Opposition members demanded Wednesday that Prime Minster Stephen Harper explain why he thought anti-terrorism laws that were scrapped in 2007 are once again necessary.
In an interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, Harper said he plans to reinstate two anti-terrorism laws. One allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believed a terrorist act may have been committed.
The other allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or pending terrorist acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness didn't comply.
Police and prosecutors used neither law in the five years before they expired.
"We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful," Harper said. "And as you know ... they're applied rarely, but there are times where they're needed."
"The prime minister has to explain to us why, if these measures are so important and so necessary, they were not in place for four years," interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said.
"Stephen Harper's plan to reintroduce these draconian provisions simply isn't backed up by the facts," said NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar. "Security is obviously important to Canadians, and we can make Canada secure without resorting to measures like these."
Tell me what you think
Friday, September 9, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Canada may have committed a war crimes because of detainee tranfers
Faced with new evidence of torture by Afghan police and security forces, NATO’s top commander has ordered an immediate halt to detainee transfers, a controversial practice for Canadian and other foreign contingents for years.
The order – only days before the publication of another report, this one from the United Nations, which is expected to detail brutal and systemic torture in Afghan prisons – comes after years of denials from Canada and other Western governments that they were complicit in subjecting detainees to torture.
Tuesday’s order from U.S. General John Allen blacklists a half-dozen prisons run by Afghan police and the country’s notorious NDS, the National Directorate of Security. NATO had already banned transfers in July to Afghan authorities in Kandahar, the strife-torn province where Canadian troops captured scores of detainees during the years they were deployed.
“With appropriate caution, ISAF [NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force] has taken the prudent measure to suspend detainee transfer to certain facilities until we can verify the observations of a pending UNAMA [UN Mission in Afghanistan] report,” a NATO official told the BBC, which first reported the transfer halt.
Canada was first faced with evidence that its transfer policy put prisoners at risk of torture in a series of Globe and Mail articles in 2007. Ottawa belatedly added follow-up inspections which – in at least one case – resulted in a transferred detainee showing inspectors the torture implements hidden in his cell. Transfers were temporarily stopped and later limited to certain prisons.
Under a revised transfer agreement and subsequent revelations by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin, Ottawa limited transfers to selected NDS prisons in Kabul and Kandahar but insisted throughout that detainees it turned over to Afghan authorities weren’t tortured or abused.
The Harper government censored reports by its own diplomats detailing torture and abuse in Afghan prisons, even though the findings matched those of other governments, the UN and human rights organizations.
Afghan “military, intelligence and police forces have been accused of involvement in arbitrary arrest, kidnapping extortion, torture and extrajudicial killing” was the censored assessment of Canadian diplomats in 2006, the first full year of Canadian detainee handovers in Kandahar.
Ottawa also fought for years to limit and censor release of documents detailing follow-up inspections and initially denied that – on at least one occasion – Canadian soldiers had rescued a transferred detainee after they discovered him being tortured.
Although the government pulled Canadian soldiers out of fighting roles in Kandahar in July, prisoners captured by the Canadian contingent were transferred in the period covered by the forthcoming UN report.
Various human rights groups have issued horrific accounts of the torture of detainees transferred by Western armies.
“By transferring individuals to locations where they are at grave risk of torture and other ill-treatment, ISAF states may be complicit in this treatment, and are breaching their international legal obligations,” warned an Amnesty International report in 2007. It called then for a halt to all transfers.
The order – only days before the publication of another report, this one from the United Nations, which is expected to detail brutal and systemic torture in Afghan prisons – comes after years of denials from Canada and other Western governments that they were complicit in subjecting detainees to torture.
Tuesday’s order from U.S. General John Allen blacklists a half-dozen prisons run by Afghan police and the country’s notorious NDS, the National Directorate of Security. NATO had already banned transfers in July to Afghan authorities in Kandahar, the strife-torn province where Canadian troops captured scores of detainees during the years they were deployed.
“With appropriate caution, ISAF [NATO’s International Security and Assistance Force] has taken the prudent measure to suspend detainee transfer to certain facilities until we can verify the observations of a pending UNAMA [UN Mission in Afghanistan] report,” a NATO official told the BBC, which first reported the transfer halt.
Canada was first faced with evidence that its transfer policy put prisoners at risk of torture in a series of Globe and Mail articles in 2007. Ottawa belatedly added follow-up inspections which – in at least one case – resulted in a transferred detainee showing inspectors the torture implements hidden in his cell. Transfers were temporarily stopped and later limited to certain prisons.
