Mischa Popoff: He Can’t Be Bought

by Jane Gaffin

I confess that I haven’t been paying a whit of attention to the forthcoming British Columbia election scheduled for May 14th. Now, in view of the latest B.C. Conservative Party’s chicanery that saw it dump three candidates unceremoniously, I’m on full alert.

My interpretation is that the B.C. Conservative Party’s alarmist decision of April 25, 2013 to drop candidate Mischa Popoff in the British Columbia Boundary-Similkameen riding is a stroke of fortune for him as well as the electorate.

While being truthful, he ostensibly stepped on somebody’s tail which is illegal under the Human Rights Code of Canada. And, as we all know from Marxist vernacular and a recent Canadian Supreme Court ruling, “truth is non-defensible”.

Mr. Popoff said to the effect that single women make poor parents and the government-funded Missing Women Inquiry was a useless exercise.

In an April 26th e-mail, he chimed in with a detailed response about his views on the matter. And, as a woman who grew up in the comfortable surroundings of a family unit–and proud to have been housed, clothed, fed and educated on rewards of my father’s toils from tobacco, whisky, farming and construction–I agree with him:
“The Missing Women Inquiry was not only a complete waste of time, but was also an insult to all those missing women, their families, and all future women who might go missing,” wrote Mr. Popoff.

“Not a single cop was fired, reprimanded or demoted. Cops were fired when Robert Dziekański was killed with a Tazer. But 49 women go missing and turn up dead, and no one on the Vancouver Police Force suffers any consequence whatsoever. This is, I would argue, the definition of a waste of time,” he continued.
“We should not promote kids being raised by single parents. Kids are always better off with two parents, and it matters not what their genders or sexual orientation might be. Statistics show that mothers who end up single–through no fault of their own, either through divorce or death of a spouse–do well as single parents.

“My mom is one such parent. But mothers who enter into parenthood knowing they don’t have a spouse, this is very bad for a child’s upbringing,” Mr. Popoff concluded.

According to a three-sentence news release prepared by the self-vaunted B.C. Conservatives, whose campaign is obviously being run by a bunch of castrating women:

“Mr. Popoff’s various comments were insensitive and disrespectful, particularly to women and single mothers who are, in fact, heroes to their children and their communities in many cases,” it read.

“We are a party that believes in a respectful airing of views. Mr. Popoff’s statements were unacceptable and he has been removed as a candidate,” it declared with prejudice.


This means Mr. Popoff is free to run as a candidate under his own banner, which, according to B.C. political pundit Frank Hilliard in his latest offering Liberal Media Claims Another Scalp, is exactly what truth-telling Mr. Popoff plans to do.

Through an unexpected sandbagging, he is now shed of the B.C. Conservative Party, which is obviously a brainwashed group supporting the politically-correct Marxist manifesto, an ideology that has become too prevalent in Canada, as well as the whole free world, thanks to the useless, communistic philosophy flowing from the United Nations.

Marxism calls for the breaking up of the traditional family unit and the state raising the children as “good little brainwashed” Communists.

Marxists, Hitlerites and everybody of their political persuasion believe staunchly in the philosophy that the proletariats are good for nothing more than contributing their offsprings to the state and that wives are nothing more than sluts designed to offer sex-on-demand to their husbands.

Marx’s solution to the problem was through social engineering; dismantle the family unit by demonizing men and kicking them out of the household, leaving the mother to do the child-rearing until circumstances renders her so impoverished that the state can easily step in waving unconstitutional laws, seize the “neglected” children, then give them a cold, unloving Marxist-style education and one bowl of watery cabbage soup everyday for lunch.

This is where and how eugenics comes into play.

In my vocabulary, this whole scam stinks of creeping totalitarianism. Yet it doesn’t seem to be “creeping” so much recently as the world has become overwhelmed with one gigantic police state and only a few intelligent beings seem to be aware or care that nations have lost their sovereignties when the respective constitutions started to be ignored as the paramount law of the land because the United Nations wants to rule that show too.

When I read one of my favorite Canadian columnists Peter Worthington (Need for New Anti-Terrorism Bill is Clear, Sun News, April 24, 2013 http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/04/20130424-173629.html) falling into the trap of espousing an alarmist viewpoint with regards to lawmakers passing anti-constitutional legislation is OK, I wonder if everybody is so thoroughly programmed through the corporate media that no hope remains.

The Marxists have time on their side as an ace in their hip pocket. Those irritating traditionalists who believe in the constitution, freedom and families are aging and death will soon shut us up.

But the lurking problem is that a lot of people–some of them society’s useful idiots–are going to meet their demise, too, with injections for imaginary diseases or with other means and excuses, i.e., a bullet to the head because the killing camps are too crowded with nuisance, vermin-infested inmates and no “compassionate” state agent to feed them non-existent watery cabbage soup.

From what I know about Mischa Popoff through his writing, I’d say God just saved him from the embarrassment of aligning himself with a bunch of leftist goons.

Mr. Popoff is much better off without being yoked to the left-leaning B.C. Conservatives, which would do better at the polls if they starting talking and acting like Conservatives rather than just another brand of Marxists bent on destroying society and civilization.

Obviously the B.C. party is in lockstep with Harper and Company which is a lapdog eager to do the bidding for the United Nations that has won the Prime Minister an Internationalist of the Year Award.

I, for one, was not impressed with his globalist attitude and free-trade agreements any more than I was when he sent Canada running like a firehouse dog when the UN rang the bell for all NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) members to go bomb Libya, which wasn’t Canada’s enemy.

But all sane people who went to sleep at the switch are guilty for allowing the free world to disintegrate into the Marxist abyss. We stood silently by, allowing elected politicians, who ignored their constituents’ directives, to be manipulated by power elitists through acceptance of favors and graft that mostly flows from United Nations-funded GONGOs (Government-Operated Non-Government Organizations) and wealthy foundations.

I don’t mean to influence you, but if you are a Boundary-Similkameen resident don’t forget to exercise your franchise in favor of Mischa Popoff. He can’t be bought off.



The Charter: Dismantling Democracy

by Jane Gaffin

This article was originally published in the Whitehorse Star on April 26, 2002 in recognition of the Canadian Constitution Act’s 20th anniversary.

