Thread: CAN: No Dice, Rice (SPP)

http://yayacanada.blogspot.com/2007/02/ ... -rice.html

Monday, February 26, 2007
No dice, Rice

One, two, three ... we don't want your SPP

It seemed there were more police than protesters when Condoleezza Rice came to town last Friday (Feb. 23) to nail down some of the requirements of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, aka the North American Union, on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled the Security Certificate unconstitutional.

We have had both a Liberal and a "Conservative" government allowing the enforcement of unconstitutional security measures since 9-11, and they have now, behind closed doors, immersed us in a deal with the US that may have no legal premise. And we still think we live in a free society?

Anyway, the Council of Canadians, members of NOWAR-PAIX, SCAW, the Ottawa Raging Grannies, and others, all took their turns at staring down cops at some point during the day.

The weather that day was colder than a witch's heart. As I was walking to the demo, an RCMP officer, sitting in a cruiser that left me no room to walk on the pavement and instead forced me to navigate a sloping snowbank, surprised me by rolling down his window to say, "Sorry, ma'am. I have to be here."

"To protect Condie Rice?" I asked. "To get her out of here," he laughed. "Why don't you just protect the good people?" I suggested, to which he replied, "Ah, there's good in everybody, ma'am." He had me there. "To a certain extent," I shot back as I held onto the side of the squad car and gingerly made my way over the pile of hardened snow.

At one point during the demo I saw what appeared to be a friendly political debate going on between some of the demonstrators and one or two of the cops, and as things wound down, one policeman went out of his way to compliment the protesters on their "bravery".

Is it just me, or has the Supreme Court decision on the Security Certificate softened the attitude of the police a bit? I even thought I detected a more respectful manner in the media who covered the Supreme Court's decision on the Security Certificate. I mean, the rag tag protesters were right about the unconstitutionality of it all along. Have those who tend to trust only the judgment of authority figures been given some pause?

It bemuses me how elected officials who are afraid of their own shadows, always prating on about security, fearing bogeyguys on every street corner - a phobia for which you and I would be forcibly medicated - can still possess the utter gall to make drastic, sweeping changes in policy, both foreign and domestic, without so much as a by-your-leave, and just know that they are doing what's best for everybody.

When asked about the Security Certificate ruling at a joint press conference, Foreign Affairs Tyro, Peter Mackay, ham-acted the part of statesman by using up several cue cards of meaningless hot air on how the government will find other ways of "protecting the Canadian people" - just as if that's what it's really all about.

Condi Rice, playing stern mother to the world, reinforced Mackay's stated concern for everybody's safety by talking about "plots against our neighbors" and "plots against our friends around the world". (I knew a woman once who went on about plots, but her doctor said it was just the menopause talking and sent her to a psychiatrist. If you're going to babble about plots you have to be an authority figure.)

It's too bad people don't realize that the authorities are only the authorities as long as the people say they are. Right now the people say, "Condi, go home. We don't trust you or even our own government to decide what's right for us."

As if she were in her right mind, Condi Rice says about the SPP: “This is a broad agenda that is going to make life better for people, and it is the only way that we can achieve security and prosperity.”

That's her new name: "One way Condi". By her own admission, she hasn't the imagination of a fence post.

Her statement covered the "S" and the "P" from SPP, but does she know there's another "P" in that acronym that stands for "Partnership"? Does the current US administration even understand what partnership is? We know that our Prime Minister thinks it means kissing up.

And then our Minion of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, who often doesn't seem able to put two sequential ideas together, nevertheless goes ahead and non-sequiturs on the imposition of "passports" (read: Hitlerian identity papers): “That is why we pursue the areas of seeing our countries being as competitive as possible.” Huh???

No wonder he didn't make it in the evangelical business. You gotta be able to ta-a-alk them sinners to their knees. No sir, you can't sit down for Jesus, but you can say, "Stand up for Canada" 85 times a day and still let the Bush bunch wash right over you.

Day really doesn't have to make sense, though. The concern that passport requirements might interfere with cross border business is nothing more than a smokescreen to make it appear that Harper, Day and Mackay give a tinker's dam for anything other than what has been promised to them for their own personal futures. They sold their souls a long time ago, and they're selling us too.

Consequently there were a number of issues for the protesters who risked frostbite outside the building where SPP meeting was being held. Rendition to torture was a biggee, as well as Guantanamo, and a decided distaste in general for US security rules.

And lest we forget the standoff at Oaxaca, is it a result or at least a harbinger of things to come from the philosophy behind this so-called partnership?

Well, as warm and sweet as Petey Mackay and Condie Rice can be, neither of them came out to shake hands or reassure anyone about their plans. In fact, when the meeting was over they flew off like bats out of Hades, breaking the speed limit, and then some, along Sussex Drive. So fast, in fact, that my frozen hands couldn't get my camera turned on in time to catch the action. The below vehicle with the flashing red light on its hiney may or may not contain an authority figure.

Related: Accuracy in Media: Surrendering our Sovereignty
My question would be: what is the legal basis for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)? My research can find no legal basis for this complicated process, now about two years old, involving the futures of our three countries.

Posted by yayacanada at 10:24 PM| PERMALINK

Labels: activism, government, human rights, North American Union

ShockedinCalifornia, Excellent post, thanks for posting it!

It's too bad people don't realize that the authorities are only the authorities as long as the people say they are. Right now the people say, "Condi, go home. We don't trust you or even our own government to decide what's right for us."

That is a great point.

sounds like canada doesn't want the SPP anymore than americans want it. Wonder what mexico has over the government of canada? Must be supplying drugs to their politicans in addition to supplying our politicans.

You can bet that ex-prime minister Harper and ex pres Fox will be jesters under the new overlord boosh reign of ruling the world.
So what will that make condi? I hope she gets demoted to stable cleaner.

ShockedInCalifornia wrote:

My question would be: what is the legal basis for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)? My research can find no legal basis for this complicated process, now about two years old, involving the futures of our three countries

I'd like to know the answer to this also. I've heard explanations but they didn't quite make sense. Are the politicians just instituting it thru incremental legislation?

By the way, my in-laws are shocked in California, too.