iprotest

I hate how the natives are still so ill treated in modern days. 

There is this “National Park” close to my home town called Kouchibouguac

They kicked out all the natives from their homes in 1969.

Now fucking tourists go pitch their tents and go swim in the ocean and the government says it”s for “the greater good” to “preserve nature”. 

They kicked out about 250 families from their home, to let in tourists.

Jackie Vautour is somewhat of a local hero, although he has not accomplished much he is still fighting for the right to return the families to return to Kouchibouguac. He himself, refused to leave. 

Canada has been consistently fucking the natives for over 400 years:

From the CBC

The 1927 Indian Act forbade First Nations people from forming political organizations to represent their interests. (it is still to this day very discriminatory)

Native rights were recognized in the 1982 Constitution - but native groups remained excluded from the constitutional process until the 1983-87

In 1990 tensions between Mohawks and the town of Oka, Que., over the planned expansion of a golf course onto land the Mohawks claimed was sacred, boiled over. Quebec police in riot gear stormed barricades that had been set up by the Indians. After 15 minutes of mayhem – clouds of tear gas and a hail of bullets – the police retreat as quickly as they attack. The strike claims the life of 31-year-old police officer Marcel Lemay. In the confusion and chaos, each side claims the other side shot first. 

The standoff lasted 78 days. No charges were ever laid in the death of Lemay.

“After some 500 years of a relationship that has swung from partnership to domination, from mutual respect and co-operation to paternalism and attempted assimilation, Canada must now work out fair and lasting terms for coexistence with Aboriginal people.”

Attawapiskat has been in recent news to bring how poverty truly affect a lot of the aboriginal communities in Canada, living in shacks with moldy walls, no electricity or running water in northern Ontario. 

These living conditions are simply not acceptable for the 21st century. 

There is also the Canadian Genocide of the Natives.

Watch -> 

I cannot live knowing this is taking place in my own country and not do anything about it. Once I become a lawyer I will practice Aboriginal Law and help these people obtain what is rightfully theirs. Ensure they receive the same human rights everybody deserves. 

Caption: ‘Police and protesters clash in the streets.’

You know, to me that looks more like: 'Three policemen have a beat down on a cowering protester’, just you know, how it looks, to me. I’m probably wrong, that’s probably not a protester, its probably a pinata filled with candy.

Homelessness in Canada


I have myself in past years helped shelter homeless people some as young as 15 years old. 

Some 65,000 young people are homeless or at risk of homelessness across Canada. In Toronto, approximately 1,700 youth are on the streets on any given night, about half of them in emergency shelters.

While counting the homeless is a politically charged and methodologically contentious issue, the federal estimate of the number of homeless people in Canada was 150,000 in 2005, or about 0.5 per cent of the population. Homeless advocates estimated it to be closer to 300,000

An estimated 19 per cent of Nunavut’s population was relatively homeless in 2003

It gets too cold here to let this happen!

In 1998, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights maintained that Canada’s failure to implement policies for the poorest members of the population in the previous 5 years had “exacerbated homelessness among vulnerable groups during a time of strong economic growth and increasing affluence” 

Homeless crisis grows while Canada prospers

Not since the Great Depression have so many Canadians been homeless or at risk of losing the roofs over their heads. But what makes the homeless crisis different from the 1930s is that this is not the result of a natural disaster. It’s the result of a perfect storm of failed government policies.

 BY THE VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 20, 2008

Even conservative estimates suggest that between 200,000 and 300,000 Canadians sleep in the streets, emergency shelters or transitional housing, or sofa-surf each night. The B.C. government estimates there are 5,500 homeless British Columbians, but the opposition New Democrats say it’s likely at least double that.

The most shocking number comes from the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions. Its estimate of 11,750 British Columbians who are “absolutely homeless” accounts only for those with severe addictions and/or mental illness. Its report – commissioned by the B.C. government and completed in October – suggests that there are an additional 18,759 people with addictions and/or mental illness at imminent risk of homelessness.

Every day between 1.7 million and 2.7 million Canadians go to work and worry that if they were to miss their next paycheque, they and their families would be on the street. That’s what the Toronto-based Wellesley Institute has extrapolated from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. data on housing affordability.

 The government does not care about it’s people. It’s time to dismiss this unnecessary harmful government and look out for the greater good. 

So I’ve been lucky enough to be selected for jury duty…yippee. I got to watch a really cool video (no one ever said) that explains my duties & how I will be reimbursed for my time. The state has determine my time is worth $9/day & I hVe the option of donating this reimbursement to the county court systems which help@pay for the coffee & tea provided today as well as to help with CYS…ummm, will there be anything left after the coffee is of for?
Are you kidding me? They talk about raising minim wage to $15/hr but my time is only worth $9/day, Oh did I mention the parking garage was $9?!?!?! #civicduty #pittsburgh #alleghenycounty #notfun #iprotest

Have you served? What did they pay you?

