Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund spearheads “massive disobedience” to U.S. law

No 142 Posted by fw, March 30, 2011

Following up on the three previous posts, which featured video recordings and transcripts of a 2009 talk by Mari Margil about the work of the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) in helping citizens protect their communities’ ecological rights from invasive corporations, this post focuses on CELDF’s Democracy School.

1. CELDF spearheads “massive disobedience” movement

It was only after watching a 57:50-minute video of a February 18, 2011 Democracy School class in action in Seattle that the revolutionary significance of CELDF’s campaign sunk in. The following transcribed passage from the video may help to give you a sense of this NGO’s ground-breaking initiative, and motivate you to watch the video that follows. To set the context, the following excerpt, spoken by Executive Director, Thomas Linzey, comes towards the end of the video,where he talks about “massive disobedience to the existing structure of [US] law” and the ominous challenges ahead:

It’s not only un-American but illegal to move outside of this [regulatory] process. ‘What else is there?’ means doing what the abolitionists and suffragists did, which is massive disobedience to the existing structure of law. There’s going to be a thousand lawsuits. There’s going to be ten thousand lawsuits by the time this is done because the institutions, including the courts are not going to help build this when people move outside of this [the existing regulatory structure]. They’re going to punish that process. And so if we know that, how do we incorporate that into the organizing to actually build it instead of have it fall apart? Because today when we go into court, and the judge rules against us, the community group dissolves and we go away. How do we capture that residue so that a loss in the court actually energizes and accelerates the organizing to happen rather than shut it down?

Not only is the video content itself informative, the engaging teaching approach is a treat to watch. No tedious talking heads here, lecturing participants into a state of cognitive stupor. Mari Margil in particular nurtures a supportive relationship with participants by valuing everyone’s contribution.

For those who might like to fast-forward through this rather long video, below are some selected notes and verbatim transcriptions of main points emphasized by CELDF’s two instructors, Mari Margil and Thomas Linzey, which might help you to zero in on sections of personal interest.

2. Mari Margil explains how state-issued permits to corporations are essentially “permits to pollute”

Drawing on an article from a 1997 edition of Virginia’s Roanoke Times, Margil methodically works her way through a journalist’s report of  a court case, repeatedly engaging participants with probing questions to direct their attention to, and test their understanding of, key passages:

  • How could a company, Smithfield Foods, violate state water permits more than 22,000 times over the past decade and remain in business?
  • What’s the significance of the word ‘excessive’ in a selected sentence in the article? (It signifies that permits are just that, “permits” to emit pollutants to a level that the law regulates as “acceptable”)
  • What’s the nature of the conversation when the state’s assistant attorney general asks the judge to consider the seriousness of Smithfield’s violations and whether or not the company has benefited from them? (It’s strictly a monetary conversation with no discussion at all of the damage done to the environment)
  • What’s the significance of a company employee’s pleading the 5th amendment when refusing to answer questions about the outcome of a previous trial in which he was found guilty of destroying and falsifying company documents? (The employee’s use of the 5th, allowed Smithfield to plead the 6th amendment — which gives a defendant the right to confront an accuser — in the current case, thereby protecting itself from the employee’s earlier testimony)
  • Why did the newspaper report not do a better job of informing the public about the legal basis underpinning the court decision? (Because corporate mainstream media has a tendency to simplify legal proceedings to make the process seem quite banal, “normal and acceptable”, with the result that citizens remain blissfully and irresponsibly ignorant about how their government really works).
  • To summarize, how does the U.S. regulatory system function? (The state issues permits to allow companies to conduct their activities, which are in fact permits to pollute to some acceptable level. And, as many companies do, they routinely exceed the limits — in Smithfield’s case over 22,000 times — which seemed to be “the standard operating procedure” for this company. And they call this a “regulatory system?”)

