Naomi Wolf's New Book, Give Me Liberty, Is A Patriot's Treasure

Constitution, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties

by Richard Sharp | November 27, 2008 - 11:45am

article tools: email | print | read more Richard Sharp

In her much-acclaimed book, The End of America, Naomi Wolf describes a “fascist shift” along tried and true lines, including manufacturing external threats, arbitrary search, seizure and detention, secret prisons and torture, surveillance of ordinary citizens, infiltration of citizens’ groups, targeting and labeling dissenters as traitors, restricting the press and, cutting across all of the foregoing, subverting the rule of law. Ms. Wolf’s new book, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, is a call for citizen action to restore the freedoms and rights we’ve lost.

Give Me Liberty is more of a detailed procedures manual than a handbook, but both descriptors shortchange this book. Its five-page table of contents outlines a well-structured case, beginning with discussions of “fake” patriotism and democracy and seven core American values that are being subverted; and closing with a comprehensive and creative user’s guide for individuals and groups who want them back.

Ms. Wolf makes frequent reference to the American constitution and Bill of Rights, whose designers wished above all to protect Americans from their own government. She weaves together citizen duties to exercise their free speech and to protest against injustice and oppression. She repeatedly reminds us that government by and for the people was always intended, that no (wo)man is above the law and that America established no god. She blasts America’s aggressive wars overseas, including with a telling Robert Kennedy quote: “Over the years an understanding of what America really stands for is going to count far more than missiles, aircraft carriers and supersonic bombers.”

After a few sections, the set-up is clear: Here’s what our founders intended about freedom of speech or religion or the right to privacy. Here’s what our greatest leaders have said about them over the centuries. Here’s what we’ve got today. It is eerie how many of our rights and freedoms have been rolled back so excessively; and scary how we have come to accept and even expect them.

Fearsome enemies and perpetual wars on terror, crime and drugs will do that to a society. Ms. Wolf is persuasive in exposing citizens’ feelings of powerlessness and inaction as un-American activities. Her user’s guide provides the ideas and civic tools to take this country back.

Ms. Wolf's guide is within the system. Her call for peaceful (but disruptive) street protests is about as radical as she gets. She runs the gamut of ways individuals and organizations can make a difference. It isn’t easy getting heard in the corporate media? Here’s how. Yes, police and security agencies make it hard to publicly protest these days, but there are ways. Petitioning in the Internet age. Joining or starting movements. Changing the laws. Making peace and democratic reforms.

Each section ends with a list of “additional resources.” The book itself ends with a wish list of other reforms for the future.

The fight for freedom either never ends, or things are just that bad.

There are no doubt readers of this review who will shake their heads, remaining convinced that there’s nothing to worry about, it's always been this way or nothing will ever change. A whole lot of us are tuned out or simply don’t care.

To which Ms. Wolf would reply: It’s your duty to care, as American patriots and for your kids. Listen to Ben, who noted so famously over 200 years ago, that those who would (sacrifice) liberty for security deserve neither.

It’s hard being a patriot dissenter these days. Governments and corporations are indeed having their way with us. But, as Ms. Wolf concludes, we’ve got more votes. We have the power.

I commend this book. Inexpensive, too.

Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries, by Naomi Wolf, Simon and Schuster, 376 pages, Paperback, $13.95 ($16 Cdn and cheaper over the Internet. A great Xmas gift)

_______
Richard Sharp

About author

Richard Sharp has been a privacy and human rights manager, consultant and advocate for three decades.

Vote Result

Score: 10.0, Votes: 3

Canadian Politics at a Crossroad

Is Stephane Dion Getting the “Joe Clark Treatment?”

By Richard Sharp

The Conservatives have vilified Stephane Dion’s leadership for over a year now, everything from repeated and vile attack ads to ongoing, talking point slurs from the chosen few who are allowed to speak to the media. Most pundits in the mainstream media have succumbed to this smear job, even many of Canada’s most seasoned political commentators.

Not so, I’m certain their response. Mr. Dion earned our displeasure. But let’s look at the facts.

Sure, the Liberals lost Outremont and may lose another seat on March 17, but by-elections are politically meaningless when the balance of power is not at stake.

In fact, despite negative press and the huge disadvantage of being in opposition and competition for centre-left votes from the NDP, the Green party and the Bloc, Mr. Dion’s Liberals have hung tough with the Conservatives in the polls to this day. Nanos Research, consistently the most accurate political pollster in Canada, has the Liberals in a slight lead!

Yes, Mr. Dion’s English is imperfect and there are about 20 words his speechwriters should never use. But otherwise his English is quite decent.

The media also criticizes Mr. Dion for not bringing down the Harper government. Come on. Four of five Canadians don’t want another election. If the Liberals had caused one last fall based on an innocuous throne speech of all things, or relatively minor bills, the electorate would not have been kind.

Many pundits predicted an election over Afghanistan and/or the recent federal budget. Instead, Mr. Dion has been widely praised for brokering a deal with the Tories concerning the (doomed) war mission that nudges us towards more peacekeeping and reconstruction. The Liberals also quite wisely refused to force an election over Mr. Harper’s do-nothing budget.

So, the same pundits with egg all over their face now accuse Mr. Dion of “flip-flopping” and of being a “wimp.” Mr. Dion is not getting the “Joe Clark” treatment quite yet, but it’s surely gotten out of hand. The “wolf pack mentality” has set in.

Here is why the mainstream media have got it wrong:

1. Restoration of Trust and Unity within the Liberal Party:

Mr. Dion won the Liberal leadership race fair and square, marked by civility and open debate with many excellent candidates. He has since overcome the fractious Martin-Chretien years, drawing all of his former opponents to his team. He has restored trust and unity within his party, which is surely a remarkable feat and leadership goal number one.

2. The Liberals have Better Policies

Leaders are also only as good as the direction they’re heading. Mr. Dion has it all over Mr. Harper on this count too. Mr. Harper’s singular purpose is to emasculate the federal government except for defence and security, while most Canadians favour the Liberal vision of Canada – an activist government on a whole slew of policy issues, including Afghanistan, the environment, Aboriginal and women’s rights, childcare, fighting poverty, progressive taxation and fair trade.