Under a revised transfer agreement and subsequent revelations by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin, Ottawa limited transfers to selected NDS prisons in Kabul and Kandahar but insisted throughout that detainees it turned over to Afghan authorities weren’t tortured or abused.
The Harper government censored reports by its own diplomats detailing torture and abuse in Afghan prisons, even though the findings matched those of other governments, the UN and human rights organizations.
Afghan “military, intelligence and police forces have been accused of involvement in arbitrary arrest, kidnapping extortion, torture and extrajudicial killing” was the censored assessment of Canadian diplomats in 2006, the first full year of Canadian detainee handovers in Kandahar.
Ottawa also fought for years to limit and censor release of documents detailing follow-up inspections and initially denied that – on at least one occasion – Canadian soldiers had rescued a transferred detainee after they discovered him being tortured.
Although the government pulled Canadian soldiers out of fighting roles in Kandahar in July, prisoners captured by the Canadian contingent were transferred in the period covered by the forthcoming UN report.
Various human rights groups have issued horrific accounts of the torture of detainees transferred by Western armies.
“By transferring individuals to locations where they are at grave risk of torture and other ill-treatment, ISAF states may be complicit in this treatment, and are breaching their international legal obligations,” warned an Amnesty International report in 2007. It called then for a halt to all transfers.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
It’s good to see the Toronto Police Services Board showing some spunk. For the first time, the civilian oversight body has denied promotions to nine constables. All were involved in last year’s G20 fiasco.
It’s good to see the Toronto Police Services Board showing some spunk. For the first time, the civilian oversight body has denied promotions to nine constables. All were involved in last year’s G20 fiasco. Chief Bill Blair recommended they be “reclassified” — awarded a higher rank and a salary increase — despite removing their name tags so they could not be identified or held responsible for their actions.
This is the kind of accountability Torontonians have been waiting to see. It is a welcome departure from the board’s past practice of rubber-stamping promotions put forward by the chief.
The union representing the officers is outraged. It has filed a grievance against the police board, contending that it is not the civilian oversight agency’s job to interfere with police promotions. “Through the collective agreement and past practices, if the chief recommends you go up, you go up,” says union president Mike McCormack.
This is nonsense. The board is under no obligation to accept the chief’s recommendations. Its job is to assess the merits of the proposal and make a reasoned decision. As its chair Alok Mukherjee pointed out, a promotion is a reward, not an entitlement.
Other critics of the police board have raised more substantive arguments. They point out that it is contrary to police policy to punish an officer twice for the same offence. The officers in question were handed a one-day suspension without pay for removing their name tags during the G20 summit. They also submit that it is contrary to the Ontario Police Services Act to withhold promotions as a disciplinary measure.
An arbitrator will have to decide these matters. But from the public’s point of view, it is essential to have a civilian oversight body that can say no to the chief, no to the police union and no to the promotion of police officers it believes have shown questionable judgment or character.
City hall insiders have tried to portray the board’s move as a vote of non-confidence in Blair. It is certainly a rare public disagreement. But the G20 was a rare event: demonstrators were beaten, bystanders were arrested, and protesters were denied their constitutional rights. Hundreds of people were detained for hours without being charged.
Fifteen months later — with half a dozen inquiries still underway — Torontonians are no closer to knowing who authorized this kind of policing and who is responsible for what happened.
The police board’s action, though small, sends the right signal to the public and the police.
This is the kind of accountability Torontonians have been waiting to see. It is a welcome departure from the board’s past practice of rubber-stamping promotions put forward by the chief.
The union representing the officers is outraged. It has filed a grievance against the police board, contending that it is not the civilian oversight agency’s job to interfere with police promotions. “Through the collective agreement and past practices, if the chief recommends you go up, you go up,” says union president Mike McCormack.
This is nonsense. The board is under no obligation to accept the chief’s recommendations. Its job is to assess the merits of the proposal and make a reasoned decision. As its chair Alok Mukherjee pointed out, a promotion is a reward, not an entitlement.
Other critics of the police board have raised more substantive arguments. They point out that it is contrary to police policy to punish an officer twice for the same offence. The officers in question were handed a one-day suspension without pay for removing their name tags during the G20 summit. They also submit that it is contrary to the Ontario Police Services Act to withhold promotions as a disciplinary measure.
An arbitrator will have to decide these matters. But from the public’s point of view, it is essential to have a civilian oversight body that can say no to the chief, no to the police union and no to the promotion of police officers it believes have shown questionable judgment or character.
City hall insiders have tried to portray the board’s move as a vote of non-confidence in Blair. It is certainly a rare public disagreement. But the G20 was a rare event: demonstrators were beaten, bystanders were arrested, and protesters were denied their constitutional rights. Hundreds of people were detained for hours without being charged.