3. Edward Bernays (1891-1995) taught the corporate world how to tame the masses

In this section, Margil turns her attention to Edward Bernays‘ influence in developing techniques to control and manipulate public opinion. Bernays, Freud’s nephew, is considered one of the father’s of modern public relations, and the first to use psychology as a manipulative tool. One of his favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the use of “third party authorities” to plead his clients’ causes. He demonstrated that “If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway“. For example, in order to promote bacon sales, Bernays surveyed a sample of physicians and publicized their recommendation that people should eat heavy breakfasts. He sent his research findings to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a heavy breakfast. Pork consumption spiked.

In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

CELDF’s Democracy School is, in part, a valiant attempt to undo the dumbing-down cultural indoctrination of “growing up corporate” in a wireless, diversionary world of endless infotainment.

4. Thomas Linzey on how corporations use doublespeak to disguise the truth

Referring to handouts in the manual distributed to Seattle’s Democracy School’s participants, Linzey illustrated how euphemisms are used to sanitize terms such as “sewage sludge” and “factory farm” to make them more palatable to the sensitivities of the general public and to project a positive business image. Sewage treatment plants, for instance, send waste sludge to farms for land fill and to be deposited on land where crops are grown for human and animal consumption — only they don’t call it “sewage sludge”, they call it “cake”. Regardless, sludge by any other name is still harmful. Cake can contain up to 100,000 different toxic components. EPA tests for 9. Two New Hampshire children died after driving their ATVs through a sludge-laden field. Incidentally, the term “biosolids” was coined in 1991 ostensibly to differentiate raw, untreated “sewage sludge” from treated and tested sludge that can legally be spread on farm fields. Perhaps it was just a coincidence that the name change came hard on the heels of an environmental crisis caused by dumping sewage sludge at sea off the New Jersey coast. Linzey points out that when activists and environmentalists use the euphemism “biosolids” they are unwittingly committing acts of self-censorship.

Linzey turns to another article that talks about “factory farm” operations. He notes, we no longer have “factory farms”, we now have “advanced and modern farms“, doublespeak to connote improved efficiency. To further obfuscate the reality of the transformation in farming practices, university agriculture departments adopted “Advanced and Modern Farms Department“, giving it a cultural legitimacy that its doesn’t deserve.

The real problem with factory farms is not just the volume of water usage, or the odor. It’s the level of concentrated corporate ownership of farming, controlling an increasing proportion of the food that Americans eat. Four corporations control 65% of pork production; another four control 70% of chicken production; and one, Kraft, controls 60% of all cheese production. This consolidation reduces competition, increases prices, and eliminates the small family farm. All in the name of efficiency. Seldom mentioned at all in the corporate controlled mainstream media is the way animals are treated on factory farms — no reference to the crowded conditions and the use of hormones and antibiotics.

5. Mari Margil returns to explain how the U.S. “regulatory triangle” gives corporations an unjust advantage in dispute settlements

First — Communities broadly define the problem with factory farms.

Thomas Linzey talks about the "regulatory triangle"

Mari begins this section by asking the class: “Why don’t communities want factory farms?” The rapid-fire answers include: don’t want toxic sludge; foul odor; reduces value of neighboring properties; water and other environmental contamination; wipes out small farms; increased truck traffic; and rise in farmer suicides. So the community defines the problem of factory farms very broadly in terms of negative impacts on the community — environmental, economic, agricultural, cultural, and impact on the food system. The Community’s Broad Problem Statement is graphically represented along the broad base of the “regulatory triangle”, which, as you can see from the image on the right, is actually an inverted triangle.

Second — In contrast, when states issue permits to factory farms, the permit narrowly defines how the farm will conduct its business, in terms of “manure management”.

On the corporate side of the equation, the state’s Nutrient Management Act (NMA) is a planning law that requires the factory farm owner to apply for a state permit. The application must outline how the farm will manage manure. Manure management, in other words, becomes the primary constraint that determines how the farm will conduct its business. It is not irrelevant that the NMA was adopted in response to a powerful agricultural lobbying effort, and that agribusiness representatives helped to write the law. The factory farm’s position on the inverted regulatory triangle is graphically represented by the large black dot at the inverted apex point.