Mr. Harper’s enthusiastic support for all things American is another clear distinction in Mr. Dion’s favour. No reasonable person still supports the Bush administration’s disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror generally, further “deep integration” with a sinking ship and so on. With the political demise of Mssrs. Blair and Howard, Mr. Harper is arguably the last Bush poodle.

3. The Liberals Have a Better Team

Good leaders surround themselves with competent people and empower and support their team. Most Canadians surely prefer Michael Ignatief, Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale and the other Liberals over Mr. Harper’s pit bulls and poodles. The Liberals are free to speak while the Tories, even Ministers, have been muzzled, so much so it seems his PR people are running the country!

4. Mr. Dion’s Leadership Style is in fact Superior

Leaders vary from autocratic to democratic and it is clear to which camp Mr. Harper belongs. He’s an arrogant, dismissive and secretive control freak who doesn’t trust his own team. He has centralized power in his office to ridiculous degrees and, when criticized, he resorts to smear tactics and name-calling.

Mr. Harper’s astounding censorship of the federal bureaucracy is so unbelievable that one wonders what all those communications people are doing these days. I suspect mostly preparing talking points for Ministers in advance of forced disclosures of the embarrassing kind under the Access to Information Act.

Wrong on critical policy issues and unwilling to admit mistakes. Obsessed with control and secrecy. Disrespectful of political opponents and even his own team. Is that leadership or is it dictatorship?

In contrast, Mr. Dion is a proven healer with an empowered team and has a vision most Canadians prefer. When it comes to the human side of leadership, building consensus based on right vs. wrong and making choices to help the disadvantaged the most, Mr. Dion is the clear winner.

5. Women and Ontario Will Vote Liberal, No Matter the Media

Finally, when push comes to shove, it is a given that the 52% of the electorate who happen to be women prefer Mr. Dion over Mr. Harper by a wide margin. The Liberals’ superior position on issues of war and peace, human rights and child care will keep that margin wide into the foreseeable future. Women don’t vote for bullies.

For someone who is widely reported as a cunning tactician, Mr. Harper has been unbelievably stupid in his treatment of Ontario (the Maritimes, etc.). Coming up with legislation that shortchanges Ontario by fully ten federal ridings is a gift to the Liberals whenever the next election. And allowing the Finance minister, Jim Flaherty, to run off at the mouth trashing Ontario’s business environment is the height of political folly.

So, Mr. Dion and the Liberals bide their time. The Conservatives are embroiled in an increasing number of scandals that are showing their true colours. The economy is heading south but, because they’ve squandered the budget surplus on useless measures such as the GST cuts and war, the room to take action is limited.

The time for an election is growing on the simple grounds that the Harper government keeps shooting itself in the foot. They’ve not many toes left.

Richard Sharp is long-time advocate for peace and privacy, and a life-long “Dippe.r” He likes Jack Layton but, right now, the only real choice is between the Liberals and Conservatives.

We're All a Bunch of Ants. Worker Bees. Sheep.

The whole idea of free market capitalism is that it serves consumers best, right? When governments or state enterprises get involved, they screw it up, right? I have this uneasy feeling that the answer is, “Not quite so;” that, as citizens, consumers and employees, we have come to expect and accept a system that isn’t what it’s trumped up to be.

China is communist but is has achieved over 10% growth for about fifteen years, which no other country has achieved ever! State planning can work! I've always believed that, if Walmart had been running the Soviet Union, that "Red Menace" would still be a going concern. (Not that it isn't still, with thousands of nukes pointed our way.)

Anyway, in our dream-world, corporations are models of efficiency. One way to be efficient is to outsource even core activities to poorly regulated, pro-business countries, to avoid paying decent wages and benefits to real employees. Dilbert, the greatest business guru of all time, instructs us that contractors are sub-human without families to care for. Even if they are, business is business.

But outsourcing work to customers has ushered in a whole new wave of almost limitless opportunity. It really took off a few decades ago, when gas was cheap and Exxon, Texaco and other poor oil companies were dumb enough to compete against each other, often on all four corners of expensive downtown intersections. They didn’t have a handle on how to fix markets and prices quite yet, so cost-cutting was the only way to keep executive pay at a decent level.

Ergo, let’s get customers to do our work for us! And so self-serve was invented and we’ve been pumping our own gas ever since.

The banks caught on fast with ATMs - a marketing tour de force, a rare triple whammy. They fired all the tellers, transferred the work to customers and then charged us for the privilege! It doesn’t get any better than that.

Now everyone is doing it. Grocery stores get us to check and bag our own. Airlines have these newfangled check-in machines. As if getting searched, sniffed and our toiletries and other dangerous contraband confiscated wasn't bad enough!

This “do it yourself” trickery has no limits, and is usually sold as a way for us to save money. IKEA is not bad at this but I think any product that takes a five year old more than ten minutes to put together or install should be banned.

I personally lost my way around the time of having to reset the clocks on VCRs after power outages. Have you bought a computer, a wireless device or a TV lately? Done all three and if I didn’t have kids, I’d be lost. Whatever happened to plug it in and turn it on?

A man’s home is his castle? Not anymore. Companies are planting bugs on our computers and tracking our activities. Banks, airlines, telcos and Internet service providers are snitching on us to the feds. I think Google is a CIA conspiracy! Well, not really, but I bet it and other communications and computer companies have some real "spooky" deals with Big Bro.' Stuff we can’t even imagine.

I love music but I can’t keep up with the technology. I’ve been through 78, 45 and 33 records, reel to reel, eight track and cassette tapes, MTV, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, etc. It’s the same music and I've been "upscaled" enough, thanks. Maybe the medium really is the message.

Don’t get me going about tobacco, alcohol or pharmaceutical companies. Their killer drugs are legal but not marijuana? Geesh. Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis? It's total madness!

