our rights! our freedoms! our national security? · commission who went to serve notice to a ... so...

Summer 2017 JUSTnews 1

Volume 21, No. 1. SUMMER 2017

Security and Economics Issue

Our Rights! Our Freedoms! Our National Security?Summary of Tim McSorley’s AGM keynote address

CUSJ News …………… pp 1-7Economics and

- Disparity in Wealth …… 7-9- Climate Change ………. . 10

Mining & Social Justice .…..11

Inside this Issue:

The International Civil Liberties MonitoringGroup (ICLMG) came into being in 2001, in the

wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World TradeCentre. There is some confusion surrounding theconcept of “national security,” and the meaning canbe obscure.

Non-governmental or-ganizations such as CUSJgive hope that, working to-gether to organize events andcampaigns, we can confrontthe injustices arising whenthe concept of national secu-rity is misused. Now, on this35th anniversary of the Cana-dian Charter of Rights andFreedoms—we have tostrive to achieve an equilibri-um between human rightsand security. Some of themost benign activities, suchas a march for the environ-ment, can be tainted withsuspicion when such demon-strations are framed asthreats to national security.Yet, when we look at themost violent terrorist attacks,they are most often committed by white men whogrew up in Canada.

Some major concerns:● CSIS is secretive. We can’t know how they

get their information. Nonetheless, their re-ports are used as the basis for determiningnational security risks. A bias happens whenyour whole focus is on finding threats—yourview of what is a threat becomes broader andbroader. Extremism can happen within poli-tics, as we have seen in the Conservativeleadership debates and in the Anti-Islamo-phobia Motion M-103.

● In Edmonton an officer of the Human RightsCommission who went to serve notice to awhite supremacist was fatally shot, yet thiswas barely covered by the media. And whywas the shooting of six men in Québec City

less sensational than the killing of a soldier inOttawa? On Anti-Racism Day, there were an-ti-Muslim rallies and counter-rallies.

● Are we addressing the root problems in oursociety, or are we becoming what MichaelMoore described as a “fear-based society”?

McSorley noted that Islamo-phobia has been rising in theU.S. and in Europe. In theU.S., the Trump administra-tion has stated its intention tochange their “CounteringViolent Extremism” pro-gram to “Countering IslamicExtremism.” Meanwhile, inthe U.K., groups like RightsWatch UK have criticisedthe countries “Prevent” pro-gram for stifling free expres-sion and stigmatisingMuslim youth.

Powers the governmenthas given security agencies

There have always beeninstances when national se-curity trumps our rights.During the ’70s, we saw that

in the FLQ crisis and the Oka crisis. This is not a newidea, but it has been ramped up in recent years. Nowa-days we have Bill C-51. In Canada, we have the pre-sumption of innocence—and yet, security laws tend toerode that principle, and lead to abusive governmentpractices such as no-fly lists, secret trials, and so on.Any of us can be touched by the surveillance systemsset up by CSIS.

How intelligence and evidence is usedMost of us would never expect to have to go

through the ordealto which HassanDiab has been sub-jected. It is impor-tant to understandthe difference be-tween intelligence,

Tim McSorley with CUSJ President Margaret Rao (left) andthe Rev. Lynn Harrison at the CUSJ AGM, May 2017.


President Rao’s End of Year Message

CUSJ’s keynote speaker at our AGM, Tim McSorley, the National Coordinator of theInternational Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, was asked by the Reverend Lynn Harrison

what keeps him hopeful, as a human rights and Charter rights defender, in the face of so muchinjustice in the world. He replied that it was the existence of non-governmental organizationssuch as CUSJ and the work we do together, that keeps him optimistic. We elders owe it to Timand his generation, and to our ancestors before us, as well as to ourselves, to leave the world a better place thanwhen we first arrived. In turbulent times such as these, I am reminded of the last words of the late Jack Layton– “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us beloving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

May it be so and may the force be with us! Standing on the Side of Love and Justice!!Your appreciative President,Margaret Rao

“First they came for the Socialists…”.) Like surveil-lance, the No Fly list erodes our civil liberties.

Campaigns to improve the current situationCUSJ should continue to participate in the cam-

paign around Bill C-22, which ICLMG has been work-ing on since the Maher Arar case. We need stringentoversight of our national security bodies, and there areserious loopholes in this bill, so that agency activitieslack transparency, and citizens’ rights to privacy areoverlooked. Go to the ICLMG web site(www.http://iclmg.ca/) to send letters.

This article is an edited version of thereport by Cym Gomery of McSorley’skeynote address at the CUSJ AGM(www.cusj.org). Tim McSorley is amember of the International Civil Lib-erties Monitoring Group (ICLMG).

____________

which can be any information—including ru-mours—that has been gathered, and evidence,which is tangible and provable. ICLMG has lob-bied to stop the sharing of intelligence gatheredthrough human rights abuses such as torture.

McSorley described No Fly lists (NFLs) thatallow the government to compile secret lists ofcitizens deemed to be security threats, based onlyon ‘intelligence’. Someone who is on a NFL canthus arrive at an airport only to learn that they arenot allowed to leave the country. He suggestedthat a possible solution would be to extend thespecial advocate program to those on the NFL,and to those facing criminal charges.