April 17, 2013 will mark its 31st anniversary and interpretations have grown worse–not better–as the Constitution and its Charter centerpiece continue to age into an obsolescence trumped by politically-correct Marxism under advisement of the United Nations.

These documents are supposed to reign as paramount law of the land until repealed, which would bring on rebellious attention of a tyrannical government in the wings. So, the documents linger at the door, ignored or trounced, dismantled in slow motion, by such government offenders as lawmakers, law enforcers, Crown prosecutors, activist judges, human rights commissions, and the like.


The Charter of Rights and Freedoms–the important centerpiece of the Constitution Act of 1982–has been doing damage to democracy since the brainchild of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was enacted 20 years ago (1982).

The Charter has removed governance from the hands of elected parliamentarians and placed the power for deciding political policy with nine appointed justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Since the majority of laws are not charter-proof, the contentious ones blatantly infringing on civil liberties, like the firearms act and anti-terrorism legislation that are destined to wind up for a constitutional airing in the highest court.

As a result, the Charter has expanded the justice system into the nation’s biggest growth industry.

Anything one may have learned in civics class about fairness, natural justice and legality upheld by the courts is becoming obsolete. Interpretation of the constitution is swinging away from judicial restraint in favour of ruling by politically-correct judicial activism.

Much to the horror of traditionalists, who hold to principles of applying only law that is there and nothing else, judicial activism interprets the constitution as a “living” document. A judge makes up stuff that isn’t there and moves things around that is there to come out with the desired results in the name of “social justice”. (Another term for the societal adjustment which Communist Manifesto author Karl Marx declared “equity” in his crusade to exterminate the middle class.)

Heated arguments rage in both Canada and the United States as to whether a constitution should be treated as an organism or as a legal document.

In one camp are those who believe judges should issue rulings based on the whims of society and the influences of special-interest groups who want to control the lives of others.

In the other camp are those who fear anything short of judges sticking to the law will dismantle democracy and put ordinary citizens at high risk to be judged wrongly or unfairly.

The disagreement has increased the cry for Supreme Court justices to be elected.

In Canada, the Supreme Court justices are essentially hand-picked appointees of the prime minister without further scrutiny; in the United States, justices are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by Congress.

An equal number of sitting Democrats and Republicans has made it difficult for President George Bush to fill 99 vacancies on federal benches with his nominees. The Republican president wants only federal judges who will interpret rather than make the law; the Democrats will only approve judicial activists.

If, however, judges were elected, voters would have to choose them on their political positions and not on their ability to interpret the law. It would open the ugly possibility for judicial corruption.

Even the most principled candidates would need a political agenda and campaign donations. Whoever pays the piper could call the tunes and get the “best justice”–whether it be lawyers, big corporations or good-old-boy political cronies.

Elected judges is not the concern. The real problem is judicial restraint having been trumped by judicial activism.

Earlier this month, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada came to Whitehorse (April 4, 2002) to give a public lecture about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beverly McLachlin likened the Charter to a “living tree”, a term dating back to 1929 when a spokesman for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council opined that the Canadian Constitution should not be regarded as “frozen” but should be seen as a “living tree”, capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. In this respect, women were recognized as persons.

Survey polls have indicated about 82 percent of Canadians would like to “canonize” Trudeau for his constitutional centerpiece which they believe provides a unique identity for Canada unlike any other nation has.

A smaller percentage of the population would just as soon have “cannonized” the former prime minister for unraveling 115 years of a perfectly-functional constitution and bequeathing supremacy for policy-making to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Regardless of which camp one sits in, there is no end to discontent swirling around decisions flowing from the Charter, a document signed into law by Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth on April 17, 1982.

Translating broad statements of rights into functional doctrine and finding the right balance have led to an increased recognition of the importance of context, policy and philosophy in judging, said Chief Justice McLachlin.

Judges used to never acknowledge those three words as part of their jobs, she continued. But the Charter has forced judges to acknowledge that before making decisions that affect people’s lives or government policy, judges must have some understanding of the circumstances in context with the problem and the implications of deciding one way or the other.

Traditional decisions can have important policy ramifications and judges now face difficult philosophical issues, she added.

But through this process she hopes Canada can develop a Charter interpretation that will serve the country quite well. Judges have to think about these thing when crafting the rules.

“You can make it fairly definite but you want to keep enough flexibility so that if (big issues) change or it turns out what you’re doing is having problems, you can shift it around.

“The Charter, quite simply, is our ‘made in Canada’ way of dealing with our problems, and, I, for one, think we are fortunate to have it,” she concluded.

Still, the Canadian Constitution can be compared to the U.S. Constitution by virtue that the laws of both countries stem from English common law that evolved from the Magna Carta to become “the Supreme Law of the Land”.

It was only natural that the principles of British common law found their way to British-controlled Canada. By the same token, the English emigrates who sailed across the ocean to establish American colonies also embraced the British legal system they knew and admired.

“Now, judicial usurpation of democratic self-government is not a uniquely Canadian phenomenon,” noted Ian Hunter in a recent “Natioinal Post ” article.

The professor emeritus in the faculty of law, University of Western Ontario, drew on the words of Robert Bork, a former U.S. Appeal Court judge and a Supreme Court nominee. “Our country is being radically altered, step by step, by justices who are not following any law.”

Hunter also enforced his point by quoting an excerpt from a profound dissenting opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an “originalist” who holds tenaciously to a philosophy that the U.S. Constitution is a legal document.

“What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of the court,” wrote the articulate Scalia, appointed to the Supreme Court bench by former Republican President Ronald Regan in 1987.

“Day by day, case by case, (the court) is busy designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

Two years ago, Scalia took his judicial philosophy to two separate crowds of 500 each on a university campus in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

He was reported to be unpopular because of his refusal to view the Constitution as a “living” document. Altering the Constitution’s meaning just because society changes is “seductive”, he declared.

“The Constitution is not an ‘organism’,” emphasized the justice whose strong stance is to preserve and protect the document’s original meaning.

Judges who don’t adopt an “originalist” or “textualist” approach have no judicial philosophy and are issuing rulings based on the majority view of society at a given time, he said.