Third — The result — as Margil and Linzey reveal in considerable detail — litigations and disputes between factory farm owners and the local community inevitably end up in a dead end “regulatory triangle” that gives corporations an unjust advantage.

According to Margil and Linzey, here’s what typically happens in a dispute. By virtue of the rules and regulations of the Nutrient Management Act, the state has effectively defined any legal dispute in very narrow terms as a manure management issue, thus driving the community argument down to this sole “regulatory point”. The only thing the community is allowed to talk about is, in this particular case, manure management. None of the community’s broad concerns count — not toxic waste, foul odor, depressed real estate values, etc. All these concerns and more end up being dismissed  as irrelevant.

6. Margil on how CELDF itself and other environmental organizations unwittingly helped to drive communities down to this regulatory point

When a community came to us and said ‘Hey, we want to stop a factory farm from coming in‘. We said, ‘Oh, all right. Well there’s a Nutrient Management Act, and there’s a permit system and you get to talk about manure and if you want to do this we will help you to appeal that permit.‘ So we drove them down to this point too. We also defined this very broad problem very narrowly because the state did it for us. We did this work for a number of years and we figured out that we weren’t helping communities to do anything. We certainly weren’t stopping factory farms from being able to come in. And any number of environmental organizations help communities through this process and all that happens is that, at best, it delays the thing from coming in. Ultimately, the thing gets sited.

So what did we do? Well, figuring out that this doesn’t work – this regulatory system – we couldn’t run other issues through the regulatory triangle. For example, if the community is facing a Wal-Mart from coming in. But the state now defines that problem of Wal-Mart very narrowly so that basically you’re left to talk about traffic. So the community’s activism is focused on traffic. The problem is you have all these forces sending the problem down to a very narrowly defined problem so that the solution that they find is very narrow.”

The communities were asking us ‘Why is this system the way it is?‘ And that’s when we took a big step back and looked at how does the system work? And our work now turns this thing upside down. Now communities ask: ‘Tell us what else we can do.’ And that’s when our work started to change.

7. Thomas Linzey on how environmental organizations have become “more of an obstacle than the actual corporations that the community’s attempting to fight”

It’s very difficult, almost impossible, to have conversations with these folks [NGOs, especially environmental organizations]. I have friends on all the major environmental groups – NRDC, Sierra Club, etc, — who say privately, “It’s very good stuff you’re doing Linzey but we’ll never do it.” It’s very tough because there are careers built on this [regulatory process]. You’ll find large law firms, huge law firms, international law firms, with environmental lawyers who litigate only section 301A2ia of the Clean Water Act. That’s their life. That’s the only litigation they do. They built a career out of this. . . . There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars that get shovelled into this process every year. And there are places where it gets reinforced. This is the glue that holds the shit together in a very dependent cycle within the United States. I had to learn the hard way because the Sierra Club and the major environmental groups in Pennsylvania came to us privately to urge us to stop doing the work that we were doing in Pennsylvania because they said if you actually liberate community self-government to build new bill of rights structures that actually prohibit corporate farming it’s going to lose, number 1, and number 2, you’re going to piss off all the legislators and they’re going to take away our regulatory window. They’re going to take away our regulatory options. That was one of our awakenings. The groups that we thought would be allies, that they would be interested in helping – they have not. It’s not long-time activists [who are moving this work]. It’s not progressives. It’s not liberals. It’s first-time activists who are coming into this stuff.  We found them [long-time activists] to be a problem, to be an obstacle. And in some places they’re more of an obstacle than the actual corporations that the community’s attempting to fight.

It’s like the city of Pittsburgh, the city council we were working with as a municipal client — who, for the first time, a major municipality bringing up an ordinance that strips natural gas corporations of constitutional rights in the municipality — and the largest environmental groups in Pennsylvania got together to send a coordinated letter to the city council saying “You can’t do it. It’s illegal and unconstitutional and you can’t do it and you’re going to get sued and we don’t support it.”

