Building A Paranoid Shaped Future Fortress Called "Canamerica"?
"Applicants must submit a notarized document confirming their identity to the Orwellian-sounding Office of Reconsideration, which will turn the file over to an independent adviser from outside the public service for review."
For a great many years now we have no longer been a part of the so called British Commonwealth, which once meant wealth held in common and meant to include rather than exclude commoners.
But that was then, and Britain is no longer Britain, for that matter.
Was there anything inherently positive about "bringing home the Consitution"?
Canadian historians and legislative powers created a clean slate by way of a replacing a flag indicating our history with a simple maple leaf flag which contains no hint of any links to our British past. Passports no longer gave one the right to travel to other former Commonwealth countries.
Why?
Is there still any "common wealth"?
Water, for example, was once held in the commons as a right under exactly this very legislation.
Is it now? Maybe. But just try to uphold that right.
The video below shows us that under Britain's PM, Tony Blair, yet another Bush administration lackey, what was once Britain can no longer qualify as "Parliamentarian".
It is a corrupt nation in decline, hardly worthy of the term "democratic".
If such terms have been rendered specious, almost overnight, there, why not here?
If you have high speed service, please first check out this Google Video.
Then rethink the implications of a seemingly pragmatic NO FLY LIST being implemented here in Canada.
Is Harper our version of Blair in implementing the New World Order?
Must Canada become totalitarian?
Is it already too late?
If you think not, then please don't be passive about it. Write to your MLA and your MP.
But first, click on this:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4839556520925774502&q=suspect+nation
Before I comment on the new Canadian "No Fly List", first a few pithy, pertinent quotes from Canadian author Margaret Atwood:
'If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia.'
'If a stranger taps you on the ass and says, "How's the little lady today!" you will probably cringe. But if he's an American, he's only being friendly.'
'Canada was built on dead beavers.'
'The beginning of Canadian cultural nationalism was not "Am I really that oppressed?" but "Am I really that boring?"'
Many decades ago, Atwood said, (and I paraphrase loosely), that if North America was the story of Moby Dick, the U.S would be the hunter and Canada would be the whale.
Is this List the tip of the totalitarian iceberg which signals not only regime change but the beginning of cultural annihilation?
If so, given this NFL (the acronym for the "No Fly List", not for the the National Football League), we can expect more of the same from here on in, as we fast approach the North American Alliance Treaty (read an 'irreversible merger with the U.S'.). So how do the little people help it along? Through apathy, indifference and inaction, perhaps?
Did I somehow misread this first symptom of societal illness which I think that a NO FLY LIST indicates?
Would it be jumping to wrongful conclusions to extrapolate about quasi parliamentarian tampering with the most basic rights of our Canadian identity ?
Is this the thin edge of the fascist wedge?
The former Reform party cleverly morphed into the Alliance and then, like some redneck vampire under cover of darkness, next inhabited the former body of the "Conservatives", - which they resemble no more than any wolf in sheep's clothing.
While headed up by our rigidly unnatural, but righteously religious and dogmatically indirect in his arrogance, namely the current Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is it not this same fundamentalist minority government of Canada which seeks to collaborate with a certain declining empire to the south, which in turn is set to exploit and plunder Canada's bounty resources?
Are our representatives not operating against Canadians own best interests as our own government marches in lockstep with the schemes of the Bush Administration (who, surprise!, indirectly funded the Harper/Harpoon election campaign)?
Why is our own Canadian Parliament pushing through this kind of NO FLY LIST legislation, just as if Canada is now arbitrarily ruled by the House of Congress, as we rush to mimic the way Bush pushed through the Patriot Act without any legal Congressional approval?
Does anyone else think this NO FLY LIST could facilitate the impending Canada/U.S. mergers into one unthinkably frightening entity?
Is Canada poised on the brink of a political and corporate motivated but not all that hostile take over?
Is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to our basic human rights to be not voted on by those very politicians whom we ourselves have elected?
If not, why not?
If endorsed, why endorsed?
Does anyone ask which funding supports which Members of Parliament who will be the ones to endorse such Draconian measures, versus which members might protest or demand to vote against this bill?
I gather that, at least in the vernacular, Harper has been nicknamed "Bush lite".
So what do we see here?
Are NO FLY LISTS the legislative equivalent of a drag net which randomly traps and immobilises the life of the sea quite indiscriminately, supposedly in the interests of catching a few tuna?
If not, then what is going on here?
Is this not intentional use of fear as a tactic to legitimise the escalation of the loss of our most treasured freedoms?
Imagine, for example, that you are an average Canadian who is on your way to take a flight to go to Granny's 90th birthday. Or suppose your son or daughter is off to see Cousin Martha for the last time right after learning that she has been suddenly stricken with a rapidly deteriorating terminal condition.
Through a typical computer error your name gets cross referenced to a suspected terrorist and you find you are banned from flying.
Now the onus is on YOU to prove you are innocent.
So how can NO FLY LISTS be considered to be legitimate, let alone legal, if all you forget to mention was your middle name when you registered, only to find you have been turned away from the flight desk, left with only one option, 30 days in which to appeal (win? or lose?). Congratulations. You have just been effectively prevented from going to see either your Granny or your Cousin Martha. At that is the benign version.
Incidentally, despite the proven fact that all of us have a far greater chance of being struck by lightening than of ever encountering any terrorist or terrorist incident whatsoever, this NO FLY LIST effectively undermines the long standing Canadian right to enjoy freedom of movement within Canada, something long ago entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
- Or is it any longer?
Has anyone else checked out how our Constitution now reads?