Tellingly, things like the No Fly list don’tmake the news, because most people are person-ally unaffected by such things. (This brings tomind the famous poem by Martin Niemöller,

Our 2017 AGM in Toronto: Reviewing and renewing!by Cym Gomery

On Friday, May 12, 2017, CUSJ members from across Canada gathered in Toronto for our AGM, an occasion to lookback on our activities and successes in the past year, to take stock of the challenges that lie ahead, and to welcome

new Board members and new Chapters.The AGM took place at Don Heights Unitarian Congregation in Toronto. There were about 33 attendees: 22 CUSJ

members on site, and 11 participating remotely. The meeting was preceded by a delicious vegan buffet, with many disheswhose names I did not recognize, but which tasted delicious. There were no leftovers!

During the business meeting, we revisited the many social justice causes that CUSJ has championed in the course ofthe year (see pp. 4-6 and www.cusj.org). We said goodbye to Board members Ahti Tolvanen, Eryl Court and ChristinaDuvander, and welcomed new Board members Lynn Armstrong, Leslie Gillett, Gustavo Frederico, and Sally Palmer Woods.

Tim McSorley’s keynote address gave us a better understanding of the threats to our democracy, and renewed ourenergy to continue to speak out for greater limits on the powers of security agencies.

CUSJ gained three new Chapters over the past year: Thunder Bay, Quebec and the Islands Chapter, bringing the totalof active CUSJ Chapters and groups to at least seven.

Finally, we passed three new resolutions: one for a health-centred approach to psychoactive substances, a second forreforms to Canada’s criminal justice system, and a third, to continue the quest to bring Hassan Diab, a Canadian citizenimprisoned without charges in France since 2014, home to Canada.

Thanks to everyone who made this AGM a success, and to CUSJ members who are striving to make theworld a fairer and kinder place! May we nudge the world a little closer to justice in the year ahead!

This summary was posted on the CUSJ website (www.cusj.org) on May 16, 2017 by Cym Gomery, CUSJBoard Member and co-webmaster.


Canadians unwilling to exchangerights and freedoms for ‘security’

by Jack Dodds

“On balance, therefore, most participants in theseConsultations have opted to err on the side of

protecting individual rights and freedoms rather thangranting additional powers to national securityagencies and law enforcement, even with enhancedtransparency and independent oversight.”

So concludes the report on the National SecurityConsultation run by Canada’s Department of PublicSafety, which invited input from Canadians last year.The response was staggering: 58,933 responses to anonline questionnaire, 17,862 emails and 79 submis-sions from organizations and experts, including acomprehensive brief from CUSJ. The consultationalso included social media events, meetings with MPs,and public town halls where CUSJ was represented.

This consultation is part of a long-running nationaldebate about the appropriateness of giving specialpowers to national security agencies. In 1970, theMcDonald Commission investigated illegal activitiesof the RCMP. Debate intensified after the 1985 AirIndia bombing, which killed 329 people (most of themCanadian citizens) and then the 2001 World TradeCenter attack in the USA. In 2013 the Conservativegovernment enacted Bill C-13, giving police increasedaccess to online data, and in 2015 it enacted Bill C-51which gave security agencies broad power to sharedata and “disrupt” activities that “undermine thesecurity of Canada.” The current Liberalgovernment’s platform included a commitment to“fix” bill C-51, but it has not delivered. Meanwhile, inthe last year, Canadian security agencies haveconducted an intense campaign for more powers in theonline world. At times, the government has appearedbiased towards the security agency demands.

Governments out of step with the peopleThe present government and its predecessor have

seemed out of step with public opinion on this issue.In 2014, there was a strong reaction to revelations byEdward Snowden showing that Canadiansecurity agencies were more involved inpervasive online surveillance than the publichad known. Surveys by the PrivacyCommissioner showed that in 2014, 57% of uswere not comfortable with warrantless accessby the government to our telecommunicationsinformation, while in 2016, 81% of us wereconcerned about the government monitoring ouractivities for national security or public safetypurposes. The results of the latest consultation are nosurprise to anyone who has been paying attention. So,why does the debate continue? Security agency bureaucrats demand surveillance

and disruption powers to increase theireffectiveness. Government ministers listen to thebureaucrats, with whom they must deal every day.Some citizens argue that increasing the powers ofsecurity agencies will erode our civil liberties. Thispits an immediate, tangible concern—publicsecurity—against an intangible principle—humanrights and freedoms—without explaining howviolating that principle damages society.

CUSJ respondsCanadian UUs have attempted to provide an

explanation through various briefs, letters andsubmissions. We responded to the 2014 Snowdenrevelations with the CUC Resolution on PervasiveSurveillance, which cited our fifth principle of “theright of conscience and the use of the democraticprocess within our congregations and in society atlarge” and warned of the danger that surveillanceposes to democracy. In the CUSJ brief to theNational Security Consultation, we cited socialscience evidence that people obey the lawvoluntarily when they perceive it as legitimate, aperception that is undermined by inappropriatesecurity agency activities. We argued that ourdemocratic society is based on an equality of powerbetween citizens and the government. We citedphilosophers who maintain that moral characterdevelops only when people are free to do the rightthing by their own choice, not because they feardetection. The debate continues. In addition to the con-sultation conducted by the Department of PublicSafety, the parliamentary committee SECU(Standing Committee on Public Safety andNational Security) has conducted its own generalstudy, a study on Bill C-22 (establishing anoversight committee of parliamentarians) and astudy on Bill C-23 (giving US agents greaterpowers in customs pre-clearance areas in Canada).CUSJ submitted briefs to the three SECU studies.The government showed bias towards securityagency positions by rolling back SECU’samendments to Bill C-22. That bill has now gone to

the Senate; CUSJ has written some senatorsand will submit a brief. The CUSJ websiteincludes news items with links to all thesebriefs and letters. The results of the latest consultation mayinfluence the government, but we encourageUUs to express their

concerns to their MPs andsenators. Every voice makes adifference!