But there is one service that really takes the cake. I am of course referring to every organization’s favourite means of avoiding helping their customers: telephone reply systems. If you want this, press that. Ad infinitum, until one would have to be a math major and have the patience of Job to get to speak to a real person. If, as your drones tell me, my business is so important to you, answer the freakin' phone.

Let’s recap. As citizens and voters, we are nothings and governments are scurrying around deregulating the financial, energy and other markets, while racing to the global bottom concerning environmental, worker, consumer and other protections we once had. We get to vote every few years for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, who serve their corporate masters in between. If we get really exorcised about this quaintly anti-democratic reality, we can write our elected representatives or a newspaper, or join a movement that has little to no say.

As employees, we are treated like any other resource to be exploited. Check your privacy at the door and be happy with your pay. Productivity gains used to be shared with workers but our real incomes haven't gone up since 1980! Except for you know who. And the more a CEO screws up, the bigger the golden parachute to keep it a secret. Perfect.

As consumers, however, we still reign! Not.

We're all a bunch of ants, worker bees, sheep.

_______
Richard Sharp

Speaking Truth to Power: Too much armour. Nor enough brains.

This piece was posted on the Smirking Chimp a few days ago.

Speaking Truth to Power: Too much armour. Not enough brains.

Peace & Justice

by Richard Sharp | December 29, 2007 - 4:27pm

article tools: email | print | read more Richard Sharp

An open letter to the Manley panel on Canada’s war mission in Afghanistan from a concerned citizen. Richard Sharp is a longtime advocate of peace and privacy.

Dear Mr. Manley and respected panelists:

1. Sirs and Madam, I have read that you are unabashedly pro-American, regardless of their folly, and that your mandate has been manipulated by the like-minded Harper government, whose pro-war position is well-known. However, I believe most Canadians prefer to trust that you will have the collective integrity to tell the whole truth about the deeply flawed Canadian military mission in Afghanistan.

2. America is the greatest military and economic empire the world has ever known, by far, and we are their best friends in many, many ways. But they have seriously lost their way in the world with their wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and “terrorism” generally. If you report in favour of peace, you can in fact help our friends get back on track. America’s century can still be, but only if it stops its bullying ways.

Canada’s international standing is at risk

3. There is a reason most Canadians want this mission to end, whether immediately or as scheduled in early 2009. There is no vital national interest to protect by waging war in an impoverished nation that did us no harm and has never, ever been successfully “pacified” by invaders. Quite the contrary.

4. This is about Canada’s place in the world. Are we a nation of peacekeepers or not? Will we support and even fight for the Americans no matter how illegal, genocidal, wasteful and unwinnable the war? Is this goodbye to our international reputation and added value in global diplomacy as an “honest broker?”

5. History is not kind to those who wage war without just cause and the verdict is already in on the Bush administration. It has committed the worst foreign policy blunders in American history, making the Vietnam War look like a piker. They had the sympathy of the world after 9/11. But they blew it.

6. Public opinion places the United States government at record lows, everywhere, especially in the Muslim world but also in Europe, South America and here at home. President Bush is the most reviled American president of all time by the most (Internet) informed public ever. Political leaders likened to Bush poodles have been falling like flies.

7. Notwithstanding the fear mongering, cheerleading, self-censorship and other complicities of the mainstream media and other neocon outlets in North America, the secret is out. The emperor has no clothes.

8. How can Canada possibly benefit by going down with this sinking ship? Better we cut our losses and give the Americans sound and friendly advice that they cut theirs. Because it’s going to get a lot worse and the madness has to stop.

These wars are illegal and unjust….

9. Those who argue, “Afghanistan is not Iraq” are most mistaken. It is only slightly less in violation of a whole slew of international laws, charters and conventions than the Iraq war. Take your pick: the sovereignty of nations, the legal concept of just wars, the use of horrendous weapons of mass destruction, the treatment of prisoners, the killing of civilians, the destruction of non-military targets and on and on.

10. Bush’s unnecessary wars have cost as many as a million lives, overwhelmingly civilian, and many millions more have been maimed for life. Tens of millions have been forced to flee their homes and countries. Those too poor to escape suffer ongoing devastation and extreme hardship. Whenever the wars end, “unexploded ordinance” and radioactive and chemical leftovers will kill and maim tens of thousands more for years to come. Mostly children

11. It is unbelievable that the Bush administration’s multi-trillion dollar “war on terror” started in Afghanistan, against possibly a few hundred Islamic fanatics living in caves, with possibly a few million dollars in the bank. The Taliban government was willing to negotiate handing over bin Laden. That the United States refused talks and invaded anyway constituted the highest of all war crimes. That Bush administration browbeating and bribes later achieved a modicum of UN support and NATO authorization will never erase this historical fact.

12. Both wars and military occupations are of long-suffering Muslim nations, thanks in no small part to a century or more of British, American and Soviet imperialism. Iraq was a true cradle of civilization and, despite a decade of genocidal UN sanctions based on American lies, it was easily the most progressive Muslim nation in terms of women’s rights, universal health care and education, affordable utilities and more. It has been bombed back to the Stone Age (based on more American lies). Oil production facilities and pipelines were protected, of course.

13. Afghanistan suffered a similar fate, but there was less infrastructure and fewer national treasures to blow up (and allow to be looted).

14. Afghanistan is also the source of most of the original prisoners kidnapped and then tortured at Guantanamo Bay and in other American gulags. Thousands and thousands have been held for up to six years without due process. Many are being held on the incredible word of secret, bribed informants whose allegations they aren’t allowed to know, let alone fairly contest.

15. The treatment of “enemy combatants” is a truly sordid mess and a lasting shame on us all. That both the Martin and Harper governments have allowed the Canadian child soldier, Omar Khadr, to be held for over five years is beyond belief. Is everybody who fights back when the Americans invade other countries a terrorist?

…. an attack on our rights and freedoms….

16. It appears we’re all potential terrorists now. Our security agencies have played on our false fears (of crime, terrorism, etc.) to grab more money, power and self-serving secrecy. Our hard-won rights and freedoms have taken a major hit. Without the slightest relationship to actual threat, we are getting herded, sniffed and searched at airports and borders. We are the targets of a dizzying array of new, often untried technologies to better identify us as we move about, to intercept once-private communications and to build secret files on us, involving a huge network of banks, airlines, telecommunications companies and other corporate snitches. Say hello to the global surveillance society.

