How Surprised Would You Be …..
….. to find out that the Canadian military spies on Canadians who speak out against the war?
The story was just emailed to me tonight
Military tried to cover up file on outspoken critic
Forces’ report deemed Ottawa man not a threat
David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, July 13, 2007Military officials kept an eye on an outspoken opponent of the Afghanistan war last year, but in a report produced about the Ottawa man’s public comments they determined support for the mission was still high and his criticism does “not seem to resonate” with the public and media.
Defence department officials originally denied the documents, requested by the Citizen under the access to information law, even existed. But an investigation by the information commissioner revealed that e-mails and a report on the activities of left-wing defence analyst Steven Staples had indeed been compiled by the military. The report was sent to 50 officers, including two brigadier generals.
The release comes as the Defence Department finds itself dealing with charges from critics that Gen. Rick Hillier has ordered a sweeping crackdown to block the release of all files on the Afghanistan mission requested under the access to information law.
(emphasis mine)
Personally I don’t agree with Staples position, although I do think that our mission needs to be returned to rebuilding instead of blowing stuff up, but the idea that our military is engaged in covert operations targeting Canadian citizens who do believe that our military should pack up and leave Afghanistan is pretty damned Stalinistic.
Since when was someone with an outspoken opinion such a significant potential threat to the nation that it requires spying on them?
It’s good to know this sort of thing happens, and we should also keep in mind that
[1] the government lied about it and tried to cover it up, and
[2] the government is cracking down on access to information requests
Does this sort of thing remind you of any other governments that neither we, nor the history books, describe in the most glowing of terms?
Canada voted in an authoritarian government and this is the result of that, frankly I expect more of the same from this bunch, because that is what authoritarian governments do.
———-
Technorati Tags: Stephen Harper, Afghanistan, Conservative Party of Canada,
“Spying” is an odd term to describe the process of gathering a person’s published work and public comments in the public domain. At any particular time, the Public Affairs branch of the CF is responsible to know what is being written and said about the CF and to advise commanders (hint: senior officers) whose areas of responsibility have been subjects of commentary what the general messages are, what part of it is misinformation, and what the rebuttals to misinformation are in order to be prepared for requests for interview. All of it is entirely usual business.
Another tempest in a teapot. Where did all the mature and rational people go?
And I don’t think that it is as unremarkable as you are trying to portray it lrC.
I could probably get on side with your comments if DND had not lied about keeping a file on Staples – now that I think about it, your reasonable explanation about an apparently mundane thing neglected to mention that.
Shall I guess that the officials didn’t know? That they answered without checking? Or maybe that it just slipped their minds?
That government clamping down on access to information bothers me as well, shall I take a guess at national security?
Neocons will always be the same, whether they be Americans or Canadians: shills for authoritarianism.
They want, they *need*, their Daddy State.
[...] Update: 08/03/2007 – Two recent examples which illustrate my claim “This is why we are the real problem of terrorism” – incidentally, these two examples come from my own country, Canada. First, a Québec municipality was told by Canadian police and the US Army that it cannot rent out its own buildings for a public meeting involving a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, because it will lie within an established 25 km security perimeter centered where official meetings on the SPPNA will be occuring. Oh, and officials of said municipality have also been barred from discussing this anymore. Second, did you know that the Canadian military spies on Canadians who speak out against the war? Not suprisingly, they try to cover up such dubious activities – all in the name of security, I suppose. See? We Canadians are now no more different than our American and British friends – all of us are now united by fear-driven authoritarianism. But hey – as long as we feel safe and blahblahblahblah … [...]
“Defence department officials originally denied the documents”
Names or at least ranks/appointments would help, so I could assess whether the “Department” was officially stonewalling or a couple of junior officers or bureaucrats exceeded their authority to say “No” or spoke outside their lane (ie. answered a question about which they didn’t know the facts, when they should’ve just said “I don’t know”). But it looks sexier as “officials” (plural: two or more) with complete knowledge of the underlying facts speaking for the entire department.
I heed Pugliese’s reportage a little more than Scott Taylor’s – which is to say, not very much – but that’s a personal information filter based on my own knowledge of facts underlying things they’ve reported in the past. I’d like to know more facts in this case, but I don’t expect to see any. The paintbrush is probably back in the can awaiting the next broad application. Since I know from experience the “usual business”, there is a large burden of proof to be overcome before I start believing in foul conspiracies.
>Neocons will always be the same, whether they be Americans or Canadians: shills for authoritarianism.
Surprisingly, DND is not exclusively run by neocons. And while the CF side requires by default the subordination of one’s personal interests and that lawful authority be respected, many have a healthy disrespect for unethical and immoral “authority”.