8. Linzey: “The regulatory system is about regulating us

It’s about building a new constituency of people who can actually see what’s happening and take action. The bigger structural problem is that we don’t decide what happens in our own communities. ”It’s a democracy issue. . . . It’s about the structure itself that we’re stuck in. . . .The regulatory system is about regulating us, regulating what we do and how we come at these problems . . .The boys have written a script for us. And there’s an even bigger script, which deals with corporate rights, and preemption and all this other stuff.

RELATED READING

Oh, yes, in case you’re interested, Ontario has it very own Nutrient Management Act. The Act is referenced in an article titled: Regulation of Factory Farm Manure Disposal. Now ain’t that the damnedest coincidence!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Amazing Legal Defense Fund takes on Big Corporations, declaring Nature has Rights. Pt 3/3: Who speaks for the trees?

No 141 Posted by fw, March 24, 2011

“The Lorax asked, ‘Who speaks for the trees?’ The people of Ecuador, Blaine, Barnstead, Nottingham, and a dozen other communities have answered, ‘ We do.’

And now I ask all of You. Will you speak for the trees? For if not you, then who? And if not now, then when? Thank you.” Mari Margil, October 2009.

Continuing with the third and final video (7:50-minutes) of Mari Margil’s address to the Bioneers, followed by my transcript:

TRANSCRIPT

Barnstead bans corporations from privatizing their water — a first for the nation

Adopting the ordinance at a town meeting, by a vote of 135 to 1, Barnstead became the first community in the nation to ban corporations from privatizing their water. Folks still struggling to protect their water in neighboring Nottingham soon called us. They wanted us to draft them an ordinance modeled on Barnstead’s. Gail Mills, who, with her husband, Chris, became leaders in the campaign to pass the ordinance explained their decision to turn their back on the environmental regulatory system that they’d fought for so long. She said: “We have to go out and make our own history and not let others define it for us.”

Nottingham, NH follows suit

In March of last year [2008], the people of Nottingham made history. They voted to adopt the ordinance at their town meeting, banning corporations from privatizing their water, recognizing the inalienable rights of ecosystems, and stripping corporations of constitutional rights.

Stories of David (the people) vs. Goliath (the corporations) spread

This work is spreading in New England as the threat from Nestle and other corporations grows. Following in the footsteps of Barnstead and Nottingham, the towns of Shapleigh and Newfield recently became the first communities in Maine to ban corporations from privatizing their water and to recognize the rights of ecosystems.

Ecuador embeds rights of ecosystems in its new constitution (with help from CELDF)

These stories from communities in Pennsylvania, New England, and elsewhere were shared with folks at the non-profit Pachamama Alliance, with its offices in San Francisco and Ecuador. In 2007, Ecuador began the process of drafting a new constitution. For centuries the people’s and landscapes of Ecuador have been exploited by outsiders, and in recent years it was revealed that Texaco had dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the Ecuadorian rainforest.

The Pachamama Alliance invited us to Ecuador to meet with selected delegates to the Constitutional Assembly. Now we were not experts in Ecuadorian law but there are similarities which cut across international lines. There, like here, the law treats nature as property.

We told the delegates stories of Blaine and Barnstead and how the people in those communities understood that without fundamentally changing how we treated nature in law, they could not protect it. And how we worked with them to draft and adopt new laws recognizing legally enforceable rights of ecosystems.

We also had the opportunity to meet with the president of the Constitutional Assembly, Alberto Acosta. We thought that we’d have an uphill battle trying to explain to this former minister of energy and mines why communities in the U.S. were adopting laws recognizing ecosystems’ rights. But before we had a chance to say anything, he told us that to his mind the law treats nature as a slave with no rights of its own. We had found a meeting of the minds in one of the unlikely but most critical of places.

