inane Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Harper at it again... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/article23019252/ The RCMP has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation. In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence. “If violent environmental extremists engage in unlawful activity, it jeopardizes the health and safety of its participants, the general public and the natural environment.”“There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” concludes the report which is stamped “protected/Canadian eyes only” and is dated Jan. 24, 2014. The report was obtained by Greenpeace. The government has tabled Bill C-51, which provides greater power to the security agencies to collect information on and disrupt the activities of suspected terrorist groups. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has identified the threat as violent extremists motivated by radical Islamic views, the legislation would also expand the ability of government agencies to infiltrate environmental groups on the suspicion that they are promoting civil disobedience or other criminal acts to oppose resource projects. The legislation identifies “activity that undermines the security of Canada” as anything that interferes with the economic or financial stability of Canada or with the country’s critical infrastructure, though it excludes lawful protest or dissent. And it allows the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service to take measures to reduce what it perceives to be threats to the security of Canada. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has already launched challenges to the RCMP complaints commission and the Security Intelligence Review Committee – which oversees the Canadian Security Intelligence Service – over alleged surveillance of groups opposed to the construction of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. “These kind of cases involving environmental groups – or anti-petroleum groups as the RCMP likes to frame them – are really the sharp end of the stick in terms of Bill C-51,” said Paul Champ, a civil liberties lawyer who is handling the BCCLA complaints. “With respect to Bill C-51, I and other groups have real concerns it is going to target not just terrorists who are involved in criminal activity, but people who are protesting against different Canadian government policies.” RCMP spokesman Sergeant Greg Cox insisted the Mounties do not conduct surveillance unless there is suspicion of criminal conduct. “As part of its law enforcement mandate the RCMP does have the requirement to identify and investigate criminal threats, including those to critical infrastructure and at public events,” Sgt. Cox said in an e-mailed statement. “There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.” But Sgt. Cox would not comment on the tone of the January, 2014, assessment that suggests opposition to resource development runs counter to Canada’s national interest and links groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club to growing militancy in the “anti-petroleum movement.” The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, and adds that many environmentalists “claim” that climate change is the most serious global environmental threat, and “claim” it is a direct consequence of human activity and is “reportedly” linked to the use of fossil fuels. It echoes concerns first raised by Finance Minister Joe Oliver that environmental groups are foreign-funded and are working against the interests of Canada by opposing development. “This document identifies anyone who is concerned about climate change as a potential, if not actual – the lines are very blurry – ‘anti-petroleum extremist’ looking to advance their ‘anti-petroleum ideology,’” said Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace. “The parts that are genuinely alarming about this document are how it lays the groundwork for all kinds of state-sanctioned surveillance and dirty tricks should C-51 be passed,” he said. A spokeswoman for Public Safety Canada said Bill C-51 does not change the definition of what constitutes a threat to Canadian security, and added CSIS does not investigate lawful dissent. “CSIS has a good track record of distinguishing genuine threats to the security of Canada from other activities,” Public Safety Canada’s Josée Sirois said. “The independent reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee attest to CSIS’s compliance with the law.” I especially love the not so subtle climate change denying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken kaniff Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 If Harper's government was so stupid maybe they could find a solution that wouldn't breed these extremists. He does nothing to try and help the environment and has actually made things worse by allowing big corporations to run things around here. There's obviously a decent amount of people who don't want that but he ignores them so they go to extremes. Someone needs to step up and put us on the right path. Vote for me at the next election. I will be the ruthless dictator we all need. That is Ken Kaniff from Connecticut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Not sure what is mroe terrifying. In one context. You have people rallying against what they perceive is a threat to their way of life and their environment. Exercising their right to assembly and demonstration. They are now being systematically shut down if any of their donations or contributions went to any political party. On the other end of things you have the government forcibly censoring and shutting down these groups and people for doing nothing more than protecting their way of life. All while taking millions in campaign contributions and party donations from the companies people and corporations who are standing to gain the most from these projects being built. I for one find a government more beholden to a business than its people far more terrifying. When an entity with no legal bearing in the world has more right over a person or the livelihoods of the many because of perceived monetary benefits than we have a serious issue. By the way Clark just ok'd Nestle to steal our drinking water for the low low price of $2.25 per million litres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 By the way Clark just ok'd Nestle to steal our drinking water for the low low price of $2.25 per million litres. Yes, it's disgusting. