Who's Online

We have 238 guests online

Popular

3554 readings
WARMONGERS ARRIVE IN VICTORIA; USS RONALD REAGAN NUCLEAR SHIP IN PORT. PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Thursday, 10 June 2010 04:52
"More than dozen ships from Canada and five other nations will be part of the naval fleet review in Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour marking 100 years of the Canadian navy. " More than dozen ships from Canada and five other nations will be part of the naval fleet review in Victoria and Esquimalt Harbour marking 100 years of the Canadian navy" (CBC)


/WARMONGERS ARRIVE IN VICTORIA; USS RONALD REAGAN NUCLEAR SHIP IN VICTORIA PORT
PEJnews - Joan Russow Global Compliance Research Projext


War Mongers in Victoria: USS Nimitz- nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessel in port
PEJnews - Joan Russowe (PhD) - Global Compliance Research Project
1 250 294-1339
 
To see the map where the terrifying range of war ships are located see map
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/13/13-w_eng.asp?category=101

Apart from the unconscionable and flagrant display of militarism, the conglomorate of weapons-capable naval vessels is an accident waiting to happen. The government of Canada is potentially criminally negligent for risking such war games anywhere but particularly in an urban port.
 
And many citizens and media of Victoria obsequiously grovel before the agents of war and destruction, and think more of the bolstering of the economy.
 www.PEJ.org
Nuclear accident risk


At at time when at the UN there is a call for the abolition of nuclear weapons there is no justification for the USS Ronald Reagan- a nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessel to circulate in Canadian waters or berth in Canadian ports.

  USS Ronald Regan in Port USS Ronald Reagan is a nimitz type nuclear powered nuclear arms capapble vessel.

 

Canada has become the show place for militarism In Ottawa last week there was the international arms fare, and now in Victoria there is the arrival of war ships from around the world. These events have been a flagrant display of militarism

 

At at time when at the UN there is a call for the abolition of nuclear weapons there is no justification for the USS Ronald Reagan  nuclaer powered and nuclear arms capable vessel to circulate in Canadian water or land in Canadian ports.

Misplaced Onus of proof – actions that are inherently dangerous

In a case where there is a dangerous intrusion into the environment and society, the onus of proof has to shift from those who argue that the action would be harmful to those who claim that the action would be harmless. In the case of war games including with nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels, which are inherently dangerous, there is no way to prove safety. The precautionary principle, - an international principle adopted by the global community, even by the United States, must be invoked: where there is an irreversible threat to the environment the lack of full scientific certainty should/shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent the threat, and the war games must be prohibited..


Skewed notion of "informed consent"


Skewed notion of "informed consent" when there are inherently dangerous actions with potentially serious consequences. The whole notion of informed consent to be harmed is absurd. After governments adopted, at Rio, the principle to prevent the transfer to other states of activities and practices that are harmful to human health and the environment, governments then proceeded to draft a document related to "informed consent" - i.e. if we can persuade countries to accept inherently dangerous practices or events then we can be absolved from responsibility. Even if the community was properly notified, consulted and the government carried out yet another sham environmental assessment review [note the environmental impact study on the Northwest Training Range Complex, where they argue that they are respecting the environment, and not emitting greenhouse gases, by using nuclear powered vessels, and not fossil fuel], a question still remains about whether the project or action should proceed.


Benefit for humanity ignored


There was a UNESCO Declaration once which was entitled "Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind Humanity", and in the Preamble was the following statement of concern:


Noting also with concern that scientific and technological achievements can entail dangers for the civil and political rights of the individual or the groups and for human dignity. (Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind [Humanity] 1975)


Cycle of errors

It has been said that "scientists and universities and governments should not be sued unless they have broken existing laws. This provision reflects the cycle of error, and what could be referred to as the "oops factor" - golly gee, we didn"t really know that this would happen. Sorry. This happens all the time with weapons systems and Weapons are used, the dire consequences materialize, and then new kinder and gentler ones are produced and used until they are found to be harmful.


Criminal negligence


There comes a point where engaging in an action is blatantly criminally negligent regardless of whether there is public consultation, an environmental assessment or public notification done.


Personal criminal responsibility


In 1993, at the International Environmental Law and Public Policy Conference in Eugene, Oregon, there was a panel on personal criminal liability. The panellists were a Navy Commander, and a representative from the Air Force. The issue was a controversial recent court decision where individuals in the Air Force were held criminally responsible for proceeding with a project. In this case, the Air Force was planning on engaging in an action which could have serious environmental consequences. The head of the project was warned about the potential consequences; he ignored the warning and when the serious consequences occurred, he was held to be criminally liable. Individual government represenattives must be duly warned of the potentially dire consequences. and know that they will be held criminally responsible for whatever human or environmental consequences result from their dangerous intrusion into the environment and society.


Injunction to prevent harm misapplied


In 1976, there was an important case which prevented the pesticide 24D from being dumped in Okanagan Lake. An injunction was granted to prevent the BC Government from using 24 D against Millefoil in Okanagan Lake. At that time the opponents who were arguing against the use of 24D in the lake were successful in obtaining an injunction to prevent irreparable harm. Subsequently, in British Columbia, injunctions have usually been granted to prevent those who wish to prevent irreparable harm from preventing the harm. [numerous cases related to forestry, such as Clayoquot Sound]. The courts granting of injunctions to corporations that are causing irreversible harm has ignored the decision of Justice Norris in the Conduct of Civil Litigation in B.C”., the following fundamental principle related to injunctions is put forth:



"The remedy [of injunction] of course, is an equitable one.The exercise of the equitable jurisdiction is not to be restricted by the straitjacket of rigid rules but is to be based on broad principles of equity regarding the substance and not merely the facade or the shadow. It moves with time and circumstances.” (Norris, J.A.) Equity is not to be presumed to be of an age past childbearing.' (Harman, J.)" (Conduct of Civil Litigation in B.C., Chapter 42, August, 1991).


If a remedy of an injunction is an equitable remedy that should move with time and circumstances, AN INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO PREVENT THE DANGEROUS WAR VESSELS IN THE GREATER VICTORIA HARBOUR



 

Latest News