17. Fearsome enemies, secret files, fingerprinting, random searches, constant surveillance and demands to show identification used to be the defining characteristics of totalitarian regimes. We might now expect it when we travel or come from certain countries, but also when we attend unthreatened events or buildings. And, increasingly, we have to check our privacy at the door when we go to work (or school), or even stay home and log on to the Internet or use any kind of phone.

18. History will not be kind to the United States regarding its so-called war on terror. George Bush as global spymaster, chief of police, chief magistrate, prison warden and executioner? Hillary Clinton for that matter? No thanks.

…. incredibly wasteful….

19. We are witness to the biggest, most one-sided orgy of military and “security” spending in history, including the cold war which (surprise) was also based on a grossly exaggerated (Soviet) threat. The American defence budget has skyrocketed to over half a trillion dollars a year, constituting 50% of global military expenditures. Our $18 billion places us 13th in the world, 6th within NATO and the Harper government’s spending spree on offensive weapons is just getting warmed up. He wants us to “punch above our weight” in the international arena. Emphasis on the punch.

20. The other brutal distortion in the global economy caused by America’s wars is the price of oil. Imagine if the American-inspired oil embargo against Iraq had been lifted back in the 1990’s, when the (lack of WMD) evidence was in. Not only would it have saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, the price of oil might still be under $40 a barrel and the huge transfer of money from all of us to totally undeserving OPEC countries and Big Oil could have been avoided. We in the West can mostly afford higher oil prices but they have devastated poorer nations.

21. The Americans don’t need our military help. What they want is our cover. Yet, for just a fraction of the money that continues to be wasted on war and transferred to oil profiteers, we could have saved and improved the lives of hundreds of millions of impoverished people in Africa, Asia and here at home, through improved access to water and sanitation, food, shelter, health care, micro credit and so many other caring and peaceful measures. How can we continue to condone this insanity?

…. and unwinnable

22. The last place any country wants to be is at war for a losing cause. But there isn’t the slightest chance that the United States and NATO can win in Afghanistan, in five or fifty years, with or without Canada. It has repelled all invaders for centuries.

23. We are not just fighting the Taliban or Al Qaeda, whomever they are. We are also fighting so-called warlords and drug lords, opium farmers, mercenaries and, most importantly, Afghanis whose only motivation is to fight foreign occupation.

24. As in Iraq, they are being joined by foreign jihadists and guerillas from other countries, increasingly drawn to what is quite rightly seen as an American and Western war against Islam and the Arab world. There are 1.5 billion Muslims and their hatred for us is growing. There is an unending supply of fighters willing to give up their lives to attack their occupiers/oppressors, anywhere. They will never go away and even so-called military experts are talking in terms of decades.

25. Isn’t it clear by now that Western wars of occupation don’t work anymore? That there will be increasing human bloodshed until we leave. And that the threat of terrorism at home will increase in tandem, no matter our clumsy attempts to build fortresses around our borders and watch and search everyone.

26. America’s war on terror has been a colossal, fraudulent failure, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but across the board. Such unnecessary death and destruction. Such a huge loss of human potential and resources. So many unwarranted rollbacks of our rights and freedoms. So many peaceful alternatives.

27. Attack human suffering, not us. That’s the only way to fight terrorism.

28. That’s why billions and billions of citizens the world over are so repulsed by the Bush administration. Too much armour. Not enough brains.

We have lost our way on national defence and security

29. There is a stark reason the United States and Canada are meeting stiff resistance from other NATO countries concerning their demands for more combat troops. These countries know they cannot kill every rebel or dissident, short of genocide. Many are asking what is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doing in Afghanistan, anyway? Yes, an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all members but, to repeat, Afghanistan didn’t attack the United States and certainly poses no risk to NATO members.

30. The vast majority of Canadians support just wars, such as in self-defence, World War II and UN-authorized peacekeeping interventions to prevent genocide. Otherwise, “Thou shalt not kill.”

31. Who has attacked us lately? Wasn’t 1812 the last time? Who might attack us now? The answer is “Nobody,” and if you asked a London bookmaker of the odds against that, a million to one sounds about right. China or any other country couldn’t wage a conventional war against us. We’re too big, we have guns, it would cost too much and for what? Plus, we’re members of NATO and NORAD, meaning an attack against us is treated as an attack against our allies.

32. The obvious truth is, Canada really only goes to war in support of our allies. Europe and the United States, in particular, owe us big time. We entered both world wars in defence of freedom years before our American friends.

33. It’s all over for us in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States or, let’s say it, a nuclear attack by the United States. Our “sovereign space” would be the likely “battleground.” The only other national defence threat of note is a terrorist attack and our offensive military mission in Afghanistan is increasing that threat every day we’re there.

34. It is one thing to defend our allies when attacked but it is quite another to support their invasion and occupation of defenceless and destitute countries, in violation of just about any international law you want to name. Our Department of Defence needs a new name: Department of Offence.

35. It is one thing to catch foreign spies and dangerous subversives and quite another to spy on one’s own citizens in ways Orwell or Huxley could not imagine possible. How about Department of Surveillance?

Canada-US relations are important but….

36. We rightfully claim to be America’s best friends and, until this trumped-up war on terror began, we enjoyed the longest unguarded border in the world. We are best trading partners, on very pro-American terms. They practically own us!

37. But right now, the United States is a rogue state and this makes for a truly dangerous world. A likely Democratic victory a year from now may not change things much. Jimmy Carter was elected on a strong anti-war platform and it took all his might to reduce the military budget from $300 billion to $295 billion. The military-security-industrial complex is that powerful.

38. The best we can do is speak truth to power and try to persuade them to come to their senses about their wars and occupations, arms control, weapons in space and so on. And avoid getting snagged into any more wasteful military and security projects. We don’t need more frightful killing or surveillance technologies where the vendors get the profits and we get the tab.

