You have a right to privacy.

Your privacy is under attack! The only search engine that does not record your IP address.

"Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance." Winston Churchill

If people no longer expect objectivity from their political and legal systems, then all justice will be reduced to a power struggle between conflicting and irreconcilable perspectives, a struggle in which the most dominant and pervasive bias will replace fair and impartial process as the character of justice. But if objectivity in law and politics is everywhere supplanted by conflict between subjective interests, then the side of economic privilege and established authority will always retain dominance. A society in which people no longer expect representatives of its major institutions even to attempt to render objectivity in their professional demeanours is a society whose major institutions are in a crisis of ethical legitimacy. In such a society, there is wide spread cynicism regarding the possibility of fair political process because it seems impossible that impartial, unbiased dispositions could exist to enact such processes.

Robert Nicholls

Language and Logic

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Industrial Apartied - How to stop the New World Order - And How a Canada-China investment deal allows for confidential lawsuits against Canadian Taxpayers, chicom veto over Canadian law

 My Comment for today:
It is not any one event or story that gives us the big picture but the information in aggregate. We the people are not happy about what we are seeing. The other day I was listening to an interview by Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the treasury, an insider at the highest level of government. He was speaking about how the economy was outsourced to the communist chinese. Shortly after I left the house and saw a police car painted over all black, no sirens. Inside was an officer wearing all black (unusual) black armor everything. His kit resembled what they wear when they disperse protests. I was followed to my destination.

I can remember when I was younger learning about the rise of fascism and asking how could the people be so calm almost accepting of their fate? Why did not more people leave ahead of time? Why did they not feel threatened by the big guys in black with guns? Now I understand a little bit better their lack of fear. When you get old, you are too old to be afraid. You see the world with different eyes.

We are living in a system I like to call "Industrial Apartheid". I wanted to coin this phase publicly so it would be granted some immunity from the memory hole.  

All regions have a right to industrial capacity. All people have a right to opportunity. When wealth is concentrated in one place, china the worlds factory, the rest of the worlds people are denied opportunity to use their talents to benefit humanity. A new economic system must be established based on localized production, democratic accountability, environmental sustainability, and human rights protection. 

We must resist the rise of Globalist Corporate Fascism. The New World Order we are living in amounts to Industrial Apartheid. I have been researching, and would like to elaborate more but I don't have time right now. About a week ago I came across an article that illuminated how the New World Order could be stopped. Ukraine trade demand shocks global partners.  
Notice the chosen photo is clearly propaganda. Basically the existing wto system that underpins the New World Order and created huge trade imbalances/ deficits has a weak spot. When countries raise tariffs they have to raise them equally on all trade partners. This presents difficulty because large nations with very diversified trade have an incentive not to retaliate for fear of affecting trade with other nations. A domino effect could have nations making strategic calculations on tariff policy that could have large and potential disruptive effects on trade flows. This potential chain reaction is a good thing as the current system of trade is unbalanced unsustainable and privately controlled by corporations and the communist party of china.

I have no time. I have to go now. Pray the black shirts don't get a hold of me.

Here's an article you might like:               

This is a credible source. There has been a lot of scholarly research published about international trade and investment law. It's out there for anyone to find, just look up "investor state provisions". I have spend countless hours studying these things.  They essentially are a way for the corrupt and powerful to get around democratic decision making, and while their at it steal taxpayers money.

The author of this article is Gus Van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School where he specializes in international investment law. His research on investor-state arbitration is available at and

Canada-China investment deal allows for confidential lawsuits against Canada

The Harper government is very keen on Chinese investment. On this there is little doubt, now that the Canada-China investment deal has been released.
The deal will tie the hands of Canadian governments, especially in the resource sector, once Chinese firms buy Canadian assets. It allows Chinese companies to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Remarkably, the lawsuits can proceed behind closed doors. This shift to secrecy reverses a long-standing policy of the Canadian government.
Under the deal, Chinese firms can sue in special tribunals to protect themselves from Canadian government decisions. Canadian companies can do the same against China. The technical name for this is “investor-state arbitration.” In Canada, it has been in operation since NAFTA.
In turn, any decision by any state entity in Canada — from federal or provincial legislation to a Supreme Court of Canada decision — can be challenged by a Chinese investor. The arbitrators, if they conclude that the decision violates flexible standards of investor protection, can issue orders and award damages against a country.
On the other hand, no one in Canada including the government will be able, under the deal, to sue a Chinese investor for breaking any laws. The claims are one-way. Also, only the federal government can participate in the arbitrations. Provincial governments, Canadian companies and other constituencies have no right of standing even if their interests are affected directly.
There is reason to doubt the independence of the arbitration process. Unlike judges, the arbitrators do not have secure tenure and set salaries. They depend for business on investors (to bring the claims) and on arbitration houses (to choose the arbitrators when the disputing parties disagree). Further, the arbitrators’ decisions on legal issues are not subject to judicial review.
So, it is prudent to ask, who are the arbitrators more likely to see as the major country, Canada or China?
Canada has a mixed record in investor-state arbitration. We have lost about half of the decided cases against the government, all by U.S. companies under NAFTA. Canada has had to pay about $160 million in compensation, with another award pending in a case involving research and development rules for the Hibernia and Terra Nova offshore projects.
Worse, Canadian investors have sued other countries, usually the U.S., 16 times and lost every case. We have lost on softwood lumber, cattle and gold mining. We have lost on gasoline additives, hemp and funeral homes. We have lost on a lot of things.
It is reasonable to expect that Chinese investors will use the Canada-China deal to pressure governments in Canada, especially in the resource sector. About one in five investor lawsuits involves a resource dispute. At least nine of the U.S. lawsuits against Canada under NAFTA have related to resources.
Most surprisingly, the Chinese lawsuits can be kept secret. This is in stark contrast to other treaties signed by Canada. Under NAFTA, since 2001, Canada and the U.S. have ensured that investor-state arbitrations were open.
Under the Canada-China deal, the arbitration hearings and all documents, except an actual award, can be kept confidential at the discretion of the country that is sued. This suggests that China objected to disclosure of Canadian lawsuits against it. More importantly for Canadians, the Harper government did not insist on disclosure when Canada is sued by the Chinese.
By implication, we shall have to assume in time that there are hidden Chinese lawsuits against Canada. We will not know why we have been sued or who is deciding the case. We will not know what the government is arguing on our behalf. And we will not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions.
Confidentiality is fine in commercial arbitration where the disputes do not affect the public. It is noxious in investor-state arbitration, which often involves matters of public importance. Incidentally, the secrecy has little to do with encouraging settlements; investors can and often do pursue confidential settlements before bringing a claim.
The turn to secrecy is an about-face for the government. Canada was until now a champion of openness in investor-state arbitration. As countries like Australia, India, and South Africa pull away from investor-state arbitration, we are embracing it in a virulent form.
The Canada-China deal undermines basic Canadian principles of public accountability and open courts. It raises dramatically the stakes of Chinese takeovers in the resource sector. If ratified, it will tie the hands of future elected governments for at least 31 years.