Fifteen months later — with half a dozen inquiries still underway — Torontonians are no closer to knowing who authorized this kind of policing and who is responsible for what happened.
The police board’s action, though small, sends the right signal to the public and the police.
Monday, September 5, 2011
People with disabilities have fewer opportunities,
Earlier this year, a groundswell of public pressure persuaded Ottawa to reverse an order that would have deported a Montreal family because their 8-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy. Immigration officials had ruled Rachel Barlagne would be a burden on Canada’s health-care system even though her family volunteered to cover the extra $5,259 a year her care was estimated to cost.
The feel-good moment of reprieve allowed us to collectively pat ourselves on the back for our trademark Canadian compassion. But it also subliminally reinforced the belief that our gatekeeping is secure.
“The general impression is that Canada doesn’t let in families that include anyone with a disability;” says Ayshia Musleh of the Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario (erdco.ca). “But the reality is different.” That’s why ERDCO is joining forces with the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (ocasi.org) to improve services for newcomers who move or communicate or process information differently from what society has decreed to be the norm.
Some may have undiagnosed conditions, such as learning disabilities, that aren’t immediately apparent even to themselves. Some are refugees who have sustained physical disabilities before fleeing for their lives. All meet the requirements of the point system used to determine who qualifies to come to Canada.
More than 106,000 immigrants arrived in Ontario in 2009, some 50,000 of them ending up in the Toronto area. There are no hard numbers on disabilities but Musleh and project co-ordinator Martha Viveros of OCASI, which encompasses more than 200 community-based organizations in Ontario, already know from a series of focus groups that more help is needed.
How does a young man whose hearing may have been damaged learn English as a second language? Where does someone with low vision go? What services are available? Where are they offered? Where do front-line workers find out how to recognize needs and offer solutions?
It’s hard enough for anyone to get one of the so-called “survivor jobs” — washing cars or dishes or driving a cab — while they study to requalify because their credentials aren’t recognized in this country. But those with disabilities have even fewer opportunities because employers aren’t always willing to make accommodations.
The idea of the accessibility project is to give everyone the chance to contribute to and participate in their new communities. “It’s about inclusion and building bridges and looking at the whole person — something the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act (AODA) has brought into focus,” says Viveros.
Currently, the two-year project is finishing up focus groups. From there, it plans to develop training sessions designed to pull together ways of accessing information and bringing it all together.
These are tough times for all service agencies coping with chronic underfunding. But Viveros and Musleh believe the accessibility project will pay off in helping newcomers with disabilities contribute to their communities.
Meanwhile disability advocacy groups continue to lobby for changes in immigration policy to build a more inclusive and accessible country. “Canada’s immigration policy is based upon a negative and outdated understanding of disability that fails to recognize the contribution that people with disabilities can, and do, make,” the Council of Canadians with Disabilities argued in a brief to the federal government supporting the Barlagne family. (ccdonline.ca)
The actions of Immigration Canada violate the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified last year, CCD said.
“Canadians with disabilities are left wondering why a country that celebrates the contribution of people like Rick Hansen, Ontario Lt. Gov. David Onley and others with a disability would deport a family seeking to build a life here in Canada simply because their child has a disability,” it added.
Why indeed?
The feel-good moment of reprieve allowed us to collectively pat ourselves on the back for our trademark Canadian compassion. But it also subliminally reinforced the belief that our gatekeeping is secure.
“The general impression is that Canada doesn’t let in families that include anyone with a disability;” says Ayshia Musleh of the Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario (erdco.ca). “But the reality is different.” That’s why ERDCO is joining forces with the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (ocasi.org) to improve services for newcomers who move or communicate or process information differently from what society has decreed to be the norm.
Some may have undiagnosed conditions, such as learning disabilities, that aren’t immediately apparent even to themselves. Some are refugees who have sustained physical disabilities before fleeing for their lives. All meet the requirements of the point system used to determine who qualifies to come to Canada.
More than 106,000 immigrants arrived in Ontario in 2009, some 50,000 of them ending up in the Toronto area. There are no hard numbers on disabilities but Musleh and project co-ordinator Martha Viveros of OCASI, which encompasses more than 200 community-based organizations in Ontario, already know from a series of focus groups that more help is needed.
How does a young man whose hearing may have been damaged learn English as a second language? Where does someone with low vision go? What services are available? Where are they offered? Where do front-line workers find out how to recognize needs and offer solutions?