Jack Dodds is a member of FirstUnitarian Congegation of Toronto.

________________

CUSJ NEWS

Edward Snowden


Excerpts from CUSJ President’sReport 2016-2017: Looking

Back, Moving Forward

Another year has come and gone and I lookback with gratitude to the steadfast members

of the Board on whom I count for thoughtful direc-tion from week to week and month to month.

Special thanks to the Board’s Acting SecretaryMarlene Koehler. Marlene’s attention to detail andexpertise in policy-making were welcome gifts thispast year. Alas, Marlene is moving on, but as thisJUSTnews was going to presssomeone volunteered to take herplace (see below).

Our high-spirited Joy Silverhas been wearing two hats, Mem-bership Chair and Listserv Man-ager and has wisely decided toextend the Membership Chair toa new member of the Board,Lynn Armstrong. Joy is certainlya joy to work with, with her posi-tive, can-do attitude with everytask she takes on.

Another long-time and al-ways positive member of theBoard, Ellen Papenburg, is step-ping down from her role as Web-master. Ellen has handed thismantle to the more than capable,tech-savvy co-web editor Cym Gomery. Cymseems to manage both roles with ease, and keeps ontop of the latest news with her pithy and wittywebsite headings and comments. The other co-webeditor is Rev. Frances Deverell, past President andcontinuing member on the Board.

Cym was also instrumental in bringing thelatest CUSJ Québec chapter to the fold. This re-gional chapter includes members from three con-gregations, the Unitarian Church of Montréal, UUEstrie and the Lakeshore UU Congregation, plusone non-affiliated member.

I’m also thrilled to announce the start-up ofanother chapter, the Thunder Bay Chapter in north-ern Ontario. One of its members, Sally PalmerWoods, has agreed to take on the role of secretary.Thank you Sally for coming on ‘board’ at such acritical time in our nation’s and civilization’s his-tory.

Last, but not least, special thanks to our intrepideditor of JUSTnews, Philip Symons. This gem of ajournal has produced a loyal readership and in-

creased CUSJ membership over the years. Ourdeepest thanks to the editor for this inspired andinspiring quarterly newsletter.

CUSJ has been active on the following issuesthrough the past year. Further details may be foundon the CUSJ website (http://cusj.org/wp-content/uploads/CUSJ-AnnualReport2017-1.pdf).

CRA REFORMCUSJ was one of hundreds of charities and

non-profits that made a formal submission to theCanada Revenue Agency on charities’ politicalactivities and the critical role they play in Canadiansociety in matters of public policy debates. CUSJ

also wrote a letter to the Ministerof National Revenue, Ms. DianeLebouthillier, and joined theFriends of Canadian Charities Co-alition (FCCC).

Update: On May 8th, MinisterLebouthillier announced that theCharities Panel Report has includ-ed many of the recommendedchanges. Importantly, the reportasks that the rules governing thefreedom of Canadians to speak beenhanced by removing prohibi-tions on participation in publicpolicy development by the chari-ties they support.

ELECTORAL REFORMLast September, CUSJ, along

with hundreds of organizations and thousands ofindividuals, submitted a brief to the Special Parlia-mentary Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE).We urged the government to address Canada’sdemocratic deficit by enacting proportional repre-sentation. Despite the high participation and rec-ommendations made by his own SpecialCommittee, the Prime Minister suddenly and uni-laterally reneged on this key election promise.

NATIONAL SECURITYLast October, Jack Dodds and I presented a

brief, authored by Jack, on the National SecurityFramework, to the federal government’s StandingCommittee on Public Safety and National Security(SECU—see report by Jack Dodds, p. 3 this issue).

We also submitted a brief in response to theproposed National Security and Intelligence Over-sight Committee, Bill C-22, urging Parliament tobring democratic control to Canada’s securityagencies. Disappointingly, the government choseto reject SECU’s amended version of the bill,which now has First Reading in the Senate. CUSJ

CUSJ President Margaret Rao

CUSJ NEWS


its reputation by attending the UN Convention whenmember states meet again in June 2017.

PEACE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINEBoth last year and this, CUSJ

wrote letters to the Prime Minister,asking him to overturn the govern-ment motion condemning those whosupport the grassroots Boycott, Di-vest and Sanctions (BDS) movement.BDS is a non-violent campaign topressure Israel to cease its expansionof Jewish settlements and to stop vio-lating international law and Palestin-ians’ human rights.

CUSJ recently joined the ‘NoWay to Treat a Child’ campaign, onbehalf of children and youth de-tained and prosecuted in Israeli mili-

tary courts. CUSJ stands in solidarity with Palestinianpolitical prisoners currently on a hunger strike tohighlight the mass detention and inhumane treatmentof men, women and children in the hope of a peacefulresolution and a negotiated end to the occupation.

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CANADAIn light of the deadly attack on

a Quebec mosque by a home-grown 27-year-old ‘terrorist’ onJanuary 29th, 2017, CUSJ sent amessage of sympathy and solidarity to MohamedYangui, the President of the mosque that was target-ed, and to his congregants. CUSJ Toronto Chapter hastaken part in two anti-Islamophobia rallies to counterpublic rallies led largely by white supremacist groups.