It has only been within the past 40 years that U.S. justices like Earl Warren began to see the Constitution as an evolutionary document that could be interpreted differently with the passage of time.

The socialistic notion slipped over into Canada where judges, and much of the public, support the “living” concept, thus allowing the Constitution to say anything one wants it to say.

Scalia is adamant that the Constitution must remain static. “But that doesn’t mean laws cannot change to reflect changes in society,” he suggested.

Meanwhile, many judges treat the Constitution and statutes as if they were written in disappearing ink.

“Activist judges recognize the parts they like, ignore the ones they don’t, and simply re-write the parts they think should be updated or change,” scoffed Thomas Jipping, who deals with legal and democracy matters for the Free Congress Foundation.

Rather than servants to the law, activist judges have set themselves up as masters of the law, he stressed.


Kangaroo Justice Leads to Rebellions

by Jane Gaffin
This article was original published in the Whitehorse Star on May 22, 2002. It demonstrates that the more things change the more they stay the same, or rather “those who don’t know history–or who choose to ignore it–are condemned to repeat its most evil, tyrannical parts”.
See related articles on this site Where the Bullet Hits the Bone https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/where-the-bullet-hits-the-bone/
Bypassing the Legislative Process is Deadly to Democracy https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/bypassing-the-legislative-process-is-deadly-to-democracy/

The famous Ballarat Rebellion of 1854 ignited due to government’s grossly unfair licencing practices and a corrupt constabulary dispensing “kangaroo justice” in the gold rush camps of Australia.

While the origin of “kangaroo court” is hazy, the term may indeed be a souvenir from that era. Kangaroos supposedly have a strange habit of staring blankly into space for long periods, then suddenly bouncing off in the opposite direction.

Judges who leaped to irrational conclusions were scoffed for acting with the logic of a kangaroo.

History is replete with tales of justice being transformed into a mockery by replacing legal procedures, principles and ethics with dishonesty, incompetence and corruption.

Today, governments try to sell “kangaroo courts” under the politically-correct guise of “judicial activism”. Edward Greenspan isn’t buying.

The noted Toronto criminal lawyer, who believes deeply in due process and justice, recently condemned the trial of former Yugoslavia leader Slobodan Milosevic as a “kangaroo court” and a “lynching”.

Even the worst thugs are entitled to a fair trial, he was quoted as saying in the press. Peter Worthington opined in his March 22 (2002) Toronto Sun column that a fair trial certainly isn’t what Milosevic is getting or could get from the International War Crimes Tribunal.

After Milosevic was kidnapped from Belgrade, where he should have been tried, and was transferred to The Hague, he refused to enter a plea. He doesn’t recognize the International War Crime Tribunal (IWCT) set up by the United Nations Security Council as a legal body.

Much reaction to Greenspan’s assessment of the trial was hostile. The columnist thinks maybe it’s because Milosevic is known as one of the world’s unpleasant tyrants.

He sees the whole concept of international court for war criminals rife with folly and shame. He agreed with Greenspan: Milosevic hasn’t a chance in this kangaroo court, even if Greenspan himself were defending him.

Among the assorted charges against Milosevic was genocide. “He may well be found guilty, even though no genocide was involved,” reminded Worthington.

“In fact, even charging him with genocide gives respectability to those who actually have implemented genocidal policies. Atrocities are not genocide.”

He pointed out that Madame Justice Louise Arbour of the Supreme Court of Canada, appointed to the IWCT as prosecutor, suggested Milosevic was guilty of genocide before she had much more than hearsay evidence.

“Arbour cited a massacre at Racak, in Kosovo, as Milosevic’s, which later turned out to be a fake massacre orchestrated by Albanian Kosovars to frame the Serbs,” noted Worthington.

History teaches that turning away from ethics and the fine points of good law to satisfy societal whims or a judge’s agenda ultimately leads to rebellions.

The kangaroo-style system has crept unnoticed into Canada and a myriad of other countries as bureaucrats and politicians, driven by mob mentality, eagerly embrace the United Nations’ scheme for a communistic one-world government.

Nobody except the rulers are going to like the experience.

Masiphula Sithole, a political science professor at the University of Zimbabwe, recently told The Christian Science Monitor: “A country and its people cannot go on like this.”

They can’t and they won’t. When the toes of justice are stepped on and people’s liberties trampled too long, they can be relied on to rise up and set things straight, just as they were forced to do during the Australian gold rush–a scenario not unsimilar to the situation that has unfolded under our noses in a federally-controlled Yukon.

The government in Melbourne, the seaport capital of Victoria, had no mining law in place when the gold rush struck in the early 1850s. In typical bureaucratic-Think, the government thought it could take care of every situation with a licence.

High-priced licences authorized miners to enter, locate, prospect and mine the Crown land. Many miners, however, did not relish–or could not afford–paying high fees to look for gold they may not find. The miners complained, then ultimately ignored the dictum.

To prove who was boss, the government dispatched the local constabulary to carry out licence inspections.

Due to a manpower shortage, many goldfield cops were hardened ex-convicts who carried out their duties in a ruthless manner. The police lorded their authority over the vulnerable gold miners who had no vote and no representation in Parliament.

A miner caught without a licence was chained to a log until the stiff fine was paid. Without legal rights attached to the licence or to their claims, the miners fell victim to the constabulary’s bribery, extortion and, finally, murder.

The miners demanded the government grant a more secure form of claim ownership. The words fell on deaf ears. Their only recourse was simply to refuse to cooperate with the hated licencing system. The government’s response was to increase inspections to twice a week. It generated more resentment.

As a measure of last resort, miners took up arms. On November 11, 1854, they organized the Ballarat Reform League. About 175 men occupied a stockade in Eureka.

On December 3, they set fire to the worthless pieces of paper and sent word to Melbourne they wanted to negotiate for something better.

The governor, Sir Charles Hotham, reacted by mobilizing every member of the constabulary and military in the district. Their orders were to go quash the Ballarat rebellion.

When the troops arrived, the entire garrison of miners was asleep. Unchallenged, the enforcement units opened fire on the sleeping rebels and took the stockade in about 15 minutes.

