Canadian Cocaine (860 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.4 on 32 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Smack Fuck (View user info) at 2006-01-13 11:20:28 EST
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Jeff Wells
See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the badies shake hands with the fellows
And it's open for business like a cheap bordello
And they call it democracy - Bruce Cockburn
I haven't written much here about Canada (once, I think). There are several good reasons for that, and perhaps some bad ones, too.
Since I write about Canada elsewhere, for a Canadian audience, I suppose I think that's enough. Also, I have that annoying, self-effacing tick: who really wants to hear about us? But maybe the chief cause has been my lingering naivité that Canada is a place where politics still trumps deep politics. It's a presumption that doesn't bear scrutiny. After all, this is the home of Bush family interest Barrick Gold and of the Bronfmans, a family with a pedigree in organized crime that also has links to "the Nine." Montreal figures in the background of both John Kennedy's murder (it was the home of Louis Bloomfield, Chairman of Clay Shaw's Permindex) and Martin Luther King's (James Earl Ray met Raul in the city in 1967). And there's always more, when you look for it.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, a former protege of Maurice Strong, has a family concern called Canada Steamship Lines, "the world's largest fleet of self-unloading bulkers," that controls assets worth $700 million. He transferred control to his sons in 2003 when running for the Liberal leadership. Until then, the company had been in a blind trust during his years in government. Martin acknowledged when seeking the top job that $137,000 in federal funds had been received by his company while he served as Finance Minister. That was a slight miscalculation. The actual amount of grants and loans CSL received was $161 million.
And then there was the story that broke July 1, 2004: "Nova Scotia Police Seize Cocaine on CSL Ship." And again, it wasn't a piddling amount. Two duffel bags found behind a ballast grate on the bottom of the hull were found to contain 83 kilograms, worth $12 to $14 million. The ship was named the Sheila Ann, after the Prime Minister's wife.
CSL spokeswoman Martine Malka pulled the family's nuts out of the bilge water. "This cannot be done through the ship," she said. "The only way this could have been done is by divers underwater." In other words, Gosh, officer, how'd that get there?
Susan Horne, president of the Customs Excise Union in Nova Scotia, agreed, and explained with some fuzziness that the drugs were almost certainly destined for Canada, as their placement would have interfered with the crew unloading coal in Sydney, and would surely have been noticed.
There are a few things that just don't sit right about that.
For instance, what kind of argument contends that the hypothetical placement of the drugs in Sydney would have interfered with the crew, and yet the placement of the drugs in Venezuela supposedly proceeded without notice? A pretty damn circular one, I'd say. Also, how could the duffel bags have been retrieved without drawing attention of the crew, if their placement "would surely have been noticed"?
The quick presumption of innocence for the crew is bizarre, since it was only the earlier summer that RCMP canine units sniffed out sailors' "personal use" narcotics on five CSL ships. A single crew member was found in possession of drugs valued at $250,000.
The Sheila Ann had arrived loaded from Venezuela. Leaving Sydney Nova Scotia, its next port of call was destined to be Miami. Empty. And after the fluke seizure, especially empty.
Perhaps most suspicious is the amount involved. Eighty-three kilograms is an exceptionally large amount to risk on an unwitting mule. For instance, the same week as the Sheila Ann seizure, no more than 369 grams of hashish and 706 grams of cocaine were discovered hidden in the wing of a Boeing 767 that had arrived at the Vancouver International Airport from Australia.
This suggests a couple of things: either this method had been tried and trusted over a long period of time, or the mule was not so unwitting. Either way, it certainly wasn't the one-off authorities pretended it to be. And that the story broke not long after the Vancouver headlines of RCMP drug raids on provincial Liberals with strong Martin ties - well, this is Canada we're talking about, so let's not get carried away. Like last November's story, that a drug-related contract to hit Martin for $300,000 was shopped around the Toronto underworld - that just can't be right.
But that was then, and this is mid-January, and in two weeks Canadians will be electing a new government. And chances are high it will be led by Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party, whose braintrust brims with Straussians and Bohemian Grovers.
To get an idea what that would mean, last month The Washington Times ran a piece entitled "Gift from Canada?" It begins:
Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.
Harper and his crowd are not the brand of conservatives Canadians have seen in office before. That party, the stubbornly oxymoronic Progressive Conservatives, was destroyed by the Bush family lapdog misrule of Brian Mulroney, and eventually absorbed by the far-right fringe of social- and neo-cons who needed a presentable vehicle to carry them to power. Now, to the casual voter, they're just "Tories," like those before whom they remember as governing not so differently than the Liberals. I think, even if they don't pay particular attention, they'll be surprised by what they get.
