AMAZING NEWS!!! CTFxC.

CSIS slammed for end-running law to snoop on Canadians abroad Spy agency made 'deliberate decision to keep the court in the dark'

CSIS slammed for end-running law to snoop on Canadians abroadSpy agency made 'deliberate decision to keep the court in the dark'

Canada set up spy posts for U.S., new Snowden document shows
Reporting on secrets and national security
Canada’s electronic spy agency says tracking allies is necessary
Inside Canada's top-secret billion-dollar spy palace


Canada's spy agency deliberately withheld information from the courts in an effort to do an end-run around the law when it applied for top-secret warrants to intercept the communications of Canadians abroad, a Federal Court judge said Friday.


A judge has ruled CSIS deliberately withheld information from the courts when it applied for top-secret warrants to intercept the communications of Canadians abroad.

In doing so, the judge said in written reasons, the agency put Canadians abroad at potential risk.

The situation arose five years ago when Canadian Security Intelligence Service asked Federal Court for special warrants
related to two Canadian citizens — already under investigation as a potential threat to national security — that would apply while they were abroad.

CSIS assured Judge Richard Mosley the intercepts would be carried out from inside Canada, and controlled by Canadian government personnel, court records show.

Mosley granted the warrants in January 2009 based on what CSIS and Canada's top secret eavesdropping agency — the Communication Security Establishment of Canada or CSEC — had told him.

However, Canadian officials then asked for intercept help from foreign intelligence allies without telling the court.

Mosley was unimpressed, saying the courts had never approved the foreign involvement.

"It is clear that the exercise of the court's warrant issuing has been used as protective cover for activities that it has not authorized," Mosley wrote in redacted reasons.
Editor's blog | Reporting on Secrets and National Security
Inside Canada's top-secret billion-dollar spy palace

"The failure to disclose that information was the result of a deliberate decision to keep the court in the dark about the scope and extent of the foreign collection efforts that would flow from the court's issuance of a warrant."
Misinterpreting the law

Under current legislation, Federal Court has no authority to issue warrants that involve intercepts of Canadians carried out abroad by Canada's "Five Eyes" intelligence partners, Mosley noted.

He said CSIS, which was granted several similar warrants on fresh or renewed applications in relation to other targets, knew the law but deliberately sought to get around the limitation by misinterpreting it.

"CSIS and CSEC officials are relying on that interpretation at their peril and ... incurring the risk that targets may be detained or otherwise harmed as a result of the use of the intercepted communications by the foreign agencies," Mosley wrote.

"[The law] does not authorize the service and CSEC to incur that risk or shield them from liability."

The documents show alarm bells went off after the commissioner of CSEC, Robert Decary, tabled his annual report in August.

In the report, he suggested CSIS provide Federal Court with "certain additional evidence about the nature and extent" of his agency's help to the intelligence service.

Mosley ordered both agencies to explain what Decary meant. He did not like what he heard about the hidden foreign involvement in the intercepts.

"This was a breach of the duty of candour owed by the service and their legal advisers to the court," he said.

"It has led to misstatements in the public record about the scope of the authority granted the service."

Mosley made it clear the warrants do not authorize any foreign service to intercept communications of any Canadian on behalf of CSIS or CSEC.

Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution laws Parliament has 1 year to bring in new law as Criminal Code provisions remain in place

Supreme Court strikes down Canada's prostitution lawsParliament has 1 year to bring in new law as Criminal Code provisions remain in place
CBC News

Supreme Court prostitution decision: 5 questions
Canadians debate Supreme Court's sex trade ruling
Canada's prostitution laws: What the court said
Canada's prostitution laws: Who said what about the ruling
Read the Supreme Court ruling (pdf)
Prostitution laws: Europeans debate whether criminalization or legalization works better


The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the country's anti-prostitution laws in a unanimous decision, and given Parliament one year to come up with new legislation — should it choose to do so.
'It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money.'- Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada

In striking down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients, the top court ruled Friday that the laws were over-broad and "grossly disproportionate."

"Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in the 9-0 decision that noted "it is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money."
Supreme Court ruling: 5 questions
Key points from the Supreme Court's ruling
Who said what about the court's ruling
Read the Supreme Court decision (pdf)
European laws range from criminalizing johns to legalization

The ruling was in response to a court challenge by women with experience in the sex trade, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott that had resulted in an Ontario court ruling that overturned the laws.

