A host of recent developments in the UK had threatened the press' ability to hold powerful people and institutions to account, the report found, including what it called an “alarming” proposal by the Law Commission to replace the Official Secrets Act with an updated Espionage Act.
The move “could make it easy to jail journalists as 'spies’ for obtaining leaked information and see them jailed for up to 14 years”, the report found.
RFS also criticised the Government over the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act, saying the new law contained insufficient protections for whistleblowers, journalists and their sources.
Ever wondered why does the Left whack the unsuspecting middle classes with the salvos of politically correct intolerance? Why did radical Left o focus on black Americans, working hard to radicalize them even after all the legislation has been equalized? Ever wondered why the Radical Left and the academics are now focusing hard at radicalizing LGBT community setting them up against a generally tolerant mainstream society, creating artificial conflicts where there has been none and escalating various issues and pressing new demands? Ever wondered who and why exactly unleashed a flood of bogus refugees upon Western Europe, accusing everybody who spoke against to be "racist"? Why are "Antifa" actions so frequently violent? Why have so many of the university campuses became riddled with SJW radicals, becoming intolerant against a free debate? It has all been written below and planned since early 1960-ties. It is called a "Repressive Tolerance" theory by Herbert Marcuse. Since he recognized the fact that by 1960-ties Marxism has failed because the tolerant Western societies have largely satisfied the needs and aspirations of the working classes reducing their desire to change anything in the society. Furthermore, the radical left was no longer very successful in organizing the radical groups around various ideas because the society was already so tolerant of multiple ideas and allowed expression of so many ways of life and thoughts that there was no real need to be radical about anything. One can just do, say or worship almost anything, within the law.
Marcuse came up with the idea that in order to change (read - destroy) the existing order in the society, one has to attack the source of the "problem" (from his point of view) - the tolerance itself. He came up with the idea that in order to radicalize a minority and make them rally around a single cause, one has to dispense with any idea of tolerance to diverging views within that community, then keep pressing demands upon the mainstream society accusing them of intolerance, then escalating demands up to a point when the society begins firing back reverting from the tolerance into self-preservation mode, giving more opportunities to accusing the mainstream society of oppression. Eventually those accusations may turn out to be true, and a minority may have to pay a high price, however the main goal of the leftist radicals is not helping any minorities' causes - these are just their tools, but rather of destroying or destabilizing the society.
Last but not least. I believe that the Left, the Statism, Collectivism and all social manipulators will sooner or later fail here because Humans are wonderfully unpredictably disorganized, irreverend and noncompliant!
Po czym rozpoznać marksizm? Krzysztof Karoń [in Polish, "How to recognize Marxism"]
Note: above video essay is fascinating. The author is putting a thesis that marxists and socialists lost out because most of the working class people choose good work ethics and organic work leading to organic economic growth benefiting an entire society, over their proposed revolutionary path. To counter that trend, the Left decided to undercut and denigrate the organic growth and good work ethics by undermining the entire professional education system in the West. There is a lot more, very insightful presentation and well worth watching.
It appears that the birth certificate of Ms Monsef that was used on her immigration Canada is not valid:
Ms. Monsef says she only learned about her Iranian birthplace last Thursday when approached by The Globe and Mail, which had been making inquiries about how she came to Canada in 1996 when she was age 11.
Problem:
Her claim that the family fled Afghanistan's Taliban must be not entirely correct either.
She was born in Iran in 1985, while Taliban was in Power between 1996 and 2001!
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban )
In 1985 Afghanistan was ruled by Soviet protege Babrak Karmal while an Islamic insurgency (pre-Taliban) supported by Americans was going on, quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
The Soviet war in Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Afghans, mostly civilians,[49][50][51] and the creation of about 6 million refugees who fled Afghanistan, mainly to Pakistan and Iran.[52] Faced with mounting international pressure and numerous casualties, the Soviets withdrew in 1989 but continued to support Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah until 1992.[53]
Her family was fleeing a pro Soviet state not Taliban! Pakistan was at that time pro-US, while Iran was anti-US. What is her family true origin? Iranian/Dari? Pashtu? Pakistani? Other? Why is Ms Monsef dribbling the small bits of facts about herself drop by drop rather than come up in full for the sake of truth? Why not?
Plot thickens. It turns out this may not have been such a surprise, since some of her friends knew it all along. How many more lies inaccuracies are going to be found?
(3-Oct-2016) It looks like the Trudeau's Liberal government is pursuing draconian deportation and revocation law with a vigor matching that of Mr. Harper's. Meanwhile our local Liberal representative appears to have done nothing to address this issue while she still could. That is until her own case came to the light.
... Monsef could be stripped of her citizenship without a hearing under a law the Liberals denounced while in opposition but which they’ve been enforcing aggressively since taking power, civil liberties and refugee lawyers say.
...
If Monsef’s birthplace was misrepresented on her refugee claim and was relevant to the ruling on her case, her citizenship could be revoked, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or the fault of her mother, said immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman. She could even be deported, said Waldman, part of a group that launched a constitutional challenge of the law Monday.
...
The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association argue that the citizenship revocation law, known as Bill C-24, is procedurally unfair and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Josh Paterson, the BCCLA’s executive director, said Monsef’s case demonstrates the absurdity of the law, which was passed by the previous Conservative government. "The minister’s situation ... is exactly the kind of situation that many other Canadians are facing right now because of this unjust process," Paterson told a news conference.
"When we get a parking ticket, we have a right to a court hearing ... You leave your garbage in the wrong place and you get a ticket, you have the right to a hearing and yet for citizens to lose their entitlement to membership in Canada based on allegations of something they may or may not have said 20 years ago, they have no hearing? It just doesn’t make any sense."
Nevertheless, repeated requests that the government stop enforcing the law until it can be changed have been ignored. As recently as two weeks ago, Paterson said Justice Department lawyers informed his group that the law would continue to be enforced.
Indeed, he said the Liberal government has been enforcing the law "aggressively," setting targets to strip 40 to 60 Canadians each month of their citizenship.
McCallum said Monday that the government is "certainly considering options for changes" in the law. He did not say why the government is enforcing it with such zeal in the meantime.
His department, meanwhile, denied that it imposes a target for the number of revocations each month. But it does have "performance standards targets" to ensure it has the resources to efficiently review and resolve cases.
According to the department, 206 individuals have been stripped of their citizenship since May 2015 - about 18 per month.
Waldman said he’ll be in court next month on a case similar to Monsef’s, in which "the government is seeking to revoke the citizenship of two children who came to Canada at a very young age, not because of anything they said but because their father allegedly misrepresented on his application for permanent residence."
"So even though the children are completely innocent ... the government is still going after the children, saying that because their father lied on his application, they should lose their citizenship and their permanent residence as well," Waldman said.