Up to 30 miners and six government troopers were killed. Of the 114 miners taken prisoner, 90 were wounded. Only about 30 escaped.

In another shameful display, Commissioner Robert Rede then unleashed his troops to slaughter both innocent and rebel miners in the surrounding mining camps. The untold casualties must have been extraordinary, for Governor Hotham spoke of the military commander’s actions as “imprudent”.

When news of the small rebellion and subsequent bloody massacre reached London, the British government was horrified that such savage events had taken place in its farthest colony. It was bad from a political perspective.

Rede was immediately posted elsewhere and the governor fired. The role of the diplomatic replacement was to do whatever necessary to satisfy the angry miners.

It didn’t take an iota of imagination to quickly recognize the myriad of injustices the government had committed against the miners. The first step toward reparation was to release the men arrested during the rebellion as well as three miners who were earlier sentenced to prison for taking justice into their own hands.

They had burned down Bentley’s Eureka Hotel in protest of the hotelier’s kangaroo acquittal for murdering James Scobie. A retrial, following better legal procedure, found the hotelier and two other defendants guilty of manslaughter.

The government gave miners the right to vote and opened a seat for a member from Ballarat in the local legislative assembly.

Within six months, Parliament passed the Victoria Mining Act of 1855. It was a major victory in so far that it offered miners a fairer deal and was the first “modern” free-entry law in the British Empire.

The Mining Act abolished the hated miners’ licence and granted miners rights which provided legally secure tenure for their mining claims as a form of property.

The Mining Act was a template for subsequent parliamentary law, notably the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, which, unfortunately, has since been overthrown by the comeback of a licencing and kangaroo-style system.

The result of the Ballarat Miners Rebellion, however, was the finest thing in Australian history, according to great American writer Mark Twain, whose quote was shared with readers by historian Douglas Fethering in his book, Gold Crusades: A Social History of Gold Rushes.

“It was a revolution–small in size, but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for a principle, a stand against injustice and oppression.

“It was the Barons and John, over again; it was Hampden and Ship-Money; it was Concord and Lexington; small beginnings, all of them, but all of them great in political results, all of them epoch-making.

“It is another instance of a victory won by a lost battle.

“It adds an honorable page to history; the people know it and are proud of it. They keep green the memory of the men who fell at the Eureka Stockade.”

Then, why, one must ask, are legislative bodies everywhere–Canada and Australia inclusive–frustrating people by willfully overthrowing good laws for bad laws and replacing fair justice systems with kangaroo courts when it only serves to force ordinary citizens of the world to have to rise up against thuggish and tyrannical oppressors like Milosevic.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien isn’t helping matters either by supporting the United Nations.

The majority of the world’s population would prefer living in peace, harmony and in pursuit of their dreams. But government members of the United Nations intentionally stir the pot with an electric prod to instigate civil unrest so police and military can practice their mean-spiritedness by quashing the likes of the Ballarat Rebellion.


Terrorism: Another Recycled Myth

by Jane Gaffin

“Terrorism”, the bastard child of “radicalism” and “communism”, is an abstraction recycled from over a hundred- year-old history.

Governments wanted to scare people into believing the Red Menace was a lurking threat to outdo all threats after the Lenin-led Bolshevik Revolution seized power over Russia in 1917.

When World War I ended with a Versailles treaty-signing in 1919, the Bureau of Intelligence, as with undercover agents in the 2000s, were wont to find sin where none existed.

An anti-radical campaign was underway within the Bureau when it established the General Intelligence Division (GID) in 1919 with a mandate to ferret out and coordinate information that could lead to nabbing mainly foreign-born “subversives”.

The rub was that the general public didn’t much give a damn about the preposterous notion that a ragtag bunch of Communists had any serious intentions of trying to overthrow such a fortress of freedom as the United States government.

The world was sighing from relief that the Great War war over and wanted to worry about nothing more than returning to a normal lifestyle.

If a group of commies were infiltrating the country and possessed the wherewithal to make such an attempt on the government, a strong military force was at the ready to stomp the pulp out of the interlopers, stick them on death row, or hold them in solitary holes to use later as political bargaining chips.

So, what was the problem?

There really wasn’t one except the Bureau ostensibly wanted to appear to be performing an important function to rationalize a need for additional funding to expand its personnel and presence.

The public’s attitude was inconsequential to the Bureau brass who would make believers out of them in due process. Some administrators were determined in their personal convictions to prove unequivocally that the American government’s estimate of only 10,000 Communists creeping around the country was much too low.

The obsessive research of a youthful paranoid, J.Edgar Hoover, dredged up more than 200,000 names under the mandate of the newly-minted GID.

Nothing much has changed in the present-day methods used to snatch so-called terrorists in comparison to the reckless modus operandi executed to catch radicals in 1919-20, which were known as the Palmer Raids, the legacy of Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Palmer_Raids.

Aliens became targets of a mass sting spanning a dozen or so American cities. The government-manipulated press was invited to come witness the operation for the purpose of writing glowing reports about the Bureau performing a blue-chip job of rounding up subversives as proof that the Red Menace was a real danger to America’s security.

Undercover agents and local police forces stormed meetings, homes and businesses. The thugs arrested thousands who were falsely tagged as “alien radicals”. Yet the journalistic scribes gave no ink to the total disregard given to infringing individual constitutional rights.

In New York City alone, only about 27 arrest warrants were issued to apprehend some 200 suspected subversives. The upshot was that the majority of detainees were bona fide U.S. citizens; the foreign-born ones were not members of any Russian or Communist radical organizations or labor unions.

In a style that could be considered patterned on brutal police state maneuvers, some U.S. residents were dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and hauled off by badge-bearing bullies who had no warrants and no evidence for laying formal charges.

That didn’t bother the Bureau boys.
The second caper was a more wide-sweeping fishing expedition ensued in some 33 cities across America on January 2, 1920. The Labor Department’s Solicitor General John William Abercrombie only dispensed some 3,000 blank unconstitutional warrants that did not note any names of pending arrestees.

Of the 10,000 persons arrested only about 556 were eventually “ordered” deported by the Secretary of Labor under provisions of the Immigration Act of 1918.

The New York Times and other publications of its ilk gushed praise for the Bureau’s brilliance. But the initial favorable response faded fast.

The day after the raids, the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia resigned in protest; a few newspapers and magazines began countering the Red Scare bluff.

Several months later, an organization called the National Public Government League published a pamphlet titled “We the American People: Report Upon the Illegal Practices of the United States Department of Justice”. It was penned by a dozen of the nation’s brightest and most eminent law professors.

The report documented the wholesale arrests and detentions of non-guilty citizens against whom there was not a ghost of a case and cited numerous instances of police and intelligence-agency brutality, and the deplorable conditions of the improvised jails in which the victims were incarcerated.

As one might expect, the Bureau quickly retaliated by subjecting the National Public Government League to hard-boiled secret surveillance. Amazingly, the professors were so squeaky clean that even potentially-corrupt investigating agents on a precise mission, from which they were not expected to return empty-handed, couldn’t concoct any derogatory details to discredit the writers.

The Bureau had to accept that the Americans had yawned their refusal to believe that agitators and anarchists were stirring up any large-scale threat.

What Americans did fear was that their constitutional liberties were being eroded while the quixotic law enforcers galloped off on a crusade to slay nothing more than imaginary creatures.

Then, with the end of World War II in 1945 came the Cold War. Communism enjoyed a revival as the official boogeymen. The Soviet Union and China, allies during the war, were now formidable foes.

In 1949-50, the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers spy case was underway before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Chambers, a journalist and once self-confessed Communist, accused Hiss of espionage.

Hiss, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was a high-ranking employee in the State Department who denied any espionage involvement with Communists or the passing of documents to Soviet spies.

Unbelievably, a five-year statute of limitations existed on espionage, but no statute of limitations existed on perjury, for which Hiss was tried and sentenced to five years in a federal penitentiary, a punishment for a crime he denied to the day he died.

The conviction offered little-known U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin a golden opportunity to waltz in and make political hay. He railed long and loud that the State Department was infested with Communists.

Then came the mass hysteria the FBI had craved. The Bureau conducted a check of two million names on the federal payrolls and the 500,000 who annually applied for U.S. government jobs.

Any dirt–regardless how minor or mythical–brought on a full investigation into a person’s past. No proof of subversive activities was necessary for dismissal from employment.

Often, civil servants were fired without knowing why and not knowing who had accused them of having ties with the Communist Party. The accused, who didn’t know who they were fighting, were rendered defenseless, which was the exact lopsided justice the government wanted.

Once the “wrongdoer” was fingered and neighbours interrogated, the victim and his family were automatically and immediately ostracized from society. Everybody was afraid to associate with a person accused of being involved in Communist activities.

Movie extras, film stars, entertainers–even kindergarten teachers–were blacklisted from working in their respective occupations. Successful one minute, they were out in the streets penniless the next.

Justice under the vigilantes was a kangaroo court. The deck was forever stacked against the accused, despite that investigators lacked any knowledge about the informer’s background or motives. And they didn’t care.

Then Western nations began meddling extensively in the illegal and immoral practices under the guise of stopping the spread of “Communism” in places such as Korea, Indo-China, Latin America and any other nation that looked like a suitable target for bomb practice.

The only legal and moral wars are those in which a sovereign nation is defending its own turf against enemy attacks. Irrespective that no nation has the right to infringe the sovereignty of another didn’t stop the United States and its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) buddies from acting as miscreant interventionists.

The political rhetoric touted back home was that the U.S. was serving as a benevolent savior whose self-serving role was to replace draconian dictatorships with democratic “mob-rule” forms of government without giving a whit of consideration to whether a Western political structure might blend into the foreign culture and social fabric of either a backwater or an affluent country.

The CIA, formed in 1947 under U.S. President Truman who deeply regretted authorizing the formation of what he called an American Gestapo, wanted the locals to have the vote so the process looked democratic. But it was actually a cunning procedure for putting a puppet dictator in power who would bow to American allegiance.

If the hand-picked dictator started misbehaving, the CIA might give him the boot and escort him out the door of his native country in perpetuity. Most likely, the unacceptable ruler would be assassinated and another despicable character of the CIA’s choosing would supplant the one a hit squad just killed.

If combat soldiers posted to those hellholes had time to analyze the dirty underbelly of war, they would have shot every imbecilic general, president, premier, dictator and politician who viewed the lives of innocent lads as nothing more than cheap bargaining chips to be used at the world’s negotiating tables.

To repeat former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

However, the populace has been led to believe the fluff about soldiers going to foreign lands to fight the enemy for the expressed purpose of defending freedom, civil liberties and upholding the constitutions of their respective countries.

The truth is that the one and only explicit reason for wars is to instigate police states.

Any rank of military personnel fortunate enough to survive POW camps were not welcomed home by the FBI. A perpetually-suspicious Director J. Edgar Hoover immediately put veterans on a strict watch list; some were even apprehended as a national security threat.

He thought it likely that these POWs, while undergoing psycho-political mind-control adjustments–a brainwashing process first applied during the Korean War and at which the Koreans and Chinese were masters–very likely had been mentally programmed into enemy-sympathizers.

The shameful reception veterans receive returning from more recent wars is not much different. What’s left of rolled-back benefits are slow to be processed and there are long waiting periods to get medical attention. Additionally, veterans are being relieved of their firearms and arrested simply on “suspicion” of some frame-up crime.

The worthless Korean War ended in 1953 with the same status it started with in 1950. McCarthyism ended about the same time on the same note.

But the Red Under Every Bed phobia lingered.

Any American educated in the Marxist public schools were brainwashed to believe the South Vietnam invited U.S. military troops to come fight their war and bomb surrounding countries under the pretense of curbing communism.

Yet the United States, through covert CIA operations, had been funding and supplying weaponry to the communists dating back as far as the Bolshevik Revolution while funding and supplying weaponry to anti-communists on the opposite side of the world.

After the U.S. military grew bored bombing North Vietnam to smithereens in that useless civil war, the Chinese-sponsored and secretly U.S.-supported Khmer Rouge Communists, under leadership of the monstrous beast Pol Pot, invaded the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh in April, 1975.