The Ontario Court of Appeal later upheld the law against communicating in public, but sided with the lower court in overturning the provisions against living off the avails and keeping a common bawdy house or brothel.


Sex workers advocate Valerie Scott, left, and Terri-Jean Bedford brought the case against Canada's prostitution laws. (Darren Calabrese/Canadian Press)

"These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not," McLachlin wrote.

"I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament."

That means the provisions stay in the Criminal Code for the next year while the government decides what to do.

In a statement, Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the government would take the time to decide how to address "this very complex matter."

"We are reviewing the decision and are exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution and vulnerable persons," his statement said.

MacKay also said there are "a number of other Criminal Code provisions" in place to protect sex-trade workers "and to address the negative effects prostitution has on communities."

The women in the case had argued that the law prevented them from safely conducting their business as sex-trade workers, arguing that hiring bodyguards and drivers, and being able to work in private homes or talk with potential clients in public were important to their safety.

"Now the government must tell Canadians, all consenting adults, what we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home for money or not. And they must write laws that are fair," Bedford told reporters gathered in the foyer of the Supreme Court building in Ottawa on Friday.

One of her co-respondents in the appeal said a new law won't work.

"The thing here is politicians, though they may know us as clients, they do not understand how sex work works," said Scott. "They won't be able to write a half-decent law. It will fail. That's why you must bring sex workers to the table in a meaningful way."
'Sky's not going to fall in'

Scott says new laws should be up to municipalities, not the federal government.

"If the Harper government rewrites laws, they will fail and the next generation of sex workers will be right back here. So let's not be stupid, federal government. Let's do something progressive, actually."

Scott added that "the sky's not going to fall in" with Friday's ruling.

"People said that when women got the right to vote, equal pay, equal rights, and same sex marriage — all of those things, every single one, people said the sky would fall in. It did not. Society is the better for it and society will be the better for sex workers having proper civil and occupational rights."

The women's lawyer, Alan Young, said it was important to understand the ruling affects "one of the most under-enforced laws in the Canadian Criminal Code.

"The fact that people are crying that the law's been invalidated, [they] don't understand that the law's been ineffective and largely just used in a discriminatory way."

"We're not really going to see any change tomorrow. It's going to be business as usual," Young said.

Others condemned the ruling.

"It's a sad day that we've now had confirmed that it's OK to buy and sell women and girls in this country. I think generations to come — our daughters, their granddaughters and on — will look back and say, 'What were they thinking?,'" said Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and a member of the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution.

"To say that [prostitution] is a choice when you're talking about the women we work with is to say that in fact it's OK to just exploit them," Pate said.

"We've never seen men criminalized for buying and selling women and girls. We've always seen women criminalized for selling themselves. We absolutely object to the criminalization of women. Our position would not interfere with those women who truly have made their choices."
Worry about 'open season' for prostitution

Don Hutchinson, vice-president and general legal counsel for Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said his group wants Parliament to come back with a new law that would "criminalize the purchase of sex and provide support services for those who wish to exit the sex trade.

"What we're suggesting is that for the first time in Canada, prostitution would be illegal. The purchase of sexual services or the rental of somebody's body would become illegal," Hutchinson said.

"If there's no replacement legislative scheme, then it's open season in regard to prostitution."

Lebovitch, however, said the decision will help protect sex-trade workers.

"I am shocked and amazed that sex work and the sex work laws that affect our lives on a daily basis will within a year not cause us harm any more."

"It's a huge victory for all the people in Vancouver, all my sisters out there who are going to be safe. It's just a huge, huge victory. I'm so happy," added Lorna Bird of the advocacy group Sex Workers United Against Violence.

McGill Dances for Cancer Research Lipdub 2013

Diane-35: Family whose daughter died after taking drug sues Shoppers Drug Mart The family of a teen who died suddenly after taking a controversial acne drug is suing Shoppers Drug Mart for failing to warn their daughter about the medication’s most dangerous side effects.

Diane-35: Family whose daughter died after taking drug sues Shoppers Drug Mart
The family of a teen who died suddenly after taking a controversial acne drug is suing Shoppers Drug Mart for failing to warn their daughter about the medication’s most dangerous side effects.