We were asked to draft language for the delegates. And offer a series of months they shaped and expanded that language and just over a year ago the people of Ecuador approved a new constitution becoming the very first country in the world to recognize, in its constitution, rights of ecosystems to “exist, persist, regenerate and evolve.”

In Spokane, a setback but not a surrender

We’re now working with communities from Maine to California, from Virginia to Spokane, Washington. After failing to clean up the Spokane River, one of the most polluted in the nation, folks like Dr. John Osborne, a physician at Spokane’s VA hospital, had given up hope that our environmental laws could protect the river, he, with others across the city, have drafted an amendment to the Spokane City charter which will recognize legally enforceable rights for the Spokane River. And if adopted this November [2009], Spokane will become the first city in the U.S. to recognize rights of nature. [Sadly, a ballot proposition to amend Spokane’s Home Rule Charter failed to pass. For the full story of this setback, read Mari’s account in Yes! Magazine].

Those engaged in any kind of rights movement “are deemed treasonous and radical”

In 1973, Professor Christopher Stone penned his famous article, Should Trees Have Standing? – [Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects]. He explained this idea of rights of nature and why it’s so hard for us to think about those without rights, the right-less, as possibly having rights. And why every time a movement is launched to recognize rights for the right-less – like the abolitionists did and the suffragists did – the movements and the people involved are deemed treasonous and radical. Stone writes:

The fact is that each time there is a movement to confer rights on some new entity, the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable. This is partly because until the right-less thing receives its rights we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of us — “us” being, of course, those of us who hold rights.

“A movement for nature’s rights is necessary” in order to change the laws of the land

The people in the communities we work with recognize that the structure of law was never intended to protect the environment, but instead to regulate its exploitation and that they must write new structures of law – maybe writing their own constitutions – to replace it. These are not people who call themselves activists, or for that matter environmentalists. But they recognize that in order to change the existing structure of law a movement for nature’s rights is necessary. And it’s time we heard their voices and joined their cause.

Will YOU speak for the trees?

The Lorax asked, ‘Who speaks for the trees?’ The people of Ecuador, Blaine, Barnstead, Nottingham, and a dozen other communities have answered, ‘ We do.’

And now I ask all of You. Will you speak for the trees? For if not you, then who? And if not now, then when? Thank you.”

[Followed by a ringing affirmative applause and standing ovation]

RELATED READING

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Amazing Legal Defense Fund takes on Big Corporations, declaring Nature has Rights. Pt 2/3: A way out of “the box”

No 140 Posted by fw, March 23, 2011

Continuing with Part 2 of Mari Margil’s talk to the Bioneers in October 2009, followed by my transcript:

TRANSCRIPT

Blaine’s ordinances

At the conclusion of the school, the Blaine supervisors asked us to help them draft a set of ordinances that would ban longwall coal mining while declaring that ecosystems have rights within Blaine township. Passed unanimously by the supervisors in 2006, the ordinances do three things:

    • First, they ban corporations from mining;
    • Second, they recognize the rights of ecosystems; and
    • Third, they strip corporations of their power to override those ecosystems and those ordinances.

First, in support of the ban on mining, the ordinances declare “that the Department of Environmental Protection’s enabling of mining corporations has not been the exception in this state and nation, but a normal governmental practice.”

Second, the ordinances establish that ecosystems – including wetlands, rivers, and streams – possess “inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish within the township of Blaine.” And that the people of Blaine have the ability to defend the rights of ecosystems without having to prove standing, and that damages are to be measured by harm caused to the ecosystem itself.

Lastly, the ordinances strip corporations of something called ‘corporate constitutional rights’. Corporations, declared by the courts to be persons under the law, enjoy 1st amendment free speech rights, 5th amendment rights to due process, and 14th amendment rights to equal protection.

Why corporate constitutional rights matter

At the Blaine Democracy School, the supervisors asked us why corporate constitutional rights matter. Our answer was that they matter because corporations are able to use these rights against you, against communities and laws that seek to protect the environment.