…. there is only one rational and humane alternative

39. The situation today is clearly many times worse than the Vietnam War. Millions and millions of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis killed, maimed for life and forced to flee. Horrid “living” conditions far worse than before they were attacked and occupied. There is growing worldwide revulsion at the Bush administration and Canada desperately needs to step clear.

40. Our soldiers are being killed, we are wasting our money and, more importantly, our international reputation. The Taliban government was ruthless, but there were and remain much more genocidal regimes requiring international intervention, notably in Africa. Under the auspices of the United Nations, and in the name of peacekeeping, that’s where we should be.

41. Canada should therefore confirm that it will meet its NATO commitments but otherwise announce a halt to all offensive activities in Afghanistan, and the complete withdrawal of all offensive fighters and equipment by February, 2009.

42. Canada should immediately engage its NATO allies to re-examine our timid acquiescence to the American manipulation of its treaty and military mandate.

43. Canada should work with NATO, Muslim and other nations to present a credible peace plan to the UN, including:
. the unilateral cessation of all offensive military activity by NATO and American forces
. a truly UN-authorized peacekeeping force, mainly comprising Arab/Muslim forces, supported by neighbouring nations and with Canadian assistance, if requested
. a truce, reasonable amnesty, national reconciliation and peace talks among all Afghan parties
. leading to agreement on human rights, the distribution of spending and truly free elections.

44. Contrary to the tired mantras of our failed leaders, talking with the enemy is good! Canada used to excel at handling ceasefires, keeping the parties at bay but dialogue going, amnesty issues, exchanges, etc. Because we were trusted.

45. Canada should agree to pay a fair share of the costs which, in any case, would be a fraction of current military spending. This includes an offer to negotiate reparations to Afghanis who, through no fault of their own, have suffered so much for so long.

46. Last time I looked, in the case of Canada alone, 90% of spending was going to military operations and only 10% to aid. This ratio will be a useful tool in measuring Canada’s progress towards peace.

47. Canada should also review a litany of Canadian military arrangements with the Americans that amount to blatant and also secret support of their Iraq war. Iraq didn’t attack us either and we should have no part of it.

48. In the interests of accountability, General Hillier must go. He pushed for this war to play with the big boys and, in his own haunting words, to “kill scumbags.” He put our soldiers in harm’s way for nothing. He is not fit to lead.

49. Finally, we have to take a good hard look at our security agencies and their technology toys used to watch, identify and search us wherever we go and whatever we say, write, buy, associate with, etc.

50. I hope you will find this a contribution to your deliberations. Please remember that I represent that great majority of Canadians who believe in just wars, and just wars only. And who hold their rights and freedoms dear.

_______
Richard Sharp

About author

Richard Sharp has been a privacy manager, consultant and advocate for over two decades.

Vote Result

Score: 10.0, Votes: 10

The Right to Privacy: A New Oxymoron?

This article was first published in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' The Monitor.

Our privacy shield is getting badly battered on every front
December 1, 2005 National Office Topic(s): Human rights Author(s): Richard Sharp Publication Type: Monitor Issue

The Right to Privacy: A New Oxymoron?

Privacy is an extremely complex human value, but it boils down to the need and “right to be let alone”--to be free of unwarranted intrusions into our daily lives, 24/7. Think of privacy as a cultural and legal shield protecting our bodies, minds, homes, and other private spaces, as well as our personal activities, communications, possessions, and information. Especially our personal information when, without our knowledge or consent, it is collected, used, and “shared” by governments, businesses, friends and foes in ways we might find invasive or unfair.

Privacy norms and rights protect all of humanity. It is a universal value because a reasonable degree of privacy is a precondition of individual dignity and autonomy, whomever and wherever we are. It’s about our ability to exclude others and control our reputations: what we choose to reveal about ourselves. How free would we be if our every inner thought, oral or written expression, activity, association and movement were known? If we were being watched, overheard, identified, measured, suspected, searched and reported at every turn?
The answer is: not at all. We’d turn into 1984 drones that would make the political correctness that straightjackets us today look like anarchy.

After basic needs, having a privacy shield is about as important as it gets. But our shield is getting badly battered on almost every front. As a global society, we’re letting down our guard. Privacy under siegeIt is a given that we must forgo some privacy in order to function, whether at work, purchasing or borrowing, claiming benefits, travelling, or joining clubs. We must prove our identities, that we are doing our job, eligible for a benefit, able to pay, and so on. We have obligations not to commit crimes or harm others. But, otherwise, we should be free to go about our daily lives without fear of unwarranted intrusion or surveillance by governments, businesses, employers, or anyone else. We are free, aren’t we?

Many believe that, right now, in 2005, privacy and freedom are under siege all over the world--that, in many respects and despite privacy laws and commissioners to protect us, it’s like the Wild West out there.

Hyperbole? Think about governments and the modern-day equivalents of the Cold War: the wars on drugs, illegal immigration, pornography, money laundering, and now terrorism. Led, and often coerced, by the allegedly freedom-loving U.S. Bush administration, governments are casting very wide nets over their citizens and visitors. These amount to huge, permanent, and dangerous fishing expeditions, plain and simple.

Like most Canadians, I liked knowing our security agencies were keeping tabs on foreign spies and dangerous subversives. But now we’re all suspects in a misguided, wasteful, technology-based witch-hunt--looking for needles in a haystack.

Let’s be clear: 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings were horrible. But we are being totally snowed by a trumped- up terrorist threat. According to the American State Department’s own figures, an average of 1,500 people a year have been killed by terrorists since 2000 (vs. 100,000+ dead Iraqis and untold destruction). That makes the chance of any one of us being blown up this year about one in four million.

Governments have responded to this exaggerated threat with absurd overkill, but this has escaped the corporate media. Its screaming sensationalism, cheerleading, and borderline racism regarding the war on terror overwhelm the odd peep about the risks to privacy. We have been persuaded to expect and accept continuing rollbacks of our basic rights.