Chinese dictator Mao Tse-tung mentored Pol Pot, who, from 1975 to 1979– through execution, starvation, disease, and forced labor–drove the Khmer Rouge systematically to kill an extraordinary portion of Cambodia’s total population.

Vietnam didn’t want the Americans on their soil, a fact that didn’t bother the U.S. military and Vice President Johnson who were working at cross purposes with President Kennedy, a stickler for world peace, who was adamant about gradually pulling the troops out and bringing them home from Nam.

While Kennedy was in the throes of secretly and sincerely negotiating a détente with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban President Fidel Castro, both who admitted to wanting freedom as much as the West but capitalism had proven not to work, the CIA , infamous for not being forthright during weekly presidential briefings, traitorously betrayed their boss.

The CIA was trying to artificially stir up a hornet’s nest for an excuse to bomb and overtake the little island off the tip end of Florida, and had been pursuing numerous creative ploys to assassinate the cagey Castro who outsmarted them all.

Upon learning what was going on behind his back, the angry President Kennedy declared he wanted (or planned) “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

Although Mr. FBI held an irrepressible hatred for the Kennedys, it was a collaboration of skunk agents representing the FBI, CIA and the Mafia whose hands are bloodied for the death of the president in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. It doesn’t matter whose professional hit men, operating under aliases, actually pulled the trigger. All were complicit in the conspiracy.

America, under guidance of the slain president’s successor, President Lyndon Johnson, actually precipitated what became a protracted Vietnam War intentionally started in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Back home, youthful objectors writing and rallying vociferously in opposition to that dirty war were considered anti-American Communists and placed under immediate scrutiny or arrest.

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) unraveled under its own weight in 1991, the Red Menace fell out of favor.

Then what?

Old lies had worn thin and new lies were needed as an understudy to replace the fear and hate for “radicals” and “communists” to continue to “keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” so wrote the perceptive H.L. Mencken in 1918.

That “something” was “terrorists”, the new racket that Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agents predicted pre-9/11 would keep investigators hustling for at least the next 10 years.

“Terrorist” didn’t become a household word until a few months after the staged Attack on America on September 11, 2001 (9/11). Then the United Nations urged member states to dig out the odious “anti-terrorism” bills that had been waiting in the wings to be passed into law on the appropriate date.

For instance, Canada’s anti-terrorism legislation (Bill C-36) was rushed into law in late December, 2001–less than four months after the 9/11 attack on America, albeit unnecessary since such acts as those described as “terrorism” were already indelibly embedded in the Criminal Code as illegal acts.

It is easy to extract a favorable vote from politicians while the approving populace is traumatized by a surreal event that was never expected to happen on the home front; Americans, who had never experienced war and had no feeling for its atrocities, only expected such acts to be perpetrated by their own government in faraway countries with which they could not identify nor empathize.

Osama bin Laden, a once CIA operative, vehemently denied any responsibility for the event or the sending of video messages to the Americans after the fact.

Yet the U.S. government billed him as the scapegoat, just as FBI Director Hoover had ordered President Lyndon Johnson to ensure the Warren Commission duped the American people into believing that CIA patsy Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

After 9/11, focus immediately zeroed in on the “Middle East”, a term whose geographical meaning changes periodically as the defined nations shift around like the sand dunes in a wind-whipped desert.

U.S. President George Bush II claimed that the Muslims had hijacked and driven passenger jets into the World Trade Center Twin Towers and the Pentagon Building and blew up Building No. 7 because they were “jealous of American freedoms”.

No, the Muslims were sore with imperialists for meddling too long in their political affairs and blasphemously paving over their Holy Lands with obscene military bases and vulgar franchised restaurants.

For too long, America and other Western nations have infiltrated their countries with killer soldiers, who rifle and loot inhabitants’ homes, while missiles thud to earth, reducing buildings and infrastructure to rubble and blowing hundreds of innocent civilians into bloody particles.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense always refers to those who get in the way as “collateral damage” while sidestepping the term “real wars” for “kinetic actions”.
Just as the United States was once off on a crusade of slaying the communist dragon, now it’s on a mission to slay the “terrorist” dragon.

Well, if Westerners are supposed to be terrified of “terrorists”, why are there at least 36 camps for training Al Queda and maybe other militant groups around the Eastern Seaboard area and more scattered near Toronto, Canada?

Obviously because the CIA operatives need secreted places to train their protégés.

The real terrorists are the alphabet-soup gangs, operating as CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), FBI (Federal Bureau of Intelligence), BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), DHS (Department of Homeland Security) Mafia, SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) teams, EMT (Emergency Response Teams) and paramilitary police units.

Yet it’s mostly individuals keen on minding their own business that these alphabeters seek, set up, lock up or kill as terrorist trophies.

Meanwhile, governments have not legally defined “terrorism” and “terrorist”, words which have taken on a life of their own and can mean anything.

These feeble attempts at definitions are totally inadequate for legal purposes, but that doesn’t stop the courts from ignoring the Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, inserting reverse onus, and running roughshod over individuals’ lives without any concrete evidence to convict–if the accused is even allowed constitutional rights to see the inside of a courtroom.

The scandalous reason for not legally defining crucial key words within the context of legislative acts is a government scheme that can render the accused guilty of sin, regardless of how ridiculous the accusations.

The accuser is always right; the accused is always wrong.

“Terrorist”, like sister words “store” (Canadian Firearms Act) and “pornography” (art or smut), is nearly impossible to legally define and interpretations have been stupidly offloaded to the discretion of ineffectual enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges–sometimes juries–to deal with on a case-by-case basis.

So far, the best definition the politically-correct Marxist legal lunatics could conjure up is that “a person who practices terrorism is a terrorist.”

What is “terrorism”?

It’s some hazy thing that a “terrorist” does.

These definitions leave the courts chasing their tail over subjective words. Open season has been declared on every commoner who can be a terrorist-designate for virtually any type activity, thought, spoken or written word or be snagged in a law enforcer’s dragnet.

The United Nations and governments have packaged “terrorists” into all-encompassing categories:

1. Criminal (which may include political dissident in the Soviet and Nazi context or political activists in the China context);

2. Racist (a term applying to everybody);

3. Conspiracy Theorist (including full-throated hawkers of such perceived ideologies);

4. Extremist (including politically-incorrect “radicals” and “zealots” on the wrong side of Marxism); and

5. Mentally Ill (which includes all the previous categories and is a nebulous stand-alone subject as broad and meaningless as “terrorism”).