We need to get angry.

Stephen Harper opposes the majority of Canadians on way too many issues:

The Omnibus Crime Bill (Bill C-10)


From The Star

The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada:

1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, © diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.

2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on more than 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.

3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.

4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.

5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.

6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?

7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offences and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?

8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.

9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s aboriginal people already represent up to 80 per cent of inmates in institutions in the Prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.

10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Pardon Services Fee Increase

Which passed regardless of the fact that they held a poll to see if people supported or opposed the idea and the poll revealed that people strongly OPPOSED the fee increase:

A large proportion of respondents who did not support the proposed increase to the user fee indicated that the increase would pose a financial burden to applicants, making it difficult or impossible for many to apply for a pardon.

These respondents also indicated that the proposed fee would make applying for a pardon difficult or impossible for people needing a pardon to help them obtain employment or pursue their education.

Many of these respondents also viewed the proposed fee as an additional punishment to that already imposed by the court.

They also indicated that the proposed fee would make a pardon inaccessible to many individuals, thereby impacting the contributions pardons can make to the rehabilitation of individuals and lower levels of crime.

Some of them also felt that the proposed fee would represent an additional tax by the Government.

A number of respondents said there should be a sliding scale for the fee, with the amount varying according to the seriousness and nature of the crime, or by their ability to pay, while others indicated that a pardon should be automatically granted after the passage of a certain number of years.

The inability to pay the proposed fee as a barrier to obtaining a pardon to facilitate travel to other countries was also raised by some respondents.

Some also indicated that they thought the proposed fee increase was politically-driven.

A large number of respondents who stated their opposition to the proposed fee increase gave no specific reason.

In terms of a breakdown of the responses received, 1,074 individuals/organizations did not support the proposed fee increase while 12 were supportive of the proposed increase.

His Prison Expansion Plan fits well into this as well. Even considering…

(better image here)

Lawful Access Bill:

and

The Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. (Bill C-30)

From the CBC:

Among other things, the bill requires ISPs to install surveillance technology and software to enable monitoring of phone and internet traffic. Section 34 is there to make sure ISPs comply. So what, exactly, does it say?

Essentially, it says that government agents may enter an ISP when they wish, without a warrant, and demand to see absolutely everything — including all data anywhere on the network — and to copy it all. If that seems hard to believe, let’s walk through it.

First, Section 33 tells us that, “The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act.” So we’re not talking about police officers necessarily. We’re talking about anyone the minister chooses — or any class of persons. (Musicians? Left-handed hockey players? Members of the Conservative Party? Sure, that’s absurd — but the bill allows it…)

Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these “inspectors.” And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34.

The inspectors may “enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.”

And, once he or she is in, anything goes.

And how much it will cost us to get spied on.

- The Anti Refugee BillPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act. (Bill C-4)

  • The bill imposes the mandatory incarceration of groups of asylum seekers, including children, who arrive in Canada, even where there is no concern that the individuals present a danger or threat of any kind. The Minister can decide that any group of asylum seekers should be incarcerated upon arrival based on suspicion of smuggling, but also simply on the basis that the process of their identification cannot be done in a “timely manner”. This violates the International Convention on the Status of Refugee which prohibits the imposition of penalties for illegal entry for refugees fleeing persecution.
  • The bill prevents any review of the imprisonment and detention by the Immigration Review Board for 12 months. Currently, in compliance with constitutional guarantees, an  initial review of whether a detention is warranted is done within 48 hours.
  • The bill creates a second class of refugees by denying even people whose refugee status is eventually established rights given to other immigrants: even people whose refugee status is confirmed cannot obtain travel documents nor even apply to become permanent resident for 5 years. This again violates the International Convention which obliges countries to issue travelling documents.

(ccla.org)

Again with strong opposition.

Discrimination At the Airport

  • 5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if

    • (a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;

    • (b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;

    • (c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or

    • (d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.

The Alberta Tar sands

And how Stephen Harper is silencing scientists in order to hide the fact that the tar sands are detrimental to the environment and to exploit them as he is exploiting them is immensely irresponsible.

These are only some of Stephen Harper’s horrible plans. we should not sit idly by and passively allow him to turn Canada into a fascist police state.

Why have we not kicked out Stephen Harper yet?

I hope that the robocalls allegations prove to be true and that it is found to be sufficient reason to throw him out of Parliament immediately. But even if they aren’t true, I believe we should get rid of Stephen Harper nonetheless.