Largely unfettered, governments the world over are chipping away at the need to have reasonable and probable cause--

. before videotaping, identifying and searching us (at borders, public buildings and events, while commuting);
. before compiling, matching, using, and sharing our personal information in secret and from new sources (within and among governments, and from banks, airlines, etc.); and
. before inspecting our e-mails and Web browsing activities (from anywhere).

It appears that suspicion of a crime isn’t needed any more. Is this goodbye to such constitutional niceties as protection against unreasonable search and seizure (of our person, possessions, and information)? To the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Imagine if you’re of Arab descent, or simply Muslim. The London police are openly targeting dark-skinned commuters. The United States has five million people in its terror watch list alone, and has imprisoned thousands of “enemy combatants” in a legal black hole without due process, indefinitely. This strikes me as a “modern” variation of Japanese internment camps. But it is far scarier as terrorism and counter-terrorism will never end in our grossly unequal world so dominated by political and religious extremism. Including ours.

How private are our bodies and minds these days? Once more or less the exclusive domain of the medical profession, many of us are forced to hand over our urine, blood, fingerprints, other body images, and even DNA samples and inner thoughts (that’s what lie detectors and psychological tests are for). Many of us are incessantly videotaped, audio-taped, scanned, walked through metal detectors, and subjected to random searches as a matter of routine.

Fearsome enemies, secret files, fingerprinting, random searches, constant surveillance, and demands to show identification used to be the defining characteristics of totalitarian regimes. We might now expect it when we travel, use public facilities, or come from certain countries. And, increasingly, we have to check our privacy at the door when we go to work (or school).

Our personal communications (and homes) aren’t so private any more, either, at least when we’re on the Internet or any kind of phone. The personal information on our home computers is vulnerable to theft from spy-ware, viruses, and hackers. We leave a data trail of our activities whenever we join, borrow, rent, or use cheques or plastic to order or buy something. Anyone can do a Google search on us or intercept our wireless communications. With inexpensive miniature cameras, listening and tracking devices, anyone can be a detective.

Our personal information was pretty well protected when it was entrusted to the Post Office or stored in filing cabinets all over town and country. Advances in computers and communications have enabled far more access to far more of our personal information far faster from far further away than ever before. And political, market, and technological forces are putting relentless pressure on collecting more and more of it.

Say hello to the global surveillance society and its sponsors: big government, big business, and the technology pushers

Look out for governments

Governments can roll back privacy rights due to their inherent ability to make their own rules. They are doing so now, in the name of the wars on crime and terrorism. But perfect security means zero privacy. How ironic that the United States is leading the charge to sacrifice individual rights at the “national security” altar. The USA Patriot Act is 340 pages of classic Orwellian newspeak. The word “homeland” is itself eerie, reminiscent of a rather discredited “fatherland” from long ago.

The USA Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to conduct “roving” (random) wiretaps and “sneak-and-peak” searches of premises on its own accord. A labyrinth of American police and security agencies can obtain access to massive amounts of travel, financial, medical, school, and even video-rental records, and to Web-browsing activities and e-mails. This includes personal information stored in Canada, at least if held by American-owned corporations. Don’t most of our e-mails go through the United States, even when we’re sending them next door? They’re vulnerable, too.

One of Tony Blair’s first public reactions to the London bombings was to muse about additional powers he can give the police and security establishment. The Canadian government is also on the privacy rollback trail:

. The transport Minister has announced more video surveillance in our mass transit systems and more tracking of citizens, including a guilty-in-advance “no fly” list and the possibility of retina scans to identify both employees and passengers.

. The customs agency wants to know what we think, by authorizing its border guards to rifle through the e-mails, notes and diaries we store in our computers. Not just for evidence of terrorism, but also of tax evasion, pornography, hate literature, and other possibly criminal activities.

. Canadian police, CSIS, and other security agencies want access to our e-mails and other Internet activities, as well as our DNA, before we are convicted of anything.

. Incredibly, our Chief Electoral Officer has openly speculated about making his voters’ lists available, even though it would violate his own Act.

Almost all of these invasive measures are, or would appear to be, without the need to show reasonable cause via a court order or Ministerial approval. Many would authorize increased secrecy, meaning a reduced need to reveal evidence, abuse, and mistakes. The federal Privacy Commissioner is sounding alarm bells and, if the government doesn’t listen, Charter challenges are likely. In the meantime, our liberties and tax dollars are going up in smoke

.. . . and monster corporations

Large corporations also have voracious appetites for personal information, in order to “know their customers” and to obtain the best possible return on their investment in human resources. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure,” so “know your employees” is an equal management imperative. Businesses can’t help themselves in forever compiling information on customers and prospects, monitoring and measuring their workforce, investigating their detractors, and so on. Their privacy report cards aren’t anything to brag about, either.

It is arguable that the greatest “Big Brother” threat comes from huge transnational corporations. Who knows us better than our employers and the financial, insurance, utility, retail, and other businesses with which we deal? Compare the centuries-old security of letter mail with that of newer, privately-owned communications alternatives. Post Offices neither record the covers of letters nor read their contents. In contrast, Internet-based, telephone and cable companies know about us in alarming detail: with whom we talk or correspond, what we write, the messages we leave, our Web- browsing activities, and downloads. Google is believed to have a huge global surveillance system in place right now.

Who invades privacy like the reputations-be-damned (and privately-owned) mass media? They and many other industries don’t just want to secrete or share our personal information; they want to publish and otherwise sell it. North American corporations, in particular, engage in “data mining,” “data matching,” “data profiling,” and “data warehousing” to exploit our personal information, like any other “resource.” They’re keeping increasing book on all of us, often beyond what they need to sell and service their products (unless it’s us they’re selling). So we suffer invasive requirements and questions, telemarketing, junk mail, spam, massive compromises of our personal data, and other spectacular breaches of privacy.

Personal information on more than 50 million American consumers was lost, stolen, and sometimes sold to thieves during the first half of 2005, and that’s only what has been reported. The consequences of identity theft are often never fully known, but they can be brutal: 1) the general unease about what might happen; 2) the burden of notifying government departments and credit bureaus; 3) of cancelling and applying for more plastic; 4) the horror of actual identity theft; 5) financial loss; 6) ruined reputations; and 7) stalking and assault. It can take years to recover.