INDIGENOUS ALLIESCUSJ supports the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission’s 94 Calls to Action. Kairos Canada’sWinds of Change campaign invites Canadians to sendan e-letter to their provincial MPPs/MLAs regardingCall to Action #62, in favour of implementing anage-appropriate curriculum on residential schools,treaties and Indigenous peoples’ contributions toCanada.

EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONSIn the changing labour market of precarious em-

ployment, faith leaders in Ontario (ordained and lay),including many Unitarian ministers and yours truly,signed a Faith Leaders Statement demanding greaterfairness for low income workers.

THE ENVIRONMENTIn a February letter to the PM, CUSJ pointed out

that his government’s approval of the expansion of

is following up. The final report is soon to bereleased.

Our latest brief, (also authored by Jack), wassubmitted in March to the SECU on the proposedPre-clearance Act for US Customs and BorderProtection, Bill C-23. The federal government hasbeen pressed to explain the need for this new legis-lation, but has not adequately done so.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACTCUSJ endorsed the Voices-Voix letter to the

Prime Minister, registering dismay at the govern-ment’s delay in needed reforms to Canada’s Accessto Information Act, despite repeated promises ofaction, and several consultations and recommenda-tions from the Office of the Information Commis-sioner and others.

HUMAN RIGHTSCUSJ members and supporters on the Hassan

Diab Support Committee have been championinghis case since 2008, when Dr. Diab was first de-tained by the Canadian govern-ment. Dr. Diab was extraditedto France in 2014. A Canadianjudge and French judges havecalled for Dr. Diab’s releasesix times now, only to have theruling overturned, time andagain, by the Court of Appeal. CUSJ has written tothe Prime Minister, to Foreign Affairs Minister MsChrystia Freeland, and Minister of Justice Ms JodyWilson-Raybould, twice in the past six months.Sample letters to the Ministers can be found atwww.justiceforhassandiab.org/. Please share theletters and parliamentary petition with family andfriends.

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN DYING (MAID)CUSJ wrote an open letter to the federal gov-

ernment prior to the passage of the ‘Right to DieWith Dignity’ legislation, Bill C-14. CUSJ’s Lob-by Kit on Medically Assisted Dying is still relevantfor irremediable chronic and degenerative diseasessuch as ALS and Alzheimer’s.

ABOLITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONSThe official 2016 Liberal Party platform called

for Canada to ‘commence negotiations for a Nucle-ar Weapons Convention that would ban nuclearweapons.’ But when the actual UN Nuclear Weap-ons Convention was called to order, Canada wasone of 35 countries that voted against the resolutionto negotiate a legally binding treaty prohibitingnuclear weapons. Our letter indicated that as amiddle power, Canada still has a chance to redeem

Currnt Palestini-an settlements

(shaded blocks)in Israel.

Dr Hassan Diab

CUSJ NEWS


the Trans Mountain Project and Line 3 pipelinemakes a mockery of Canada’s ratification of theCOP21 Paris Agreement. CUSJers can take theCoast Protector pledge to stop Kinder Morgan’sexpansion at www.coastprotectors.ca/. Find outwhat further measures you can take at CUSJ.org.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTSCUSJ’s Board members Leslie Kemp and

Cym Gomery wrote a cover article on the TPP inlast year’s spring edition of JUSTnews, roundlycondemning the latest ‘free trade agreement,’stating it would surpass NAFTA in ceding pow-ers to corporations. The hope was that the dealwould never be signed.

THE HIDDEN ECONOMYThe lead article in the

latest Discussion Paper ofJUSTnews (No. 33, Spring2017) is a sermon by Rev.Steven Epperson. He expos-es the dark side of the econo-my—offshore bank accountsand shell companies, set upby law firms and financiersdedicated to concealing the identities of theirwealthy clients and multinational companies whowish to avoid paying taxes. Reverend Eppersonprovided us with a sample letter to write to theMinister of Finance, Bill Morneau.

A NEW ECONOMYAn earlier JUSTnews Discussion Paper (No.

27, Winter 2013-14) calls for a new economicand political system that takes into account thehuman-made climate crisis. The discussion paperproposes a progressive taxation system and alimit to annual spending. In the meantime, thesurplus in the bank could be used to pay for aGuaranteed Liveable Income for the unem-ployed. In the same JUSTnews edition, authorand activist George Monbiot opines that a BasicIncome Guarantee (BIG) would offer ‘a spark ofhope’ for the poorer half of the population inthese inequitable times. The Discussion Paperalso calls for tax shifting—taxing what we don’twant while removing taxes on what we do want.

Do these radical solutions spark some radicalideas on your part? Where there is political willfor radical change there is a way for-ward! Standing on the Side of Loveand Justice!

Your appreciative President,Margaret Rao

_________________

Dismissal of COMER’s lawsuitkeeps Canada’s finances in hock

to foreign interestsby Cym Gomery

“Once a nation parts with the control of its curren-cy and credit, it matters not who makes the nation’slaws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.Until the control of the issue of currency and creditis restored to government and recognized as itsmost sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereign-ty of parliament and of democracy is idle and fu-tile.” William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874-1950),Prime Minister of Canada.

On May 4th, 2017, the Supreme Court dismissedthe appeal of the Committee for Monetary and

Economic Reform (COMER) lawsuit, which hadbeen filed back in December 2011.