Those constitutional rights guarantee that corporations can lobby congress to let them build new coal-fired power plants. They use them to protect their right and ability to siphon off our water for longwall coal mines. They use them to stop us from doing anything in our activism that will actually change how the system of law works.

Blaine flipped the law on its head — use the law to protect the rights of people, communities, nature

In many ways, what the people of Blaine were doing was flipping the law on its head – so instead of the law protecting the rights of property and commerce, they were using the law to protect the rights of people, communities, and nature.

BIG CORP did what BIG CORP does when challenged — IT SUED

With thoughts about what happens when people start to reject the systems of law they’re living under. What happened when the early abolitionists began to organize? They were declared treasonous and every effort was made to shut them down. When the suffragists fought for rights for women, they were arrested and called radicals. How those who feel threatened by change will do everything they can to stop it.

And in Blaine township, that would be the mining corporations. And as expected, last fall two coal corporations sued Blaine township to overturn their ordinances. They’re arguing that the community doesn’t have the legal authority to ban mining, and that the ordinances violate their corporate constitutional rights.

Blaine ups the ante — adopts a home rule municipal charter

Instead of backing down or counting on the courts to save them, the people of Blaine have decided instead to up the ante. They drafted a home rule municipal charter incorporating the Rights of Ecosystems and stripping corporations of constitutional rights. The home rule charter constitutionalizes the ordinances, and, if adopted, it will become the nation’s first local sustainability constitution.

Meanwhile, Barnstead, NH and Nottingham, PA were fighting to protect their water

Like Blaine, the town of Barnstead, New Hampshire, is rural, and largely conservative. What they faced there wasn’t mining of coal, but of water. Companies like Nestle are targeting communities across the country for their water. Just up the road from Barnstead, USA Springs Corporation had set its sights on the town of Nottingham. The company sought a permit from the state to withdraw over 400,000 gallons of water a day to bottle and sell overseas.

Nottingham played by the rules but couldn’t win because the game was rigged

The people of Nottingham have fought for 7 years to stop USA Springs from coming in and privatizing their water. They appealed permits to the state Department of Environmental Services, they circulated petitions, they lobbied their state legislature, they held protests and they files lawsuits. They did everything right through conventional environmental organizing but somehow they still weren’t winning.

Down the road at a Barnstead Democracy School, Jack O’Neal, a member of the town Select Board asked us why the state environmental agency seemed to him to be more interested in granting corporations permits to take their water than helping people in the community protect it.

The corporate “fix” has been in for more than 100 years

It turns out – as we cover in the Democracy Schools – there is a reason why that is. Over a hundred years ago the first regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was created at the request of the railroad corporations – the Wal-Marts of their day. As the US Attorney General, Richard Olney told the president of Burlington Railroad, back in 1893, “[The [Interstate Commerce] commission, as its functions have now been limited by the courts] is, or can be made, a great help to the railroads. It satisfies the public clamor for a government supervision of railroads, at the same time that that supervision is almost entirely nominal.” He went on to say that the agency acts as “a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people.” As one Barnstead resident put it, “It seems as though nothing has changed in over a hundred years.”

Barnstead rejected Nottingham’s “play-by-the-rules” approach, opting instead for an ordinance

To the folks in Barnstead it seemed that if they took the path of Nottingham, it was only a matter of time before a corporation came along and took their water. Because of that, Jack O’Neal and the other Select Board members asked us to draft an ordinance that would ban corporations from coming in and siphoning off their water, and, which offered the best and highest protection for their aquifer.

They also wanted the ordinances to strip corporations of their ability to override the community’s lawmaking. We worked hand-in-hand with them to draft an ordinance and, like Blaine’s, the Barnstead ordinance recognizes that ecosystems have legally enforceable rights, bans certain corporations from carrying out activities the community doesn’t want, and, lastly, strips corporations of constitutional protections.

In Part 3, Mari asks The Lorax’s question: “Who speaks for the trees?”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.