Enough is enough. Stephen Harper should have never been given a Majority Government, that’s why he was toppled by Votes of Non-Confidence prior to the last elections and we got brutally reminded that we were still, after all these years, a colony of England when Michaëlle Jean was put in power.

It’s time we stop passively accepting Harper’s reign of terror. 

I often hear people say that what we need now is another Trudeau but I say stop wishing for what we cannot have and act! Have a voice! Let your discontent be showed!

Cecilia is a Hong Kong Chinese-Australian Social entrepreneur, Artist, Directors of NGO in Africa, South America, Asia & California who really really likes to “tell it how it is”, having travelled to over 40 countries around the world & seen some interesting things every so often….besides that, she  loves fashion, hedonism & all things creative!

Cecilia has an MBA in Sustainable Media Joint Ventures specialising in East-West MNE ventures, a background in Public Relations & Marketing for both Public & Private sector. She travelled  for her research to some interesting places like the Gorbachev Foundation, Tsinghua University in Beijing, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, the great Boudhanath stupa in Nepal and Annapurna, up in the Himalayas.

For more information on my projects, please visit my blog: 

www.ceciliawyu.wordpress.com

xxpineappleprincess asked:

what do you think of Stephen Harper government turns environmentalists into public enemies ? on the Star...

Well, Stephen Harper is an oil mongering corporate ass. It is no surprise he would claim environmentalists are public enemies as they are standing between him and his goals of profit by exploitation. Stopping his beloved baby (the tar sands) from growing. 

I’ve been weary of The Star as a news source for a while, but that is not a very common news source out here on the east coast so maybe it’s better than I make it out to be. 

Anyway I don’t doubt Stephen Harper has made a statement such as this. He opposes opposition to his government. He imposed a sort of “pledge of allegiance to the Harper Cons” to the CBC last April.  He threatened Parks Canada employees to not speak out against his Con government whether on or off the clock. And the United States has considered indigenous groups, participants and supporter of the Idle No More movement “possible terror threats” which probably reflects the same opinion of the Harper govt with respect to these protests that stand in the way of his endeavors. 

Stephen Harper and his Cons are the public enemies. They are using a form of doublespeak to avoid dissent. They suspended Edgar Schmidt from the Department of Justice simply for doing his job in pursuing the Attorney General of Canada for letting the government pass bills that are possibly not abiding by the Charter of Rights. 

Stephen Harper will oppose everyone who stands in the way of corporate profit. He supports the United States, Israel and France in  warmongering for the purpose of exploitation. He will try to discredit anyone who speaks out against him. 

Canadian apathy has never been so harmful to Canadians… I don’t understand how we let Stephen Harper take the last elections like that… I don’t understand why not more people are as angry as I am…

From my perspective, feminism is: 

1. An ideology, a doctrine

2. A group-mentality, a movement who shares a common “goal”

3. A political movement, a social organism - an entity 

I oppose it inherently as I oppose all forms of indoctrination. Their points are irrelevant as their means is too often manipulative, too aggressive - I mistrust it.

It’s like PETA who uses false statistics, shock value filled imagery and twisting of facts, pulling of emotional strings to gain support or using sex to sell their ideas instead of evidence.

It’s like the Catholic Church with their propagating the belief that you are somehow superior to people of different or no belief simply for supporting the Church. It’s like the multiple re-writing of the Bible to twist facts to better suit their purpose, to better appeal to the followers of their doctrine. 

It’s like political ideologies. Giving you the idea that this is this and that is that. If you are not part of the solution (that they definethen you are a part of the problem (that they also define). 

I see fighting feminism like being a militant atheist: trying to break people’s faith or beliefs. People tend to like their faith, they like to believe that something better is possible and that the track their on is the right one because somebody told them so in a confident tone (and maybe even used other social manipulations such as propaganda, facts taken out of context, logical fallacies such as empirical evidence and ad hominem attacks or even subliminal messages).

I believe that to give feminism support is like giving the Catholic Church support. Sure “Do onto others as you would have them do to you” is a nice message and worthy of appreciation but looking at the Catholic Church’s history: is the Catholic Church worth supporting because they have “good messages”?

Either way, just like the Catholic Church (the “Church” as a whole, not individual Catholics) will not reciprocate the favor of being given support by an outsider unless they convert, I do not believe feminism will either (although certain individual feminists might).

You can decide if you want to keep fighting feminism. These are just my opinions. I prefer to fight indoctrination than feminism because I don’t think the feminist group is the only or the worst of the bunch but they are definitely part of the bunch.