The lawsuit attempted to restore the use of theBank of Canada to its original purpose of makinginterest-free loans to all levels of government for“human capital” expenditures (education, health,other social services) and/or infrastructure expendi-tures.

The action also constitutionally challenged thegovernment’s accounting meth-ods, accusing the government ofhiding the true and total reve-nues of the nation, which wereinstead transferred to corpora-tions and other taxpayers as taxcredits.

Origins of the lawsuitWhy was this lawsuit need-

ed? Back in December of 1974,a closed door meeting at theBank of International Settle-ments (BIS) resulted in the for-

eign-owned BIS taking control of Canada’sfinances. Since that fateful day, the Bank of Canadaand Canada’s monetary and financial policy havecome to be increasingly dictated by private foreignbanks and financial interests, which contra-venes the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs note that the BIS, the FinancialStability Forum (FSF) and the International Mone-tary Fund (IMF) were all created in an attempt tokeep poorer nations in their place, and this controlhas spread to the point that these financial institu-tions override governments and constitutional or-ders even in G7 countries such as Canada.

COMER also rejects the idea of a public-pri-vate Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has been

CUSJ NEWS

One-hundred and threeyear old William

Krehm, co-founder ofCOMER.


proposed as a solution, arguing that the Bank ofCanada, nationalized in 1938 during the height ofthe Great Depression, worked very well as Cana-da’s infrastructure Bank until 1975.

In their press release about the dismissed law-suit, the COMER is phlegmatic: at least the courtcase has publicized the extent to which Canada isnot sovereign over its own finances, something thatmany of us did not fully understand. COMER plansto continue its quest to educate Canadians, and toreturn the control of Canadians’ money to Canadi-ans and the Bank of Canada.

All the talk of security and security agencies inthe press these days is a distraction. Control of ourown finances is the kind of security that Canadiansreally need.

CUSJ President Margaret Rao sits on the Board ofthe Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform(COMER), established as a think tank in 1986 byWilliam (Bill) Krehm and the late Dr. John Hotson.

This article was posted on theCUSJ website (www.cusj.org) onMay 30, 2017, by Cym Gomery,CUSJ Board Member and co-webmaster. _________________

CUSJ NEWS & ECONOMICSthe evidence and arguments in The Spirit Level,which placed income inequality firmly within pub-lic debate and argued strongly that we should in-deed be concerned about it. This report is notintended to be the final word on this debate, notleast because new research findings are constantlybeing published. This report is intended, instead, tocontribute to the ongoing debate on this importanttopic.

Key findings• The evidence from a range of studies suggests

that there is indeed a correlation between in-come inequality and health and social prob-lems. However, some further correlationanalysis would be helpful in testing how sensi-tive the findings are to different measures ofsocial stratification, different measures of in-come inequality, variations in the countriesselected, and the treatment of outliers.

• Within any particular society, those with higherincomes do better on a range of factors. Thereis a ‘social gradient’ in health, which meansthat every step up the socio-economic ladderleads to an increase in health. It is less clearwhether every step up the ladder improveshealth by the same degree.

• More recent studies have moved from simplecorrelation analyses to investigations intowhether income inequality causes health andsocial problems independent of other factors.Some rigorous studies provide evidence ofsuch a relationship.

• Where studies show that income inequality caus-es health and social problems, the size of thiseffect looks small in statistical terms. However,since these studies involve whole populations,the numbers of lives involved are significant.One study, for example, suggested that the lossof life from income inequality in the US in1990 was the equivalent of the combined lossof life due to lung cancer, diabetes, motor-vehi-cle accidents, HIV-related causes, suicide andhomicide.

• Some research suggests that inequality is partic-ularly harmful after it reaches a certain thresh-old. Britain was below this threshold in the1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, but then rosepast it in 1986–7 and has settled well above thatthreshold since 1998–9. If the threshold is in-deed significant, it could provide a target forpolicy.

• The most plausible explanation for income ine-quality’s apparent effect on health and socialproblems is that it places people in a hierarchy

Does income inequality causehealth and social problems?

by Karen Rowlingson

Inequality grew dramatically in the 1980s and hasremained at a high level ever since. But should

high levels of inequality concern us? This reportprovides an independent review of the research,paying particular attention to the evidence and ar-guments put forward in The Spirit Level by RichardWilkinson and Kate Pickett, in which it was arguedstrongly that we should indeed be concerned aboutincome inequality (summarized in JUSTnews Dis-cussion Paper No. 22, Autumn 2011). This reportreviews the points made in various critiques thathave appeared since The Spirit Level was firstpublished in 2009, alongside the evidence and de-bate in the broader peer-reviewed literature.

Executive SummaryThe UK witnessed a dramatic growth in income

inequality in the 1980s and the level of inequalityhas, if anything, increased further since then, albeitat a slower rate (National Equality Panel, 2010).This report provides an independent review of theresearch in this field, paying particular attention to


ECONOMICS & DISPARITY IN WEALTHthat increases status competition and causesstress, which leads to poor health and othernegative outcomes.

• Not all research studies have shown an independ-ent effect of income inequality on health andsocial problems. Some studies highlight the roleof other factors such as material circumstances(individual income), culture/history, ethnicityand welfare state institutions/social policies. Fur-ther empirical research could be conducted to testcompeting hypotheses.