Concerned,
(especially since it is a given that all who forget history are doomed to repeat it),
For a great many years now we have no longer been a part of the so called British Commonwealth, which once meant wealth held in common and meant to include rather than exclude commoners.
But that was then, and Britain is no longer Britain, for that matter.
Was there anything inherently positive about "bringing home the Consitution"?
Canadian historians and legislative powers created a clean slate by way of a replacing a flag indicating our history with a simple maple leaf flag which contains no hint of any links to our British past. Passports no longer gave one the right to travel to other former Commonwealth countries.
Why?
Is there still any "common wealth"?
Water, for example, was once held in the commons as a right under exactly this very legislation.
Is it now? Maybe. But just try to uphold that right.
The video below shows us that under Britain's PM, Tony Blair, yet another Bush administration lackey, what was once Britain can no longer qualify as "Parliamentarian".
It is a corrupt nation in decline, hardly worthy of the term "democratic".
If such terms have been rendered specious, almost overnight, there, why not here?
If you have high speed service, please first check out this Google Video.
Then rethink the implications of a seemingly pragmatic NO FLY LIST being implemented here in Canada.
Is Harper our version of Blair in implementing the New World Order?
Must Canada become totalitarian?
Is it already too late?
If you think not, then please don't be passive about it. Write to your MLA and your MP.
But first, click on this:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4839556520925774502&q=suspect+nation
Before I comment on the new Canadian "No Fly List", first a few pithy, pertinent quotes from Canadian author Margaret Atwood:
'If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia.'
'If a stranger taps you on the ass and says, "How's the little lady today!" you will probably cringe. But if he's an American, he's only being friendly.'
'Canada was built on dead beavers.'
'The beginning of Canadian cultural nationalism was not "Am I really that oppressed?" but "Am I really that boring?"'
Many decades ago, Atwood said, (and I paraphrase loosely), that if North America was the story of Moby Dick, the U.S would be the hunter and Canada would be the whale.
Is this List the tip of the totalitarian iceberg which signals not only regime change but the beginning of cultural annihilation?
If so, given this NFL (the acronym for the "No Fly List", not for the the National Football League), we can expect more of the same from here on in, as we fast approach the North American Alliance Treaty (read an 'irreversible merger with the U.S'.). So how do the little people help it along? Through apathy, indifference and inaction, perhaps?
Did I somehow misread this first symptom of societal illness which I think that a NO FLY LIST indicates?
Would it be jumping to wrongful conclusions to extrapolate about quasi parliamentarian tampering with the most basic rights of our Canadian identity ?
Is this the thin edge of the fascist wedge?
The former Reform party cleverly morphed into the Alliance and then, like some redneck vampire under cover of darkness, next inhabited the former body of the "Conservatives", - which they resemble no more than any wolf in sheep's clothing.
While headed up by our rigidly unnatural, but righteously religious and dogmatically indirect in his arrogance, namely the current Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is it not this same fundamentalist minority government of Canada which seeks to collaborate with a certain declining empire to the south, which in turn is set to exploit and plunder Canada's bounty resources?
Are our representatives not operating against Canadians own best interests as our own government marches in lockstep with the schemes of the Bush Administration (who, surprise!, indirectly funded the Harper/Harpoon election campaign)?
Why is our own Canadian Parliament pushing through this kind of NO FLY LIST legislation, just as if Canada is now arbitrarily ruled by the House of Congress, as we rush to mimic the way Bush pushed through the Patriot Act without any legal Congressional approval?
Does anyone else think this NO FLY LIST could facilitate the impending Canada/U.S. mergers into one unthinkably frightening entity?
Is Canada poised on the brink of a political and corporate motivated but not all that hostile take over?
Is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to our basic human rights to be not voted on by those very politicians whom we ourselves have elected?
If not, why not?
If endorsed, why endorsed?
Does anyone ask which funding supports which Members of Parliament who will be the ones to endorse such Draconian measures, versus which members might protest or demand to vote against this bill?
I gather that, at least in the vernacular, Harper has been nicknamed "Bush lite".
So what do we see here?
Are NO FLY LISTS the legislative equivalent of a drag net which randomly traps and immobilises the life of the sea quite indiscriminately, supposedly in the interests of catching a few tuna?
If not, then what is going on here?
Is this not intentional use of fear as a tactic to legitimise the escalation of the loss of our most treasured freedoms?
Imagine, for example, that you are an average Canadian who is on your way to take a flight to go to Granny's 90th birthday. Or suppose your son or daughter is off to see Cousin Martha for the last time right after learning that she has been suddenly stricken with a rapidly deteriorating terminal condition.
Through a typical computer error your name gets cross referenced to a suspected terrorist and you find you are banned from flying.
Now the onus is on YOU to prove you are innocent.
So how can NO FLY LISTS be considered to be legitimate, let alone legal, if all you forget to mention was your middle name when you registered, only to find you have been turned away from the flight desk, left with only one option, 30 days in which to appeal (win? or lose?). Congratulations. You have just been effectively prevented from going to see either your Granny or your Cousin Martha. At that is the benign version.
Incidentally, despite the proven fact that all of us have a far greater chance of being struck by lightening than of ever encountering any terrorist or terrorist incident whatsoever, this NO FLY LIST effectively undermines the long standing Canadian right to enjoy freedom of movement within Canada, something long ago entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
- Or is it any longer?
Has anyone else checked out how our Constitution now reads?
Concerned,
(especially since it is a given that all who forget history are doomed to repeat it),
posted by Moxie Molly at 12:41 pm
<< Home