It’s hard enough for anyone to get one of the so-called “survivor jobs” — washing cars or dishes or driving a cab — while they study to requalify because their credentials aren’t recognized in this country. But those with disabilities have even fewer opportunities because employers aren’t always willing to make accommodations.
The idea of the accessibility project is to give everyone the chance to contribute to and participate in their new communities. “It’s about inclusion and building bridges and looking at the whole person — something the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act (AODA) has brought into focus,” says Viveros.
Currently, the two-year project is finishing up focus groups. From there, it plans to develop training sessions designed to pull together ways of accessing information and bringing it all together.
These are tough times for all service agencies coping with chronic underfunding. But Viveros and Musleh believe the accessibility project will pay off in helping newcomers with disabilities contribute to their communities.
Meanwhile disability advocacy groups continue to lobby for changes in immigration policy to build a more inclusive and accessible country. “Canada’s immigration policy is based upon a negative and outdated understanding of disability that fails to recognize the contribution that people with disabilities can, and do, make,” the Council of Canadians with Disabilities argued in a brief to the federal government supporting the Barlagne family. (ccdonline.ca)
The actions of Immigration Canada violate the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada ratified last year, CCD said.
“Canadians with disabilities are left wondering why a country that celebrates the contribution of people like Rick Hansen, Ontario Lt. Gov. David Onley and others with a disability would deport a family seeking to build a life here in Canada simply because their child has a disability,” it added.
Why indeed?
Sunday, September 4, 2011
A group whose mission is to fight against "Canadian francophobia" says it will file a complaint with Canada's human rights commission over the nomination of a unilingual anglophone as communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
MONTREAL — A group whose mission is to fight against "Canadian francophobia" says it will file a complaint with Canada's human rights commission over the nomination of a unilingual anglophone as communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The nomination of newspaper columnist Angelo Perschilli to the post has already raised eyebrows in Quebec after it was reported he wrote a column in the Toronto Star last year criticizing the number of francophones in Ottawa's corridors of power.
Perschilli has since said he intends to treat Quebecers with the "utmost respect." But that hasn't stopped the Ligue quebecoise contre la francophobie canadienne from announcing on Saturday it would file a complaint against Perschilli's nomination, saying his assuming the post would subject "all francophones" to "a patent and illegal discrimination."
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebec+group+file+complaint+over+Harper+appointment/5350843/story.html#ixzz1Wy0eDFYp
Friday, September 2, 2011
Ontario Cancer Institute
Ontario Cancer Institute
The Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI) is the research division of Princess Margaret Hospital, part of the University Health Network of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. As Canada's first dedicated cancer hospital, it opened officially and began to receive patients in 1958, although its research divisions had begun work a year earlier. Because, at that time, a stigma was associated with the word 'cancer', the hospital was soon renamed the Princess Margaret Hospital, although the whole operation was called the Ontario Cancer Institute incorporating the Princess Margaret Hospital, or OCI/PMH. Clinicians usually preferred the hospital name, while the scientists used OCI.
The original location of the OCI/PMH was at 500 Sherbourne Street in Toronto. In 1995, the whole operation moved to a new building at 610 University Avenue, and the new PMH became part of the University Health Network. The OCI continued as the research arm of the PMH.
The Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI) is the research division of Princess Margaret Hospital, part of the University Health Network of the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. As Canada's first dedicated cancer hospital, it opened officially and began to receive patients in 1958, although its research divisions had begun work a year earlier. Because, at that time, a stigma was associated with the word 'cancer', the hospital was soon renamed the Princess Margaret Hospital, although the whole operation was called the Ontario Cancer Institute incorporating the Princess Margaret Hospital, or OCI/PMH. Clinicians usually preferred the hospital name, while the scientists used OCI.
The original location of the OCI/PMH was at 500 Sherbourne Street in Toronto. In 1995, the whole operation moved to a new building at 610 University Avenue, and the new PMH became part of the University Health Network. The OCI continued as the research arm of the PMH.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Make a donation to support the fight against cancer at Princess Margaret Hospital Toronto
Princess Margaret Hospital is located in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada on University Avenue at College Street. It is part of the University Health Network. Located in the city's Discovery District, Princess Margaret is a cancer research hospital fully affiliated with the University of Toronto, and is under royal patronage of Anne, Princess Royal, as a member of the Canadian Royal Family. The hospital was named after the late Princess Margaret, sister of Queen Elizabeth II.
The hospital specializes in the treatment of cancer, and offers the majority of its services to residents of the Greater Toronto Area. It frequently hosts patients from other parts of Canada for access to a high calibre of treatment.[citation needed]. In particular, the hospital offers expertise in the fields of surgical oncology, medical oncology including bone marrow transplantation, radiation oncology, psychosocial oncology, medical imaging, and radiation therapy.
