounts accused
of infringing, whether or not true. At risk are those providing vital
suppressed information everyone has a right to know.

Already severely weakened, First Amendment freedoms could erode
further or entirely disappear. Anything business or government finds
offensive could be blocked from the public domain. Online information
as we now know it could vanish.

Freedoms we take for granted are on the chopping block to eliminate.
Passage of current House and Senate bills will be a giant step toward
doing it. They provide powerful new repressive tools. Any site or blog
could be called a “cyber threat.”

Congress wants legislation passed this year. So does Obama. HR 3523
is one of the worst. The Senate version is almost as bad. Vague
language is their common denominator.

For example, the Senate bill states:

“(C)ybersecurity threat” means any action that may result in
unauthorized access to, exfiltration of, manipulation of, or impairment
to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of an information
system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an
information system.”

A “cybersecurity threat indicator” is defined in hugely disjunctive
vague scenarios. They include, for example, “a method of defeating a
technical (or operational) control.” Merely using “a proxy or
anonymization service” to access sites could be called a “cybersecurity
threat indicator.”

So could using cryptography to protect personal communications or be
able to access systems securely. Nearly anything could be
misinterpreted as a threat.

Government and business could monitor online traffic and
communications without Wiretap Act or other legal restrictions.

“Effectively, the broad definitions of threats could immunize a
whole host of monitoring activities by a huge swath of different
government and non-government actors.”

In addition, S. 2105 and a newer March 1 S. 2151: SECURE IT bills
let “private entities” operate “countermeasures.” Vague language means
those allowed are open to interpretation. Abuses are certain.

Acting with “defensive intent” can also be abused. As always, the
devil’s in the details and potential latitude within them. Most
worrisome is government and business in bed against personal freedoms
for greater control.

ISPs could block all traffic on certain ports or filter out what
they don’t want the public to know. Cryptographic protocols could also
be crippled. The best defense is a strong offense, no matter how
destructive to personal freedoms.

EFF calls potential abuses worrisome. It’s not known what
countermeasures would be used. Senate and House bills give no guidance.
Government and business will decide on their own privately.
Transparency won’t exist.

Safeguarding civil liberties requires laws with “utmost
specificity.” Concrete, not vague, language is essential. Online
freedom depends on it. Cybersecurity should protect everyone equally,
not government and business alone.

A Final Comment

EFF raised four unanswered questions in both Senate bills and the
House one:

(1) Who’ll be in charge of cybersecurity?

HR 3523 has the military/intelligence community running it. Still
another House bill (HR 3674 introduced last December) puts DHS in

EFF calls civilian control essential. Without it, openness,
transparency, and accountability would be entirely destroyed. It may be
either way, depending on enacted language and how it’s interpreted.

(2) What constitutes a cybersecurity threat?

House and Senate bills lack clear definitions. Potential harm is
obvious. People adopting privacy and security measures EFF recommends,
potentially could be treated like criminals.

“(L)legitimate security research would be targeted and security
researchers could find themselves under perpetual scrutiny as potential
“cybercriminals.’ “

(3) What does “information sharing” mean?

House and Senate bills mandate it in some form. They also let
government and business collude. Information sharing’s urged, including
private emails, web searches, GPS data, social networking, and other
personal data.

Moreover, claiming cybersecurity threats immunizes abusers from
civil or criminal liability. Information sharing, in fact, is a
euphemism for surveillance and other countermeasures like filtering
content, blocking access to web sites, or shutting them down.

(4) Will an eventual cybersecurity law enhance or harm security?

Benefits are possible if everyone’s protected equally with no
personal freedoms infringed. Proposed House and Senate bills erode or
entirely destroy them.

Measures improving online security are laudable. Major operating
systems are vulnerable, as are various types of commercial software.
Nothing is fail-safe, but better encryption, more secure protocols, and
better authentication methods could improve things.

House and Senate bills fall short. “Instead of creating incentives
for better defensive Internet security, the proposed bills take an
offensive posture: more monitoring, more surveillance, and more
disclosure of your private information.”

Instead of improving online safety, user privacy and security more
than ever will be comprised en route to destroying them altogether and
a free and open Internet along with it. The stakes are that great.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Also visit his blog site at and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US
Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.



Personally, I don’t “do” Facebook. So I cannot join this group, butif you do belong, check it out, especially if you are a Canadian interested inmaintaining any of your freedoms, those which have survived the ravages of ourcurrent “leadership”.
Arthur has mentioned the case of Jim Townsend to me before. It istime to investigate some of his work and get it back here. This seems to besomething Canadians should learn about but will not hit the back page of theGlobe and Mail or even the National.
Dear Reader,
Jim Townsend is still being held in jail down in the FraserValley. A video has been produced for FaceBook that explains Jim’s situationand it is hoped that viewers will pass this along to their friends andassociates to help increase public awareness of Jim’s plight. Please click onthe link above to view it.
The screen shots below taken from the video show the mailingaddress for Jim if you wish to send him a letter or even a donation to help himdefray costs for writing materials, etc.
If you have a FaceBook account I would also like to encourageyou to join the Free Jim Townsend group that has been set up to help Jim. Ideasand suggestions of any type are always welcome.
Also if you are living in the lower mainland and would like topay a visit to Jim please note the phone number also listed below.
Many thanks to Elijah Ignatieff for producing this fine messageof freedom!
Peace, Love & Justice.

Download Video or MP3
Arthur Topham
ED: More to come on this issue. 


Not a word is mentioned about Monsanto, but patenting the pig has been part of their business for some time. Let us hope this rejection of Enviro-pig by Canada sends Monsanto yet another message. We, the public, the consumers, do NOT want meddling in our food chain!

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post 
April 4,2012
Last year, the media was buzzing about the possibility ofEnviro-pig entering the American and Canadian food markets.