The family of eighteen-year-old Marit McKenzie, who died of a massive bilateral pulmonary embolism, is suing Shoppers Drug Mart for failing to warn of dangerous side effects of the drug Diane-35. McKenzie had been taking the drug for a mild acne condition for 11 months when she died.
By: Diana Zlomislic News reporter,


The family of a teen who died suddenly after taking a controversial acne drug is suing Shoppers Drug Mart for failing to warn their daughter about the medication’s most dangerous side effects.


While other major pharmacies highlight the “very serious” and “sometimes fatal” risk of blood clotting connected with Diane-35 on the drug information sheets they supply to patients, Shoppers does not. A senior pharmacist hired by Shoppers to produce an electronic inventory of drug risks told the Toronto Star the company didn’t want to “frighten” consumers by including rare but serious side effects on its printouts for the public.


Shoppers patrons who take Diane-35 are instead advised to watch out for headaches, tender breasts, menstrual pain, swelling and a lowered sex drive.
More Video




The family of Marit McKenzie, 18, a first-year university of Calgary student who died after suffering four cardiac arrests, a massive pulmonary embolism and brain hemorrhaging in late January, is seeking $85,000 in damages and legal costs. That is the maximum allowable in Alberta for such a loss.


“Shoppers was negligent in providing sufficient information to Marit regarding the warnings and risks associated with taking Diane-35,” states the claim, which was filed last week in a Calgary court. It also argues that Shoppers should have told McKenzie to stop using the drug three to four months after her acne cleared, a protocol recommended by the manufacturer to reduce the likelihood of side effects.


The McKenzie family’s legal claim states that Shoppers has a “duty to provide accurate, current and pertinent information” about the risks and warnings associated with the medications its pharmacists dispense and that the company did not fulfil this duty.


The allegations have not been proven in court.


Lana Gogas, a spokeswoman for Shoppers, said the company could not comment on the legal claim. Shoppers has not yet filed a statement of defence.


The drug information Shoppers distributes to its pharmacy customers is supplied by a Quebec company that has held the contract for more than 10 years.


“We restrict to a maximum of six side effects on all drugs,” explains Raymond Chevalier, the president of Les Consultants Vigilance Santé, which is based just outside of Montreal. The information is poured into an electronic database that is accessed by Shoppers stores across the country.


“We select the most prevalent, the ones most likely to occur, the ones the patient can identify . . . The purpose here is not to frighten anyone,” said Chevalier, who is also a pharmacist.


Bruce McKenzie, an architect in Calgary, says he would rather be afraid if it meant saving his daughter Marit’s life.


In the weeks before her death in January, Marit McKenzie had grown increasingly anxious about her physical condition. She was constantly tired, easily winded and found it difficult to concentrate. After her death, Bruce McKenzie and his wife, Susan, discovered that these symptoms were outlined on the patient information sheets for Diane-35 that were handed out at other pharmacies, including Safeway and Calgary Co-Op. The Toronto Star also found this information on the drug information sheets distributed by Walmart, Loblaw and Rexall pharmacies.


1 drug, 3 stories: What pharmacies are telling patients about Diane-35


Shoppers Drug Mart (PDF)


Walmart (PDF)


Loblaw (PDF)


The week before her death, Marit McKenzie complained to her family doctor, but her condition was chalked up to school-related stress. Routine blood work was ordered but it came back normal, the Star learned after interviewing Dr. Dubravka Rakic, who prescribed Diane-35 to McKenzie.


Several days later, after suffering four cardiac arrests, a pulmonary embolism and bleeding in the brain, McKenzie was pronounced dead in hospital on Jan. 28, 2013.


She became the 13th Canadian woman, and the eighth younger than 21, whose death has been unofficially linked to Diane-35 in Health Canada’s adverse reaction database. Since the majority of her organs were donated immediately, there was no formal autopsy. A hospital pharmacist filed the adverse drug reaction report listing Diane-35 as the suspect cause of her death. McKenzie had been taking it for just over a year.


The drug, which is approved by Health Canada as a short-term treatment for severe and otherwise untreatable acne, has been the subject of three federal warnings since 2002 that addressed the elevated clotting risk. The warnings also emphasized that Diane-35 should not be used as an oral contraceptive. Health Canada is now trying torein in off-label use for the hormone-based pill with help from the manufacturer, Bayer, which has launched an education campaign for doctors.