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/charge+bottling+million+litres+groundwater/10791463/story.html VICTORIA — Companies will pay little more than a toonie to bottle as much groundwater as can fill a 25-metre swimming pool when new fees take effect in British Columbia next year. The levy is part of a rate schedule introduced by the Ministry of Environment, which until recently has not charged for the use of groundwater. Household wells through B.C. will not require a licence or pay a fee, but the government will charge others between two cents and $2.25 for every one-million litres of groundwater, or enough to fill the pool. The fees mean a household using municipal water may pay an extra loonie or toonie annually, and a farm growing hay in Kamloops may see their costs jump from $90 to $128 to irrigate a 16-hectare field. But the highest rate has been set for water-bottling companies that will pay $2.25 per million litres. The ministry says the fees are meant to cover the costs of the May 2014 Water Sustainability Act, which comes into force next year. “British Columbia is blessed with an abundant water supply that our government is committed to preserving for future generations,” says Environment Minister Mary Polak in a media release. “The new fee structure will ensure fairness and affordability are cornerstones of our modernized water legislation.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know what's more terrifying. People doing unlawful things or those supporting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know what's more terrifying. People doing unlawful things or those supporting them. Can't tell if you're just trolling or amazingly naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't usually agree with Harper but I kind of do on this one. Those "extremist" environmentalists are pretty much terrorists and should be watched. If they build a pipeline and one of those nut jobs goes and damages it, they'll claim that it's the governments fault for allowing it to be built. Protesting and demonstrating is one thing, and I support the rights of those who choose to do so. However, anyone willing to break the law or cause damage to property to further their agenda should be thrown in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't usually agree with Harper but I kind of do on this one. Those "extremist" environmentalists are pretty much terrorists and should be watched. If they build a pipeline and one of those nut jobs goes and damages it, they'll claim that it's the governments fault for allowing it to be built. Protesting and demonstrating is one thing, and I support the rights of those who choose to do so. However, anyone willing to break the law or cause damage to property to further their agenda should be thrown in jail. The issue of course is how you define 'extreme'. I don't think anyone's arguing if you blow up a pipe line you shouldn't be prosecuted, the issue is everyone else. Just look at the language they use, it's clear their definition goes beyond simply the most extreme that actually try and blow stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Pretty sure we have existing legislation to cover these kinds of acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 The issue of course is how you define 'extreme'. I don't think anyone's arguing if you blow up a pipe line you shouldn't be prosecuted, the issue is everyone else. Just look at the language they use, it's clear their definition goes beyond simply the most extreme that actually try and blow stuff up. I am talking about the most militant ones. The people who go beyond protesting and demonstrating and break the law because they don't believe protesting or demonstrating accomplishes anything. I remember a few years back there was someone in northern bc or Alberta going around blowing up pipes. I think. I'm going off of memory and it's been awhile. I really don't feel like googling it but it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7536c750-8a4a-4d23-a069-b92512955396#__federated=1 There's one article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 That's why environmentalists should be watched. It's a slippery slope but better to watch them all and prevent something then not and allow it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I am talking about the most militant ones. The people who go beyond protesting and demonstrating and break the law because they don't believe protesting or demonstrating accomplishes anything. I remember a few years back there was someone in northern bc or Alberta going around blowing up pipes. I think. I'm going off of memory and it's been awhile. I really don't feel like googling it but it's there. YOU may be talking about the most militant ones but YOU aren't the one in question here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I am talking about the most militant ones. The people who go beyond protesting and demonstrating and break the law because they don't believe protesting or demonstrating accomplishes anything. I remember a few years back there was someone in northern bc or Alberta going around blowing up pipes. I think. I'm going off of memory and it's been awhile. I really don't feel like googling it but it's there. Sure, like I said, I think we all agree if you go around bombing things you should be held accountable. But that's not who this is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 YOU may be talking about the most militant ones but YOU aren't the one in question here. What's wrong with being "watched"? If YOU have nothing to hide, what are YOU worried about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Sure, like I said, I think we all agree if you go around bombing things you should be held accountable. But that's not who this is about. Who do you think this is about then? I'm afraid I'm missing something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Anti-environmentalists are the real terrorists. Who's watching them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I don't know what's more terrifying. People doing unlawful things or those supporting them. Can you not think of any instances in history where breaking the law for a cause "you" believe in has resulted in a positive change for our species? Civil disobedience has done a lot for mankind....and womenkind....and black folk in the USA. You know what I'm saying? I don't know what's more terrifying. People who can't think for themselves or those who refuse to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 After re reading this article I can find nothing in it that labels environmentalists one step closer to terrorists. It only claims that people could be monitored if they're suspected of breaking or could be potentially breaking the law. What's wrong with that? It doesn't affect any form of lawful protesting or demonstrating so what's the issue? This all seems overblown to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Mulder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 “If violent environmental extremists engage in unlawful activity, it jeopardizes the health and safety of its participants, the general public and the natural environment.” A direct quote from the article and a correct statement at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.