The hospital houses one of the largest radiation therapy departments in the world. It has 17 radiation treatment machines, all of which are equipped with the latest technologies, a superficial ortho-voltage X-Ray machine, and operates a Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery machine in collaboration with Toronto Western Hospital.
1 Education
2 Research
3 History
4 Additional images
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit] EducationAs a teaching hospital of the University of Toronto, the hospital provides world class training to various medical professions. Most notable are clinical programs for medical doctors and radiation therapists.
[edit] ResearchIts related research arm, the Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI), has made world-renowned contributions[citation needed], and works in conjunction with the hospital in a mutually beneficial relationship. Many researchers at the OCI hold appointments at the University of Toronto, often within the Department of Medical Biophysics.
[edit] HistoryThe hospital was founded as the Ontario Cancer Institute in 1952 by an Act of the Ontario legislature. It was originally located at 500 Sherbourne Street, beside the now demolished Wellesley Hospital, on Sherbourne Street north of Wellesley Avenue. The hospital at 500 Sherbourne was completed in 1958 and named the Princess Margaret Hospital after Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom. In 1995, the hospital relocated to 610 University Avenue (the short building once was head office for Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario).
During health restructuring legislated by the Harris Government in the late 1990s, Princess Margaret Hospital merged with The Toronto Hospital which was the entity formed by the merger of the Toronto General Hospital and the Toronto Western Hospital. The new entity was named University Health Network and the three hospital sites retain their original names within the new entity. Like many hospitals, Princess Margaret Hospital is served by a charitable foundation, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, which holds numerous events and a lottery to raise philanthropic funds to support research, education, and patient care.
[edit] Additional imagesPrincess Margaret Hospital seen from the southwest at sunset.
Princess Margaret Hospital seen from the northeast. Mount Sinai Hospital is to the south.
[edit] See alsoList of Canadian organizations with royal patronage
The Ride to Conquer Cancer
[edit] References[edit] External linksOntario Cancer Institute
Canadian Cancer Society
Princess Margaret Hospital
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto
This Canadian hospital-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.v · d · e
The hospital specializes in the treatment of cancer, and offers the majority of its services to residents of the Greater Toronto Area. It frequently hosts patients from other parts of Canada for access to a high calibre of treatment.[citation needed]. In particular, the hospital offers expertise in the fields of surgical oncology, medical oncology including bone marrow transplantation, radiation oncology, psychosocial oncology, medical imaging, and radiation therapy.
The hospital houses one of the largest radiation therapy departments in the world. It has 17 radiation treatment machines, all of which are equipped with the latest technologies, a superficial ortho-voltage X-Ray machine, and operates a Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery machine in collaboration with Toronto Western Hospital.
1 Education
2 Research
3 History
4 Additional images
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit] EducationAs a teaching hospital of the University of Toronto, the hospital provides world class training to various medical professions. Most notable are clinical programs for medical doctors and radiation therapists.
[edit] ResearchIts related research arm, the Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI), has made world-renowned contributions[citation needed], and works in conjunction with the hospital in a mutually beneficial relationship. Many researchers at the OCI hold appointments at the University of Toronto, often within the Department of Medical Biophysics.
[edit] HistoryThe hospital was founded as the Ontario Cancer Institute in 1952 by an Act of the Ontario legislature. It was originally located at 500 Sherbourne Street, beside the now demolished Wellesley Hospital, on Sherbourne Street north of Wellesley Avenue. The hospital at 500 Sherbourne was completed in 1958 and named the Princess Margaret Hospital after Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom. In 1995, the hospital relocated to 610 University Avenue (the short building once was head office for Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario).
During health restructuring legislated by the Harris Government in the late 1990s, Princess Margaret Hospital merged with The Toronto Hospital which was the entity formed by the merger of the Toronto General Hospital and the Toronto Western Hospital. The new entity was named University Health Network and the three hospital sites retain their original names within the new entity. Like many hospitals, Princess Margaret Hospital is served by a charitable foundation, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, which holds numerous events and a lottery to raise philanthropic funds to support research, education, and patient care.
[edit] Additional imagesPrincess Margaret Hospital seen from the southwest at sunset.
Princess Margaret Hospital seen from the northeast. Mount Sinai Hospital is to the south.
[edit] See alsoList of Canadian organizations with royal patronage
The Ride to Conquer Cancer
[edit] References[edit] External linksOntario Cancer Institute
Canadian Cancer Society
Princess Margaret Hospital
Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto
This Canadian hospital-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.v · d · e
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)