Shoppers, though, does not appear to be helping on that front either.


Its information sheet for Diane-35 calls the drug a “hormone-based contraceptive.”


“I didn’t notice that myself,” Chevalier told the Star by phone from Repentigny, Que. “We’ll recheck that.”


Dr. Barbara Mintzes, a drug researcher based in British Columbia who has investigated the off-label use of Diane-35, worries that the additional drug information provided by pharmacies may create a false sense of security.


Consumers may reasonably assume the pharmacy’s patient information leaflets, which are often written in easy-to-understand language, is a “Cole’s Notes” version of the dense product monographs supplied by manufacturers.


Gogas of Shoppers says the sheets “are designed to provide patient-friendly information in order to educate the patient on the medication they are taking and help them manage their condition.” They “are not an alternative to a product monograph.”


“We’re not replacing the discussion that a doctor should have had with his patient before prescribing this drug, covering the side effects and risks and contraindications,” Chevalier says.


Rakic told the Toronto Star she was unaware the federal government had issued any advisories about Diane-35 when she prescribed it for McKenzie.


Nearly 500,000 prescriptions were written in Canada for Diane-35 or one of its two generics last year, according to IMS Brogan data supplied by Health Canada.


The relatively new practice among pharmacies to supply additional printed information to consumers is not mandated by any professional group.


Shoppers was one of the first retailers to provide its customers with drug information sheets. The practice dates back to the company’s launch of HealthWATCH in the late 1990s.


“There’s nothing from the college requiring they do this,” says Lori DeCou, spokeswoman for the Ontario College of Pharmacists.


“There is a standard practice to which we hold pharmacists accountable, which has to do with counselling,” she says. “A pharmacist is required to ensure their patient understands the medication they’re being prescribed.”

Patching by Microsoft, spoofing Google and launching nukes - 60 Sec Secu...

Election fraud finding by Federal Court points directly at Conservative Party: The Federal Court has found .

Election fraud finding by Federal Court points directly at Conservative Party



The Federal Court has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the 2011 federal election. The ruling clearly states that "there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database."

"This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada," says Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians. "Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent -- just like in the Senate scandal."

The Council of Canadians is calling on the Conservative Party to make public the list of everyone who had access to the national CIMS database and authority to make a decision to launch such a campaign, as well as turning the information over to the Commissioner of Elections and the RCMP. The Council argues that anything less at this point would be a cover-up.

"The use of the Conservative Party's CIMS database to attack democracy and the deepening scandal around Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and the PMO both reflect the determination of this regime to avoid accountability at all costs," says Council of Canadians national chairperson Maude Barlow.

The Council of Canadians notes that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to derail the Federal Court case by the Conservative Party makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to hide.

"The Prime Minister needs to answer some serious questions," says Barlow. "Did Harper authorize the use of CIMS for voter suppression? If not who did? The Federal Court has found that CIMS was used for extensive election fraud. It's now up to Conservative Party to tell Canadians who did it."




The Council of Canadians is consulting with the applicants and lawyers as they consider an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If these consultations conclude there is a chance the Supreme Court could overturn the Conservative MPs' narrow victories, the Council would pay the necessary legal fees.

The organization is calling on Canadians to donate for that purpose at http://canadians.org/democracy247.

Key excerpts from the Federal Court decision

[184] ... there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the CIMS database.

[244] I am satisfied that is has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls.

[245] ... I am satisfied ... that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the CPC, accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this Court. ... the evidence points to elaborate efforts to conceal the identity of those accessing the database and arranging for the calls to be made.

[246] I find that the threshold to establish that fraud occurred has been met by the applicants.

[253]... I don't doubt that the confidence rightfully held by Canadians has been shaken by the disclosures of widespread fraudulent activities that have resulted from the Commissioner's investigations and the complaints to Elections Canada.

[256] [the voter suppression] calls appear to have been targeted towards voters who had previously expressed a preference for an opposition party (or anyone other than the government party)

[261] ... it has seemed to me that the applicants [supported by the Council of Canadians] sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.

[262] Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the CPC made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests. I note that counsel for the CPC was informed while the election was taking place that the calls about polling station changes were improper. While it was begrudgingly conceded during oral argument that what occurred was "absolutely outrageous", the record indicates that the stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any means.