A word or two on organizational theory, because businesses (and governments) don’t just invade privacy by mistake. “You can’t fight City Hall” speaks to an age-old power imbalance between a large, faceless bureaucracy and an individual citizen. We are still just individual citizens, but “City Hall” has been supplanted by much more powerful government agencies and corporations. These organizations covet their survival above all else, which means their interests trump ours and turn them into control freaks. It’s us they want to control, and our personal information in their hands gives them still more power.

They already have the financial and legal resources to investigate, discredit, outspend, and outwait just about any detractor, whether an individual customer, whistleblower, or litigant. During my 28 years in the privacy business, I have seen some of the most vicious smear campaigns and egregious abuses of institutional power imaginable. One mistake begets another. Groupthink sets in and ethics get lost, resulting in ruined careers, shattered lives, and even suicides. Often as not, the conspirators get off scot-free. At worst, victims who squawk are bribed to stay quiet.

Employees are particularly vulnerable because they’re beholden to their employers. I’ve always believed that CEOs should be subjected to the same ongoing nuisance and indignities they foist on their employees. If they were, there would be a lot less computer monitoring and video surveillance, fewer demands for ID and drug tests, less extreme performance measurement systems, and so on.

When we are forced to give up our body fluids, images, and personal information against our will or without reasonable cause, we’ve been violated. Once again, some of the most invasive practices are most prevalent in the “land of the free.” It’s not coincidental that the United States is the only major nation in the Western world without comprehensive privacy legislation covering the private sector. That would be anti-business, I guess.

. . . and the technology pushers

Knowing an easy mark when they see one, businesses and their “research institutes” and consultants are falling all over themselves devising and flogging a never-ending barrage of “new, improved” computer, communications, identification, testing, surveillance, and other privacy-invasive technologies. There appears to be little compunction to introduce them, despite the old truism that technology is often like a hammer in search of a nail to bang on. We would be the nails.

Technology is the great enabler--the means by which governments and business watch and search us, intercept our communications, compile and exchange our personal information, etc. New surveillance and identification technologies such as biometrics provide almost countless new methods for collecting more of our personal information, and matching and correlating it. Biometrics promises the means to use our fingerprints, faces, retinas, voices, and signatures as “safe and secure” means to authenticate and “survey” us. This could include the ultimate surveillance tool, the automated merger of computer databases (our digital beings) with our video images and voice communications.

Huge corporate databases of our private finances, communications, purchases, travel, and other activities used to be independent silos. The various computer systems were incompatible or they relied on unique alpha-numeric identifiers, so they couldn’t “talk” to each other. But the sophisticated data-matching programs that exist today are eliminating that protection and so almost limitless “warehousing” of our personal information is now in fashion.

These private sector databases are sitting ducks for our inquisitors, and governments are even compelling businesses to retain them longer, just in case. The Canadian government apparently plans to compel the telecommunications industry to actually build wiretapping capabilities into its networks, so that it can conduct 24/7 surveillance of the e-mail, Internet, or phone use of up to 8,000 people, all at once.

Personal information in a file or database represents us in our absence. It is used to make decisions about us, yet we rarely see the complete file. It’s often inaccurate, incomplete, or out-of-date, and that it is increasingly available to others is cause for concern. When we are mistaken, suspected, rejected, or convicted based on inaccurate or incomplete information we don’t even know about or can’t contest, we’ve been violated. When personal information collected for one purpose is subsequently used or “shared” for another purpose without our consent, we’ve been violated.

It is also entirely predictable that a very large proportion of the money being thrown at homeland security will be totally wasted on unnecessary and unfeasible projects and technologies that will either crash before take-off or sink under their own weight. There are considerably more spectacular system failures year after year than reported in the press. Take your pick: the scope was too ambitious (or kept changing), the technology untried, the cost too great, or the benefits unproven. There are almost always less invasive ways of achieving the same purpose.

Governments have a particular talent for huge cost overruns on systems projects--and the seeming inability to pull the plug once a befuddled project gets entrenched. The vendors and consultants get the profits, and we get the tab.

The cost of equipping and maintaining global surveillance systems is already hugely expensive, even at minimum wage. But the 4.2 million surveillance cameras in Britain didn’t prevent the London subway bombings. That they helped identify the odd (quite dead) terrorist doesn’t come close to justifying their multi-billion dollar cost.

Targeting the innocent to capture the few is an extremely shaky premise. Do we have to accept the inconvenience, embarrassment, and absurdity of ID cards, scans, searches, and security guards at unthreatened places and events? These measures won’t stop a determined terrorist who, in any case, can simply change targets. Can we really protect every person and every place? Aren’t nuclear reactors more important? Is this permanent?

For technologies that actually work at monitoring, measuring, and matching us, the search for nails to bang on is never-ending. Too often, we fall victim to “enemy creep,” “function creep” and “technology creep,” known collectively as a slippery slope where, bit by bit, our privacy is further eroded. The once single-purpose SIN becoming almost a “universal” identifier is a good example, as is the growing use of surveillance cameras to monitor peaceful protests. Satellite imaging and tracking devices used to be restricted to military applications.

Being first on the block to introduce a new and untried technology is no virtue when individual privacy is at stake. That a technology might be capable of capturing and distributing our personal information doesn’t make it right. Microsoft is apparently willing to design e-mail censorship programs to make a sale to China. What is it (and other corporations) doing for governments in the name of national security? Are we already buying computers and Internet services with secret back doors?

The military-industrial complex revisited

Our fear of crime and terrorism is a major force supporting this onslaught on our privacy and freedom, and it is a false fear. I can’t say “boo” when I fly without getting arrested. But I can write it now. The security procedures at airports (and our borders, buildings, events, and subways) are a most colossal waste of our time and tax dollars. They make the gun registry program look like a piker!

Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis? There have been hundreds of billions of airline flights since the 1930s, and under a thousand skyjackings, fewer than 10 a year since 1990. Most of these were by asylum-seekers and extortionists. Islamic terrorists barely make the charts! The risk of flying is practically nonexistent, especially on domestic flights.

It is true that “America-haters” are everywhere, and even the mightiest military power the world has ever known can’t guard itself against possibly hundreds of thousands of religious and/or patriotic fanatics willing to give up their lives to attack their occupiers, anywhere. But who hates Canada, exactly? Wasn’t the 1985 Air India disaster the last real terrorist act “chez nous?” Wasn’t that about Punjab?

Again, it’s horrible that 1,500 people are being killed each year by terrorists. But this compares to 25,000 people dying from hunger and poverty every single day. Ten million children who die each year of malnutrition and preventable disease. Two million from industrial illnesses and accidents. Six hundred thousand from air pollution.

America’s war on terror began in earnest against possibly a few thousand rag-tag Islamic fanatics living in caves. The United States is currently spending almost $100 billion a year in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, and the bill could reach $1.3 trillion by 2010. Worldwide, hundreds of billions of dollars a year are being spent on militarism and “security,” causing incalculable death, destruction, and intrusion on innocent people.

This is surely madness. Neither the war on Iraq nor terrorism constitutes a “just war,” as both are premised on lies and deception. Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMDs or pose a legitimate threat, and neither do we. We are already talking about enormous nuisance and cost to travellers, commuters, employees, and billions of others in endless line-ups, the indignity of being fingerprinted and searched, the feeling of being watched all the time, racial profiling, and on and on and on. Enough of these misplaced priorities. Attack human suffering, not us! That’s the most effective way to reduce terrorism.

Dwight Eisenhower warned of the “military-industrial complex” some 50 years ago. It’s much bigger and more powerful now, but it’s had to make more room for security organizations. Add the police, prison, and private security guards, their suppliers and families, and one comes to appreciate that some very high-powered agencies and corporations and many hundreds of millions of people (aka voters) around the world have a vested interest in exaggerating the danger. The CIA over-estimated the Soviet threat for decades. Nothing has changed.

The complicit mainstream media almost does the job on its own, continuing to scare the hell out of us daily with its non-stop coverage of terrorist acts (anywhere in the world will do). In fact, 9/11 and every sensationalized terrorist attack since then serves Bush’s foreign “policy” perfectly--going to war, if necessary, to protect its business interests and wealth, such as continuing American access to resources, markets, and personal information on anyone that moves.

The Bush administration has an unending capacity to violate international law (not to mention a few Commandments): to invade other countries and rain death and destruction upon helpless people, to renege or drag its heels on arms control and environmental agreements, and to refuse to abide by international court and trade tribunal rulings. It won’t change, so our privacy is in big trouble, too.

In fact, the United States is leading the invasion of our privacy (and many other individual rights and freedoms), and Canada and most other nations are essentially toeing the American line. Yet the Bush administration can’t be trusted to protect our security, let alone our privacy. The Americans created this mess--and we’re letting them lead us out of it? George Bush as our global chief of police, chief magistrate, prison warden, and executioner? No, thanks.The limits to privacyReasonable people agree that it’s worth giving up some of our privacy to counter a terrorist or any other legitimate threat. Safety trumps privacy, no question. What we need is a proper balance between privacy and security, but right now we are getting hammered by governments and businesses, and their technologies.

The privacy shield surrounding our minds, bodies, homes and possessions is not holding up. Our work and personal activities and communications are much more susceptible to surveillance and interception than ever before. Our personal information is increasingly being hoarded and “shared” by big government and big business. They don’t need as much as they say, and they won’t necessarily take very good care of it. They are prone to mistakes and abuse that can cost us dearly.

Too many of us seem complacent--too willing to accept and even expect inconveniences and indignities of all sorts, even though they serve no useful purpose. The “I’ve-got-nothing-to-hide” crowd are the most naïve, first because they are usually unaware of how much of themselves is exposed, and, secondly, for trusting huge government agencies and corporations to operate in their best interests. Others have simply tuned out, having lost faith that anything can be done about it, anyway.

We have to get more alarmed that technology is being used to monitor and control us, by recording and tracking us, telephoning and spamming us, counting our rivets, keystrokes and calls, and even telling us what to do. Who among us wants to be constantly tracked, matched, measured, profiled, sold, suspected, and mistaken--by a machine?

We have to recognize that, while the police and security agencies are doing some excellent work, they are exploiting our false fear of crime and terrorism far beyond logical and ethical limits. They have concocted a convenient partnership with security and technology firms which grows their power and profits at our expense. They want more resources, authority and secrecy, and less accountability. They want to know more about everyday citizens and consumers, and their appetite is growing. Our political “masters” aren’t doing enough to rein them in.

If we don’t rein them in, we will continue to lose our right to be left alone. We’ll be less free to be ourselves; to enjoy our solitude or anonymity as we move about; to the privacy of our bodies and minds; to express ourselves without fear; and to protect our reputations and families. Meaning we’ll continue to lose our autonomy and dignity as human beings, all over the world. And, like our deteriorating environment, it will be even worse for our children and theirs.

When we lose our privacy, there is often no recovery. For all of our technological advances, we haven’t learned how to erase memories, prejudices, and the collective trauma that the loss of dignity causes.

Not yet, anyway.

(Richard Sharp is an MBA grad who has been a privacy advocate, coordinator, and consultant since 1977, perhaps longer than anyone else in Canada. In subsequent articles for The Monitor, he will examine workplace privacy and suggest 10 things our privacy commissioners could do to make themselves heroes. He welcomes your comments or queries at rocker319@msn.com)
-

Power Corrupts

I am extremely interested in the sources and exercise of power. How all of us are persuaded to do and accept things contrary to our best interests. Like voting Republican!!! Going to war or working for a cigarette manufacturer. Believing the mainstream media.

It seems to me that we are run by large public and private sector institutions which pretend to serve us when mostly they serve themselves. There's got to be a way to hold them more accountable for the harm they can cause.

The Internet holds the most promise but it is too diffused.