We're living at a time when all the pieces are coming into play, and that includes the other North America. If the next move is a Harper victory, I think we can expect a certain destabilization that will be welcomed by some in Washington who will be ready to exploit it. Because there will likely be an election in Quebec next year that will almost certainly elect a separtist government bent upon holding a new referendum on sovereignty. These Conservatives, led by alienated Westerners, have no love or understanding of Quebec, and many of them hope for its departure from Canada as it's predominently left values are regarded as impediments to untrammelled rule by the far right. Harper is already cutting deals with the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, whose leader has pledged not to bring down a minority government for three years.
That could be enough time to see the end of Canada, both conceptually and factually. There would then be nothing for us but Fortress North America. So US residents seeking shelter from the storm will need to look further. And may have some company.
The future, she doesn't look so good.
User Reviews
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-23 15:09:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Right on beefy - where is the love.
?
Submitted by charminglybeef (user info) at 2006-01-23 15:02:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Underrated post, Smack Fuck.
Overtly controversial and not terribly focused but a good read nonetheless.
Look at the discussion it spawned!
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-20 18:31:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-01-14 05:28:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
so...they found 3/4 of a million dollars worth of coke...BFD
-----
no shit, schoolkids bring that much a day over the Tijuana entrypoints...
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-01-14 05:28:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
so...they found 3/4 of a million dollars worth of coke...BFD
you assholes pay almost $170 a gram for your dope?
shit....maybe i picked the wrong game
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-01-13 18:02:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
For a post about Canada, that was way too long. The less said about Canada, the better.
Submitted by wijormiclat (user info) at 2006-01-13 17:46:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's probably because you guys have too much caribou or something.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 13:52:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh well. If Canada begins a civil war then at least I'll have something to watch on CNN.
Man I'm a bad person.
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2006-01-13 13:15:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
blah blah blah Canada blah blah blah
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:30:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:21:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
So is all this seperatism just between Quebec and the rest of Canada? Or is it like a North/South/East/West thing?
===
Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario also have some seperatism. But it's insignificant in their case, except maybe a little in Alberta.
We have the difference of language and we can always play the victim card to fan the movement.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:21:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So is all this seperatism just between Quebec and the rest of Canada? Or is it like a North/South/East/West thing?
Submitted by Grimm (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:15:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
No Comment
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:14:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The Franco-German axis and their satellites is actually a sizable power.
Not that it matters in this conversation. Just saying.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:12:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:07:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's weird for me to look at the multi-party Canadian system since America is Democrats or Republican. You guys are crazy. What do you guys win by getting 37% of the vote? That's insane."""
I think it's a lot more sane than a two-party system honestly.
Did you read my little timeline...do you understand seperatism better?
---
Yes I do thanks for making it so in depth.
And let me say that although I am used to a two-party system, I do not support it. In the last election I wrote in my vote (Bickus Dickus for President) because I didn't want to support either candidates. I am not a 2 party drone. If someone gives me a good choice, I'll go for it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:11:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Smack_Fuck, I also think you tend to choose the worst worst case scenario. You should have a bit more faith. Even America who seems to be in a bizarre path right now (from our point of view) is a very complicated place with plenty of debates going on and a shitload of brilliant people from all over the world.
It seems like you fear that Hilter will resucitate.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:10:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Caul you have to remember, the French are dying as a people. Their heyday was so long ago and they can't seem to find anyway to stop themselves from slowly descending economically and historically. I think that if Canada were to seperate they would take the opportunity to try and 'embrace' French Canada. But you wouldn't be 'true French' in their eyes, more like back water French who speak the language but aren't civilized (not my opinion). So I say that France might support French Canada, Britain will tell everyone to get along. The German's will eye you greedily and wish that they had a few U-Boats off your coast that could hamper trade until they get some landing craft over.
And the United States will of course play both sides against each other, benefiting from your blood and sweat.
Can someone say Iran-Contra?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:07:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's weird for me to look at the multi-party Canadian system since America is Democrats or Republican. You guys are crazy. What do you guys win by getting 37% of the vote? That's insane."""
I think it's a lot more sane than a two-party system honestly.
Did you read my little timeline...do you understand seperatism better?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:05:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If we seperate in a near future, I wonder where France would stand on this issue.
Charles De Gaulles was pretty bold in his support. Chirac happens to be an open Gaullist as well (I think his bickering with the U.S. has shown that).
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:05:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:01:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:40:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caulaincourt:
Jeff suggests that the new neocon right in Canada want to get rid of socialist Quebec.
===
Jeff fails to realize that the population of Canada, except for some part of Alberta, is mostly left-leaning or at least centrist. Ontario isn't too keen on conservatives.
Canada might have trouble right now, but one good thing about it is that the population still has plenty of leverage over its government, unlike our neighbor where speaking up is viewed as treason.
-----
Some American's are like that. I personally am just kinda annoyed with both sides because quite frankly neither of them know what they are talking about.