There may not be sufficient evidence to lay formal charges to proceed to trial, but that doesn’t stop the zealous bureaucrats.

In such circumstances, habeas corpus goes to hell. The accused can be whisk off for a Spanish Inquisition-style interrogation and languish out his days in some remote dungeon or be packed with drugs and locked in a mental ward.

If the prisoner has the benefit of friends or family members on the outside who have the wherewithal to find an honorable, constitutionalist judge who still believes in “rule of law” and “due process”, the captive will undoubtedly be sprung free on grounds of illegal confinement.

This scenario is akin to Salem 1692, and just as bad if not worse then what has happening in Soviet Russia’s gulag under Uncle Joe, and any number of other totalitarian regimes.

Who knows the actual millions of prisoners the brutal dictatorships have executed during their democidal savagery over the last hundred years? Who knows how many millions of “witches” died at the stake before the more than 200-year-old European and Salem burnings finally faded out of favor in the early 1700s?

Sometime in the late 15th century, Christian church clerics were directed that when sorcery with the Devil was charged but went unproven, the consequences would be suffered by the accuser and NOT the accused.

It did wonders for minimizing false accusations against the innocents and certainly cut down considerably on public-funded trials.

That 500-year Christian directive should be returned pronto to restore sanity to the government’s frenzied Everybody’s-a-Terrorist campaign that’s gone idiotically berserk.



1. Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy by David E.Scheim (1988)

2. FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963, VOLUME VI, KENNEDY-KHRUSHCHEV EXCHANGES http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v06/comp1

3. John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement Address, delivered 10 June 1963 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html

4. The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition by Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox (1988)

5. The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America 1932 – 1972 by William Manchester (1973, 1974)

6. THE SECRET TEAM: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World by L.. Fletcher Prouty, Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) (1973, 1992, 1997)

7. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner (2007)

8. Mao: The Untold Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday (2007)

9. First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers by Loung Ung

10. Pol Pot: A History of a Nightmare by Philip Short (2004)

11. Justice Served Up Yukonslavia Style: The Shameful Conspiracy Behind the Allen Carlos Trilogy 1998 to 2004 by Jane Gaffin, (CD and eBook, 2003, 2009)

12. Governments Can’t Get Those Witches Exorcized by Jane Gaffin, Whitehorse Star, July 16, 2004

13. The Osama bin Laden Myth, by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, November 27, 2012 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-osama-bin-laden-myth/5313124:
Contains full BBC translated text of September 28, 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin, republished by professor and author Michel Chossudovsky, May 9, 2011 on Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697

14. Hugo Chavez, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, some of his thoughts on terrorists, terrorism and who is the worst offender, delivered 20 September 2006 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hugochavezunitednations.htm\

BILL C-36: A Replay of a Horror Story

by Jane Gaffin


(This article was originally published in the Whitehorse Star on December 17, 2001. See related articles on this site: Where the Bullet Hits the Bone https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/where-the-bullet-hits-the-bone/ and Terrorism: Another Recycled Myth https://janegaffin.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/terrorism-another-recycled-myth-3/)


Bill C-36 is a done deal.

It passed Parliament 191 to 47 on November 28 (2001) and will be rubber-stamped by the Liberal-majority Senate to be presented to Canadians like a head on a platter in the new year (2002).

This is a terrifying piece of legislation.

Deceptively wallpapered over as a method to catch terrorists, the hefty, 183-page people-control law holds promise to trample on privacy and civil rights.

It was hastily concocted under the guise of protecting national security and calming a jittery population who wants to feel “safe”. Sorry, this bill shouldn’t make anybody feel safe. It was shoved through Parliament without exhaustive debate and carries no provisions for periodic reviews to correct the inevitable glitches.

The question should be: Was Bill C-36 really necessary? The government already has churned out tons of blood-curdling people-control laws through the parliamentary mill to suit every occasion.

The police are said to have rounded up scores of suspects already and C-36 hasn’t even been proclaimed law yet. (Same with the U.S. before its anti-terrorist bill was passed.)

So what was the point?

Some politicians tried to justify the anti-terrorist bill by telling CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio interviewers: “if you think Canada’s is bad you should look at what the Americans did.”

Good idea, especially since both countries seem to have wantonly amputated their memories about what happens when a paranoid government overreacts in the heat of protecting national security. The U.S. government ruined the lives of thousands of innocents when the world was on the brink of the Cold War. National security trumps civil rights and freedoms every time, often without just cause.

One nasty piece of business was guilt-by-association, which has been repeated in C-36 A person can be guilty of subversion with no way to prove innocence, simply by knowing another person who belongs to the same organization, but knows nothing about the other’s personal life or extraneous activities. (Under the Canadian Constitution Act 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes in section 2. (d) Everyone has the fundamental “freedom of association”.)

The same scenario played out during the Age of Suspicion. The era followed the Second World War, in which Canada had joined Great Britain, the U.S. and Russia to fight on one side against Germany, Italy and Japan. The war ended in August 1945.

Within a month, friendships shifted. Russia, a former ally, became a formidable foe. A Russian cipher clerk, working in a sensitive job in the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, blew the whistle on a spy network operating in the nation’s capital and Montreal. He had a motive for his actions insofar as his tenure was nearly finished in Canada. And he didn’t relish returning to his oppressive police-state homeland.

He presented proof to the Ottawa police that spies were passing national secrets to Soviet agents, who transmitted the information to officials in Moscow. A federal affair, the Mounties granted the Russian and his family political asylum and protection from the Soviet thugs who were tracking the traitor.

News filtered to U.S. President Harry Truman. Though history has been kind to the 33rd president, his administration didn’t seem to know how to find the authentic communist spies, so turned vulturously on its own people. In the name of national security, Americans were encouraged to squeal on friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbours under the patriotic pretense of squeezing potential demons out of the woodwork.

Meanwhile, the Communists had tramped across Europe and taken Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and, later, Czechoslovakia into the Soviet family.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Evil has already travelled around the world while truth is still pulling on its boots.”

The Communists marched and the U.S. was hand-wringing. The enemy had just divided the Soviet Union from the Western World by clanging down the “Iron Curtain”, a term coined by Mr. Churchill. Yet the method employed to stop the Reds from seizing North America was to unleash secret agents on two million innocent federal government employees and the half million applicants who sought government jobs every year.

Ordinary people were hunted down like hard-boiled criminals. Any tidbit of negative information would spark a full-fledged investigation into the person’s background.

Any imagined “subversive” activity conjured in the state’s mind was sufficient grounds for dismissal. A federal employee did not have to be–or have ever been–a member in a “questionable” organization to receive a pink slip.

He could be guilty by association. He only had to know someone who was or had been a member of what might be deemed by authorities as a “questionable” organization. The axed employee was not told what he was alleged to have done wrong because there was nothing to tell. Since the accused did not know who the informant was, he had no way to defend himself. He was fighting feathers.

When the victim was pinpointed and neighbours questioned by security officers, the whole family was automatically ostracized by society. Everybody was fearful to associate with any person the government linked to Communist activities.

The accused could never find other work and would end up in the streets. Even movie stars, entertainers, secretaries and kindergarten teachers were targeted and blacklisted from working.

The nearly 3,000 who were hauled embarrassingly before the courts met with a kangaroo-style justice in which the deck was stacked against them. Another 10,000 were questioned and three million screened. The crassly hypocritical period of history has been compared to the Salem witch hunts of 1692. The whole scenario looked worse than the communist-style government for which the Americans pompously rebuked the Soviets for endorsing.

During this nightmarish time in America, democracy was asleep at the switch. The Constitution and Bill of Rights offered no protection. Governments view civil rights differently during national emergencies. It was a period that instilled great fear and confusion in the people. The country was having an anxiety attack.

After all was said and done, not one spy was exposed. By deduction, the public could accept that the tireless and ruthless efforts of the undercover agents had maybe scared off the enemies of the state.

But the demons weren’t scared off. They had been covered up by corrupt authorities working within the bureaucratic system. It provided the international espionage rings a chance to whisk off to Russia with nuclear information and other confidential loot, such as U.S. money-printing plates, stolen from under the president’s nose in Washington, D.C. And, had the Russian defector not blown the whistle in Ottawa, the spies probably would never have been apprehended and brought to trial several years later.

Until then, the public’s attention had been diverted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s nailing of kindergarten teachers and youths for fraternizing with the enemy. Compassionate young people had conducted benefit drives and sent food and warm clothing to the Russians during the war when Russia was an ally. Afterward, it was not a valid self-defence.

This dark period of history has no option but to repeat itself on Canadian turf. C-36 will give licence for undercover agents to investigate, interrogate and abuse a whole bunch of innocents whose lives will be ruined. And, like the U.S. government didn’t find a “Red Under Every Bed”, Canada won’t ferret out a single terrorist who couldn’t have been found, detained and arraigned by using some other piece of legislation already on the books.

The Canadian Criminal Code–the Bible of the law-enforcement business–comes quickly to mind as a broad-sweeping document useful for nabbing law-abiding citizens.

Why not terrorists? But the only consolation left to Canadians now would be if some of the masterminders and supporters of C-36 end up the first victims snared in their own machinations….just to give the rest of society a dress rehearsal as to exactly how this abusive law is REALLY going to work–or not work.

The aftereffect:

As predictable, the Supreme Court of Canada was finally solicited to rule on the definition of the word “terrorism” and the anti-terrorism act’s legality; as predictable, Canada’s top court said in a unanimous 7-0 decision that everything was hunky-dory.

On December 13, 2012, Canadian Press writer Mike Blanchfield delivered a brief report titled Supreme Court to Deliver Terrorism Definition in anticipation of the next day’s decision.

(See full article at: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/12/supreme-court-to-deliver-landmark-decision-on-definition-of-terrorism/

“The constitutionality of Canada’s anti-terror law comes under the microscope Friday (Dec. 14/12) when the Supreme Court of Canada delivers a series of major rulings on the legal definition of terrorism,” wrote Blanchfield.

“The high court will rule on a handful of charter challenges brought by a convicted terrorist and two accused terrorists, key among them whether Canada’s post 9/11 anti-terror law violates the constitutional guarantees to freedom of expression, association and religion,” he continued.

He noted that the rulings could determine whether the terror legislation needs to be amended or rewritten, or is struck down for giving law enforcement too much latitude.

“The ruling also will decide the fate of former Ottawa software engineer Momin Khawaja, the first person charged under the law, and two other men, awaiting extradition to the United States, where they face charges of supporting the banned Tamil Tigers terrorist group.

“Khawaja is now serving life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years after the Ontario Court of Appeal took the unusual step of increasing his original 10-and-a-half year sentence to send a message about terrorism.

“The high court will also rule on whether Khawaja’s stiffened sentence should be upheld.”


In an unbelievable, yet predictable, outcome, on December 14, 2012, Canadian Press reported that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared the country’s controversial anti-terror law to be constitutional in a series of rulings that affirms how terrorism is defined in the Criminal Code.

“In a 7-0 ruling, the court has dismissed a series of charter appeals brought by three men, including terrorist Momin Khawaja, the first person ever charged under the anti-terror law.

“The court said an Ottawa trial judge erred by giving Khawaja too light a sentence of 10 1/2 years in prison and endorsed the life sentence later imposed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

“The rulings also upheld the extradition order against two other men, Suresh Sriskandarajah and Piratheepan Nadarajah, who can now be sent to the United States to face trial on charges of supporting the Tamil Tigers, a banned terrorist group.

“The high court flatly rejected a series of constitutional challenges brought by the three men.”

One suggested site for reading the full, enlightening story by CP writer Michael Blanchfield, can be viewed at http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/14/supreme-court-anti-terror-law_n_2298474.html

An excellent article by Ian MacLeod (with files from CP) was published December 14, 2012 on Postmedia News titled Canada’s Anti-terrorism Law Overcomes Final Hurdle in Top Court. See http://o.canada.com/2012/12/14/canadas-anti-terrorism-law-overcomes-final-hurdle-in-top-court/