• There has been some research comparing differ-ent groups in different countries, which suggeststhat those in lower socio-economic groups inmore equal countries do better than those inlower socio-economic groups in more unequalcountries. Indeed, they may sometimes do betterthan those in higher socio-economic groups inmore unequal countries. Further studies wouldbe very welcome.

• Income inequality may have positive effects oneconomic growth by providing incentives towork, but the evidence to support this is weak.

• This is a highly complex area both theoreticallyand methodologically, but the main conclusionis that there is some evidence that income ine-quality has negative effects. There is hardly anyevidence that it has positive effects.

Policy implicationsGiven that the main conclusion is that both

individual income (material circumstances) andincome inequality (relative income) make a differ-ence to health and social problems, it seems clearthat both need to be tackled. A range of policylevers can be used to do this: from redistributionthrough the tax/benefit system, to original incomeand wealth policies, to stronger public services to agreater focus on equal opportunities.

Karen Rowlingson is Pro-fessor of Social Policy andDirector of Research at theInstitute of Applied SocialStudies, University of Bir-mingham, and is also a mem-ber of the ExecutiveCommittee of the UK’s So-cial Policy Association.

The full document may be found at:https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/inequality-income-social-problems-full.pdf. Posted September 2011.

____________________

Six policies to reduce economicinequality

by John A. Powell

Almost three years ago, Occupy Wall Street firstraised the consciousness of Americans about

the wide economic disparity between the richestone percent versus the 99 percent of U.S. earners.New Federal Reserve data confirm that wealth andincome inequality in the U.S. is accelerating.

Results from the Fed’s 2013 Survey of Con-sumer Finances show that the top 3 percent own54.4 percent of Ameri-ca’s wealth, an increaseof almost 45 percentsince 1989, and the bot-tom 90 percent own on-ly 24.7 percent ofwealth, a drop of 33.2percent over the sameperiod. Similarly, theshare of total incomefor the top 3 percent offamilies rose whencompared to 2010, butthe bottom 90 percentof families saw theirshare of total incomedecline.

While discourag-ing, it is important forAmericans to under-stand that inequality isnot the inevitable sideeffect of capitalism.Public policy can help to reduce inequality andaddress poverty without slowing U.S. economicgrowth. The following six evidence-based policy

Billionaire businessmenDavid Thomson is one of thetwo richest Canadians, with acombined wealth equallingthat of the poorest 30 % of

the country combined.(Norm Betts / Bloomberg

News file photo).

Occupy Wall Street demonstration.


solutions can have a positive effect on reversingrising inequality, closing economic disparitiesamong subgroups and enhancing economic mobili-ty for all.

1. Increase the minimum wage.Research shows that higher wages for the low-

est-paid workers have the potential to help nearly4.6 million people out of poverty and add approxi-mately $2 billion to the nation's overall real income.Additionally, increasing the minimum wage doesnot hurt employment nor does it retard economicgrowth.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.In recent years [in the U.S.], the Earned Income

Tax Credit (EITC) has been shown to have a posi-tive impact on families, lifting roughly 4.7 millionchildren above the poverty line on an annual basis.Increases in the EITC can pull more children out ofpoverty while providing more economic support forthe working poor, especially single parents enteringthe workforce.

3. Build assets for working families.Policies that encourage higher savings rates and

lower the cost of building assets for working andmiddle class households can provide better eco-nomic security for struggling families. New pro-grams that automatically enrol workers inretirement plans and provide a savings credit or afederal match for retirement savings could helplower-income households build wealth. Access tofair, low-cost financial services and home owner-ship are also important pathways to wealth.

4. Invest in education.Differences in early education and school qual-

ity are the most important components contributingto persistent inequality across generations. Invest-ments in education, beginning in early childhoodwith programs like Head Start and Universal Pre-Kindergarden, can increase economic mobility,contribute to increased productivity and decreaseinequality.

5. Make the tax code more progressive.Tax rates for those at the top have declined

even as their share of income and wealth has in-creased dramatically. We have created bad tax pol-icy by giving capital gains (profits from the sale ofproperty or investments) special privileges in our[U.S] country’s tax code—privileges that give in-vestment income more value than actual work.Capital gains tax rates must be adjusted to be in linewith income tax rates. Savings incentives structured

ECONOMICS & DISPARITY IN WEALTHas refundable tax credits, which treat every dollarsaved equally, can provide equal benefits for lower-income families.

6. End residential segregation.Higher levels of racial residential segregation

within a metropolitan region are strongly correlatedwith significantly reduced levels of intergeneration-al upward mobility for all residents of that area.

Segregation by income, particularly the isolation oflow-income households, also correlates with signif-icantly reduced levels of upward mobility. Elimi-nating residential segregation by income and racecan boost economic mobility for all.

All of these policies could be enacted at thelocal, state and federal levels if there is politicalwill. While there are still some disagreements aboutthe best way to reduce inequality, there is a growingconsensus that inequality should be reduced.

Recently the IMF joined this consensus infinding that inequality reduces overall economygrowth, and challenges basic democratic principlesand fairness. But getting policymakers to prioritisethese policies will depend on the actions of advo-cates, voters and other supporters with a vision fora fair and inclusive society so strong that theyoverwhelm powerful forces that seek to maintainthe status quo.

http://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/six-policies-reduce-economic-ine-quality. This article originally ap-peared on the Huffington Post,09/09/2014. John Powell is Direc-tor of the Haas Institute.