The way our regulatory agencies work is to keep pending approvals forgenetically modified animals on file, in secret, until a decision determines ifit’s suddenly in the stores unlabeled, or no, not yet.

Enviro-pig is a creation from Canada’s University of Guelphscientists and hog industry Ontario Pork. Birthed in 1999, with 10 generationssince.
The DNA of Yorkshire pigs were spliced with DNA from e.coli forphosphorous digestion and mice DNA to promote the e.coli gene. The pigs’make-up was changed to allow the enzyme phytase in their saliva to cut thephosphorous in their manure by about 30 percent.
Enviro-pig could have gone to market for human consumptionanytime. However, in a miraculous turn of events, Ontario Pork decided to cutresearch funding and close active research before the potential approval. Theuniversity cannot continue breeding the pigs without the funding.
“There’s no demand or need for genetically modifying foodanimals. The federal government should stop accepting requests to approve GMfood animals,” said Lucy Sharratt of Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, acoalition of 18 groups that campaigned to prevent the GM food pigs from beingapproved for consumers. Also from CBAN’s press release:
“It’s clear that consumers oppose GM animals so we’re relievedthe project is being shelved. The GM pig was going to drive consumers away fromeating pork if it was ever approved for market,” said Paul Slomp, YouthVice-President of the National Farmers Union.
This GM pig fiasco could have permanently damaged our domesticand international pork markets.

Download Video or MP3
Dr. Cecil Forsberg, co-inventor of Enviro-pig agreed withOntario Pork’s decision ~ for now. From NY Times,Forsberg says:
[When the first such pig was created in 1999] I had the feelingin seven or eight or nine years that transgenic animals probably would beacceptable. But I was wrong. It’s time to stop the program until the rest ofthe world catches up ~  and it is going tocatch up.
Dr.Forsberg is retaining Enviro-pig semen on the chance “the world catches upwith him” and a company is willing to take on the GM pigs in the future.

Mouse-pig or Franken-Swine could have been the very first GM animal forconsumption ~ bacon just wouldn’t have been the same again; and, actually, itisn’t.

Thehighly phosphorous pig poo is a real environmental concern. The waste run-offfrom CAFOs bleeds into waterways and creates mega algae blooms that choke thewater and kill marine life.
That inturn can kill cattle and pets that drink out of the water.

It’s the Circle of Death ~ but the cycle is only beginning.

The supposed intention behind the ironically named Enviro-pigwas the environment, but that’s a giant load of steaming hog manure ~ otherwisethe pigs themselves would be given better treatment and diets (likecost-effective phytase supplements) to lower phosphorous waste.

For better animal treatment, environmental healing, and human health.

It would make more sense than spending millions to change over theentire ecological system.
Ontario Pork producers have contributed more than $1 million toEnviro-pig research. Ontario’s provincial government also invested inEnviro-pig research which has cost over $5-million.
Monsanto, other biotech giants, and the Corn RefinersAssociation (the ones with those “HFCS is good for you” ads) also hadeverything to gain from this tidy little arrangement, and still do. This isanother big problem with the typical factory farm complex versus blaming pigsfor doing what pigs naturally do.

Pigs need phosphorous for bone, teeth, and cell formation but their typical Bt corn and soybean dietsleave them with 80% of their phosphorous in an non-digestible form.

That and stuffing a thousand pigs into one facility is what caused thephosphorous mess.

That phosphorous manure is then heaped on the GM corn and soy as fertilizer,further increasing the indigestible phosphorous diet. The Circle of Deathcontinues.

The answer to the environmental problem caused by GMOs is not more geneticmodification!

CBAN suggested the following:

There are already many solutions to this problem includingreducing the number of pigs raised in one place, changing feed ingredients,trucking liquid manure longer distances, dry composting manure, or expandingthe area of land for spreading manure. Additionally, there is already thecost-effective, simple technological fix of a phytase supplement that can beadded to hog feed.
In 2002, a precedent for contamination was set when eleven GMpiglets at the University were sent to a rendering plant and turned into animalfeed (unapproved) instead of being destroyed as biological waste. Theycontaminated 675 tons of poultry feed that was sold to egg, turkey and chickenfarmers in Ontario!

Former vice president of research at the University of Guelph said of theincident,

“Things you don’t expect to happen can happen.”

Againin 2004, experimental GM pharma-pigs from the Quebec company TGN Biotech wereaccidentally[?] turned into chicken feed instead of being safely destroyed.

Health Canada doesn’t conduct its own GM tests. They rely onUnited Nations Codex guidelines and refer to the FDA, also pointing to Codex.They were also taking the word of University of Guelph data. Canadian and USregulatory guidelines allowed for the approval of the GM animals at any time.

Pork producers were afraid to associate with Enviro-pig for fear of bad publicrelations. Enviro-pig is safely off the shelf thanks to concerned farmers andactivists like you creating more awareness. Especially the tenacious efforts ofCBAN.Gratefully so ~ we get around 40% of our pork from Canada. CBAN will nowredouble their efforts of stopping
GM super-growing salmon.
As we can see, the closed research was more a result of consumerreaction and activism than anything else. At the very least, Enviro-pig servedto shed light on the problems with GM mega-farm conditions and a realenvironmental problem that still exists.

The media might bemoan the naysayers who tried to stop the “goodguys” who already pumped millions into a misguided “solution”for the environment. Truthfully, the pigs, environment and farming markets aremuch safer with Enviro-pig’s timely exit.

With great hope, farmers will continue to alter the structure and move towardseconomical healthy feed and confinement changes. Otherwise, consumer sway willmove to decentralize further and seek better treated pigs, leaving lots of poorfarmers undeservedly holding the GMO feed bag.