Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Showing posts with label Freedom of movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of movement. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Angela Merkel warns David Cameron over freedom of movement

David Cameron has been warned by German chancellor Angela Merkel that she would rather see the UK leave the European Union than change freedom of movement rules, according to reports.

Downing Street on Sunday did not deny that the conversation had taken place, after German newspaper Der Spiegel said Merkel had rejected Cameron’s demands for a cap on unskilled migrants. Sources told the newspaper that the chancellor said demands for any changes to freedom of movement rules represented a “point of no return” and that this would be it for the UK’s membership.

Friday, December 09, 2011

Big Business Winner of Harper-Obama Border Deal

Key features of a Canada-U.S. perimeter security pact were unveiled today in Washington by Prime Minster Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama and have already elicited sharply different reactions. The alleged goal is to streamline trade and hasten transit time for people and goods as they cross the border while at the same time, protecting the continent from terrorist threats.

My view all along has been that these are two different goals and should not be merged. In seeing the outline of the deal, I now feel that more strongly than ever.

No one I know objects to finding ways to hasten the border crossing process for ordinary people or cut unnecessary red tape for business, particularly small business. But in merging these two issues, Canada is essentially giving up policy control in the key areas of privacy, security, immigration and surveillance in order to entice the U.S. to loosen controls at the border.

I fear this deal will have just the opposite effect. The added security measures will add layers to the existing process and may actually add to the so-called thickening of the border -- at least for ordinary people. More ominously, it is likely to lead to a wholesale replacement of Canadian privacy and security standards with American ones, set by Homeland Security. Who will gather and house all the information on people entering and exiting Canada, even to and from other countries? How will this information be used? There are millions of Americans on Homeland Security lists now. Will this information be used as a form of social control, to identify not terrorists, but activists and dissenters of government policy? Once your name is on a list, how will you challenge it?

Saturday, May 21, 2011

British human rights activist denied entry to Canada

A well-travelled British human rights activist and former Guantanamo Bay detainee said he was barred from boarding a direct flight from London to Toronto Friday because of concerns the aircraft could be diverted to the U.S.

Moazzam Begg was to speak at a Saturday conference on Islamophobia organized by the Canadian lawyer for Omar Khadr, 24, the Toronto-born Guantanamo prisoner convicted last fall of war crimes.

Begg said airline agents told him Canada’s High Commission in London informed them the issue was one of security. “They said to me the reason why they would not board me and take me to Canada is because, in the unlikely event they were rerouted to America, there could be a security concern,” Begg told the Star by telephone.

Article