The ideas expressed on the Haas Institute blogare not necessarily those of the University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, or the Division of Equity & Inclu-sion, where the Haas Institute website is hosted.

________________


Capitalism and Climate Changeby Alyssa Rohricht

M any argue that market and techno-based ap-proaches are the way to combat climate

change. They push for carbon taxing and trading,geo-engineering, and renewable energy without con-sidering the fact that the system itself is incompatiblewith sustainability. By its very nature, capitalism seeksonly to grow and accumulate, an idea that is diametri-cally opposed to a sustainable existence. In this series,I will examine how the capitalist system has brought usto climate disaster, and why it cannot get us out of it.A. Rohricht

The Growth ProblemEcological economist Herman Daly perhaps best

emphasized the issue of unlimited economic growthacting within a limited environment. He called the ideaof sustainable growth a “bad oxymoron” that is simplyimpossible.

Impossibility statements are the very foundation ofscience. It is impossible to: travel faster than the speedof light; create or destroy matter-energy; build a per-petual motion machine, etc. By respecting impossibil-ity theorems we avoid wasting resources on projectsthat are bound to fail. Therefore economists should bevery interested in impossibility theorems, especiallythe one to be demonstrated here, namely that it isimpossible for the world economy to grow its way outof poverty and environmental degradation. In otherwords, sustainable growth is impossible.

Earth’s ecosystem is finite, yet our culture hasdeveloped a system whereby economic stability isgained only through unlimited growth. Within thecapitalist market system, growth is essential, and thelarger the growth, the healthier the economy. Whengrowth slows, or worse, stops entirely, the system is incrisis.

Sustainable World Population ExceededEcological health, on the other hand, is experienc-

ing its own crisis as climate change threatens the stabil-ity of the entire planet. We’ve already exceeded theearth’s carrying capacity, and yet unfettered growth ofthe world’s population and greater resource consump-tion have continued. The Worldwatch Institute estimat-ed that if the world consumed resources at the samerate per person as the average person in the UnitedStates, the Earth could support only 1.4 billion people.A world population of 6.2 billion (a number we’vealready far exceeded) could only support an averageper capita income at about $5,100 per year. In the US,the average income per year is about $28,000.

Yet reducing our consumptive habits is antitheticalto the capitalist enterprise, which functions only if theeconomy is growing. We have created a world systemwhere economic health is directly opposed to environ-

mental health. Capitalism necessitates ever increasingresource use, while the natural capacities of the envi-ronment require a severe cutback in consumption.

Earth’s Carrying Capacity ExceededDirectly opposed to the constant need for

growth are Earth’s natural systems and carrying capac-ity. Scientists at the Stockholm Resilience Centre ana-lysed several of Earth’s systems and calculated the“planetary boundaries” for each that are vital to main-taining an environment liveable for humans. Many ofthese boundaries have already been exceeded. In thecase of carbon dioxide, the pre-industrial value was280 parts per million (ppm) concentrated in the atmos-phere. The planetary boundary is estimated at 350ppm. Currently, the earth is at 390 ppm.

The measurements for biodiversity loss read simi-larly dire. Some of the systems measured for the plan-etary boundary have not yet been surpassed, yet thedata are hardly comforting: the phosphorus cycle (thequantity flowing into the oceans) had a pre-industrialvalue of 1 million tons, the boundary is estimated at 11million tons, and the current status is 8.5 to 9.5 milliontons.

Ocean acidification, freshwater use, and land useare likewise teetering at the precipice of disaster. Andyet, in the face of this potential catastrophe, capitalismwould have us only grow more.

Land use for agriculture and development areencouraged in order to grow the economy and increasecapital, freshwater is being used at alarming rates forindustrial production and industrial farming, rivers,lakes, and the oceans are being polluted with plastics,heavy metals, runoff from farmlands using pesticidesand other chemicals, and as temperatures increasefrom the burning of fossil fuels, the temperature of theplanet rises, further increasing ocean acidification andpermafrost melt. This “healthy” economy is leading toa very unhealthy planet.

Alyssa Rohricht maintains The Black CatRevolution and can be reached [email protected]. This article was posted on May29, 2014. _________________

ECONOMICS & CLIMATE CHANGE

Redrawn from Beyond the Limits by Meadows,Meadows and Randers, 1992.


Violence and Canadian MiningCompanies in Latin America

by Marina Jimenez

Executive SummaryThe Justice and Corporate Accountability Project

of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School hasdocumented troubling incidents of violence associatedwith Canadian mining companies in Latin America. Ingeneral, neither the Canadian government nor industryare monitoring or reporting these incidents.

This Report documents incidents from 2000-2015that are corroborated by at least two independent sourc-es. We found:• incidents involving 28 Canadian companies;• 44 deaths, 30 of which we classify as “targeted”;• 403 injuries, 363 of which occurred during protests

and confrontations;• 709 cases of “criminalization”, including legal com-

plaints, arrests, detentions and charges; and• a widespread geographic distribution of documented

violence: deaths occurred in 11 countries,injuries were suffered in 13 countries, andcriminalization occurred in 12 countries.In addition, our research shows that Cana-

dian companies that are listed on the TorontoStock Exchange do not include reports of vio-lence in their mandatory reports on companyperformance. Between 2000-2015:• publicly listed companies reported 24.2% of

the deaths and 12.3% of the injuries listedin this report; and

• larger companies tended to report incidents ingeneral terms, using blanket statements, whereassmaller companies tended to report in more detail.