It's weird for me to look at the multi-party Canadian system since America is Democrats or Republican. You guys are crazy. What do you guys win by getting 37% of the vote? That's insane.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 12:01:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:40:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caulaincourt:
Jeff suggests that the new neocon right in Canada want to get rid of socialist Quebec.
===
Jeff fails to realize that the population of Canada, except for some part of Alberta, is mostly left-leaning or at least centrist. Ontario isn't too keen on conservatives.
Canada might have trouble right now, but one good thing about it is that the population still has plenty of leverage over its government, unlike our neighbor where speaking up is viewed as treason.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:57:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The end of Canada you say? I have to sit qiuetly while my world does not come crashing down around me. Nono really, I'll be okay, I mean, it's only canada.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:56:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HighVoltage, here's a small timeline, without dates:
France lost to Britain. Exchanges what they viewed as a frozen wasteland for the Guadeloupe.
British Crowns recognizes french language and french culture (roman catholic) in Québec
Due to American Revolution, a good number of loyalists flee to Canada which years later, forced the division of the colony in Lower Canada (french people) and Upper Canada (anglos). French people treated as second rate.
The Patriotes Revolution. Militias of french people attack Brits. Get a few victory only to be crushed and hung.
Lord Durham unifies both Canadas. Ensues the Durham report which states that the anglophones will eventually assimilate inferior french people.
From this point on, the powerful Catholic clergy starts sending french colons all across isolated regions of Quebec to prevent assimilation in order to protect the Roman Catholic interests. French population booms.
Québec will live under the iron hand of the Church up to the 1960's where the Quiet Revolution started.
The Quiet Revolution sees the Church losing it's power and Québec catching up to modern Western standards instead of being a rural land.
The french-canadians no longer wished to be viewed as second-rate citizens in society. This lead to the formation of the terrorist group le Front de Libération du Québec. Their bombings and kidnapping led to the October Crisis which forced the Prime Minster of Canada to invoke the War Measure Acts (army in the streets and shit).
French is declared an official language through a controversial bill. René Levesque, premiere of Québec, attempts a for separation referendum but fails.
Then some mingling between with the Canadian Constitution which we never signed.
A second referendum is tried in 1995. The federal government overspent what it is allowed too through illegal measures.
This scandal blows up in the recent years. Refueling separatism.
Along with an unpopular pro-Canada provincial government, scandals, a possible alienation of the french-canadians by the upcoming conservative government, and others...one could predict that Québec could succeed in its next referendum.
====
Canada has a lot of problems right now. The country has trouble holding together and the seperatist are playing their cards extremely well.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:41:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:35:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:34:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
Could someone explain to a stupid American this whole seperatist Canada deal?
==
Give me a few minutes...I'll make a resume for simpletons hehe
-----
What did I do now? Fuck.
Well I have spoken to a few Canadian friends who offhandedly mentioned that but I couldn't illicit much information from them. The thought of Canada splitting is almost unthinkable to an American. But UberCanadausers are showing me that Canada is a deeply troubled place.
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:40:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caulaincourt:
Jeff suggests that the new neocon right in Canada want to get rid of socialist Quebec.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:40:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't try to be the sharpest tool in the box, but I'm the most effective - like a 10-lb sledgehammer.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:35:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:34:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
Could someone explain to a stupid American this whole seperatist Canada deal?
==
Give me a few minutes...I'll make a resume for simpletons hehe
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:34:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Could someone explain to a stupid American this whole seperatist Canada deal?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:34:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry for the "Mikkel Kessler" intrusion. I can't wait to see that fight :-)
Submitted by Smack_Fuck (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:33:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're not the sharpest tool in the drawer bob, but you're always jolly. Ignorance is bliss huh.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:33:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
First, the conservative party of Canada, regardless of how far right it is, will have to answer to a much more liberal population than the United States. Being a minority government will complicate their actions even more. So it's a bit silly to think that Canada will suddenly steer full-speed to the right.
Mikkel Kessler
Second, yes, every pieces are into play for a seperation of Quebec but it really isn't that simple. I've been living in the center of that debate all my life and it's very hard to tell what the outcome will be when we reach that point. The federal government is known to have quite a few tricks in its hat. The first referendum, they tricked the Prime Minister of Quebecer with a spy within his caucus and the second time, they litterally cheated. Now it's backfiring.
All I know is that the tension is already rising in discussions. I went to a french forum last night and was quickly told to fuck off to Ontario because I asked questions beyond flag waving. These people suffer from the same patriotism they accuse americans of.
I don't like where this is heading.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:32:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This obviously means something to you, but seriously, why?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:27:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Politics at its finest: doom and gloom, accusations, he'll do this, he's so-and-so's lapdog, comparisons to other unpopular leaders. This has it all...and it amuses me how people eat this shit up.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-01-13 11:27:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment