When The MSM Finally Asks Hard Questions About Domestic Spying

(Granted - this article is about the Canadian MSM and warrantless domestic spying in Canada - but all questions, points and warnings herein apply as much to the U.S.A., the U.K. and Australia, among many other democratic societies of our world).

Before I begin, allow me to refresh your memories.

Back in July early 2007, I asked the following question with regards to the extent of undisclosed/illegal domestic spying in Canada:

Considering the propensity of (Prime Minister) Harper and his Harpies in mimicking and integrating with the Bushies, and considering how said Bushies have no qualms about illegal surveillance operations on their own citizens, I find myself asking this dreadful question: to what extent has the Harper government been allowing similar illegal electronic surveillance on Canadians (presumably by the RCMP and CSIS), and to what extent is such data shared with the U.S.A.?

This question later evolved around early-to-mid August into the following:

Considering A) the propensity of the current Canadian (neocon) government to not only follow in the footsteps of the Bush administration, but to actually emulate it; B) the clearly established propensity of the Bush administration to spy and monitor (illegally or not) and, as in many other things, lie and lie about it, then ask for more; C) the demonstrated stance of the Bush administration to demand full information-sharing from Canada and yet arrogantly refusing to disclose all its knowledge (if it really has any) concerning Maher Arar in support of its decision to keep him on the terrorist watch list; D) the demonstrated propensity of the RCMP and CSIS to unquestioningly share data with the FBI and the CIA; E) the still remaining lack of oversight of the RCMP and CSIS; F) the fact that the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE) — the functional equivalent of the NSA — may be authorized once again to perform the same kind of domestic spying in Canada as in the U.S.A., as it was authorized before; and G) the now-apparent primacy of the Third-Party Rule in Canada;

I) To which extent is the privacy of Canadian citizens being illegally invaded, through indiscriminate sharing of private information and data, for the benefit of the FBI and CIA - in clear violation of our privacy of information laws?

II) To which extent Canadian citizens are being illegally spied and monitored, either by the RCMP, CSIS, the CSE, the FBI, the CIA or the NSA, in clear violation of our constitutional rights?

And last, but not least, III) Why is there not a single Canadian MSM journalist currently asking these questions?

Then, back around mid-September, the news came out that the Harper government was conducting secret consultations on the means to lessen or abrogate the need for court-approved warrants by police (and/or Canadian security agencies) in order to acquire private information on citizens held my internet and telecommunications companies.

Caught with his pants down, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day back-tracked on many levels, including opening up the consultations and setting a new deadline at October 12 for sending memorandums/representations to the consultation panel.

However, many questions remained unanswered, including those put forth by yours truly.

Then 'lo and behold - Douglas Todd wrote a lengthy article this past Saturday in the Vancouver Sun, titled: "Who's making the decisions on privacy vs. security?

And after reading it, I ended up saying: Yes! Finally! Finally someone is asking the hard questions in an MSM outlet!

So - do go and read it as well!

What I applauded the most was the following passage (emphasis mine):

"In other words, it has not only been because of the Sept. 11 attacks that Canada's privacy commission Jennifer Stoddart said "a voracious appetite for personal information and surveillance has sprung up."

Electronic surveillance is now a $40-billion-a-year enterprise in North America, says Newsweek. In 2005, USA Today broke the story that U.S. spy agencies had collected data on billions of telephone calls made by ordinary Americans."

And this one (emphasis mine):

"Rather than being silent in the face of increased government surveillance, at the minimum citizens should demand transparent legislation and rigorous debate over every heightened security measure being considered.

Without such discourse, governments will fail to gather public support for trade-offs between security and privacy. They may also forget that, when in doubt, freedom, as the director says, should be the highest value."

Again: Yes, yes, yes! Thank you, Mr. Todd!

Although he fails to answer one question he himself put forth in the beginning of his piece, namely "Which should prevail: Protection from Osama Bin Laden or freedom from the prying eyes of various governments?", preferring instead to remain neutral on the question, he nevertheless brings forth two major points which should - and must - be repeated over and over again in any debate concerning the surrendering of our privacy and liberties in the sacrosanct name of Security:

A) 9/11 was only an opportunity to grab as much warrantless domestic spying power as possible, since security agencies have always been so bent (it is the nature of the beast - see below) and security firms have always lobbied actively to peddle their own electronic surveillance products (and still do even more since then). Consequently, the idea that we must surrender our privacy and liberties in order to be safe from terrorism is, plainly put, a fear-driven bill of goods being sold to us;

B) Governments, especially law and security enforcement agencies, will always seek to gather and keep any and all data on all citizens if they are not prevented to do this without probable cause and court-approved warrants. Hence, they will cast the "widest net" possible if they are allowed to, and any claims to the contrary on their part is pure B.S.. Therefore, we must stand our ground and refuse to surrender to the fear of terrorism.

As I said before: the security agencies of Canada and the U.S.A. have been exposed not as seekers of truth, but as seekers of guilt.

Now, take the latter into account along with Colin Powell's recent admission (emphasis mine):

"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"

It has been said often by others and yours truly, but it bears repeating yet again:

We have met the enemy and it is ourselves.

We are the real problem with terrorism.

It is up to us to have the courage to stand up for our rights and our privacy.

It has always been up to us. Period.

(Cross-posted from APOV)