What is significant about this study?This report on violence and criminalization associ-

ated with the Canadian mining industry in Latin Amer-ica is the first to:• compile information on reported violence over a 15-

year period;• name the companies involved and seek company

comments on the incidents; and• provide details and sources of the incidents, so that

third parties may reproduce our results.

These incidents appear to be tip of the icebergDuring our study we came across many reports of

deaths, injuries and cases of criminalization that wecould not include because they could not be corroborat-ed through two independent sources. We were not ableto include death threats, deliberate burning of crops andproperty destruction, forced displacement, reported as-sassination attempts without reported injury, illnessfrom environmental contamination, or psychologicaltrauma from any of the violence due to the extensiveresources required to document these incidents. Theviolence reported is only from countries in Latin Amer-ica, and does not cover Canadian mines in other parts ofthe world.

Canadian companies being noticed for the wrong reasonsCanada has been criticized internationally for its lack of

oversight of Canadian mining companies. Canada is singledout because more mining companies are domiciled in Canadathan in other countries; 41% of the large mining companiespresent in Latin America are Canadian.• Four United Nations bodies have called on Canada to hold

Canadian companies accountable for their operationsoverseas.

• The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has hadthree hearings on the accountability of Canadian miningcompanies and called on Canada to adopt measures toprevent “multiple human rights violations.”

• In June 2016, 180 organizations from Latin America sent aletter to Prime Minister Trudeau demanding action onpromises for a mechanism for corporate and state account-ability.

Government policies not addressing the problemThe Canadian government continues to rely on volun-

tary, non-enforceable Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)codes to measure company conduct. The two main govern-

ment offices responsible for CSR are the Office of theExtractive Sector Corporate Social ResponsibilityCounsellor (CSR Counsellor) and the National ContactPoint (NCP) under the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Neither office conducts investigations, nor dothey have the power to sanction companies directly orcompensate victims. Their only power is to recom-mend the withdrawal of Canadian government finan-cial and embassy support.

There is no indication that there is any systematicreview of company behaviour nor any publicly availa-

ble information to indicate that the current CSR Counsellorhas responded to reports of violence or considered withdraw-ing Canadian embassy support.

Government can handle more complaintsThe international community demands a more robust

accountability mechanism, but opponents claim that the gov-ernment does not have the capacity to handle the claims.There is no evidence that the current CSR Counsellor, nor theNCP, have too many cases to handle.• The CSR Counsellor was established in 2009 and has

handled only six complaints.• The current CSR Counsellor’s website shows no indication

of any investigations, disputes, dialogues or any engage-ment with specific conflicts.

• The current CSR Counsellor has no annual report and theonly publications are news reports of six speeches madeby the CSR Counsellor since his appointment in 2015.

• The NCP only dealt with one case in 2015 and five cases intotal since 2011.

Marina Jimenez is a foreign writer with theToronto Star and writes about everythingfrom Latin America and the global drug tradeto Europe's migrant issues. Mon., Oct. 24,2016. ___________________

MINING AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

The current CSRCounsellor has

not responded toreports ofviolence or

considered with-drawingEmbassysupport.


JUSTnews is published byCanadian Unitarians for Social Justice

www.cusj.org

PresidentMargaret Rao

Editorial CommitteePhilip Symons, Editor, Don Vipond,

and Leslie Gillett

Production and Proof ReadingPhilip Symons, Alastaire Henderson,

and Debra Mair

Distribution ListsJoy Silver

Submissions to or enquiries regardingJUSTnews should be addressed to:

Philip Symons, Editor JUSTnews1394 Vista Hts.

Victoria, BC, V8T 2J3

Phone 250 [email protected]

The views published herein do not nec-essarily reflect views and opinions ofthe Canadian Unitarian Council, Cana-dian Unitarians for Social Justice or allCanadian Unitarian Universalists.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The CUSJ purposes are:• to develop and maintain a vibrant network of Unitarian social

action in Canada and elsewhere and to proactively representUnitarian principles and values in matters of social justiceand in particular

• to provide opportunities, including through publication ofnewsletters, for Unitarians and friends to apply their religious,humanistic and spiritual values to social action aimed at therelief of (1) poverty and economic injustice, (2) discriminationbased on religious, racial or other grounds, (3) abuses ofhuman rights whether of individuals or peoples, (4) abuses ofdemocratic process, and

• to promote peace and security, environmental protection,education, and literacy in keeping with the spirit of Unitarianvalues.

These purposes are an integral part of the Constitution ofCUSJ, adopted at the CUSJ Annual Meeting in Mississauga,ON, May 19, 1999, and amended at the 2003 AGM.

I agree with the above Statement of Purpose, and wishto

join or renew membership in CUSJ.

Enclosed please find my donation of $__________

Name________________________________________

Address______________________________________

______________________________________

Tel ( )________________Postal Code____________

Email________________________________________

Add me to the CUSJ ListServ: yes no

I would like to receive my JUSTnews Newsletter by:

Post e-mail

Name of Congregation (if a UU member):

______________________________________________

Date:___________________

Please mail to: CUSJ Membership, c/o Gary Campbell,122-1601 Prince of Wales Drive, Ottawa, ON, K2C 3P8

Publications mail agreement No. 40037866

Return address:52-3190 Tahsis Ave.Coquitlam, B.C.V3B 6G1 Printed on recycled paper

our rights! our freedoms! our national security? · commission who went to serve notice to a ... so...

Documents