WikiLeaks is the world's most well know whistle blower:
Cablegate: 250,000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables- On Sunday 28th November 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain.
War Diary: Iraq War Logs- The 391,832 reports were released on October 22, 2010. The Iraq War Logs, document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army.
Video: Collateral Murder - This video was released on April 5, 2010 and depicts the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks has been vilified as a reckless anarchist “with blood on his hands,” but also praised as a brave whistle-blower willing to risk his life to expose the truth. The cablegate leaks of November 28, 2010 have have generated a flurry of outrage:
On December 1, 2010 Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor, prominent Conservative thinker and a former adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, says Julian Assange should be assassinated. He later apologized for his remarks.
November 29, 2010 - Bill O'Rielly on his Fox Cable show, The Factor, said: "Whoever leaked all those State Department documents to the WikiLeaks website is a traitor and should be executed or put in prison for life," he said. "The guy who runs the website is a sleazeball named Julian Assange, who is bent on damaging America. Since he's not a U.S. citizen, it's hard for American authorities to move against him. But we can prosecute those who leak the documents to Assange."
December 5, 2010 - On the Fox News Chris Wallace Show, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, became the latest conservative Sunday to suggest that WikiLeak's Julian Assange deserves to be hunted and executed by calling him an "enemy combatant... He should be treated as an enemy combatant and WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively," Gingrich said.
Sarah Palin is demanding the world hunt down the director of Wikileaks “with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.”
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said “WikiLeaks and people that disseminate information to people like this are criminals.”
Senior Republican Mike Huckabee has said that "anything less than execution is too kind a penalty" for what he has done.
Despite all the rhetoric and anger over the release of the cables no legal action has been taken against Julian Assange. The US probably cannot take any legal action since Julian Assange is an Australian and does not reside in the US. Note that the New York Times, which published redacted excerpts of the cables, has received little criticism and no calls for prosecution.
As at December 5, 2010 the followng sites and/or hosts have been compromised:
http://wikileaks.com/ - Shut down
http://wikileaks.org - Shut down
Hosting at Amazon.com has been cancelled by Amazon.com
Hosting at DiaryDig.org has been compromised. DiaryDig's comments are, On Dec. 1, WikiLeaks began directing visitors to this site with links from their home page. Unfortunately, this also attracted the attention of repeated distributed denial of service attacks. Fighting these attacks has become a full-time job and a strain on our resources which we are unable to sustain. At this time, DiaryDig.org will remain offline until the crush of attacks diminishes. We apologize for this inconvenience.
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as yet unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics claim that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man made global warming. The disclosed emails reveal a litany of misinformation, manipulation of data, character assassination, lying, dirty tricks and collusion amongst scientists to present false information to support their agenda that the cause of Global Warming can be attributed to anthropogenic causes. Thanks to The Telegraph for the following:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
Michael Mann is shown to have manipulated data to show the "Hockey Stick" graph that supported his agenda that global warming has increased only in the modern period, ignoring the Medieval global warming spike.
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Whistle Blowers:
Those who disclose information about something they believe to be harmful
to the public's interest, occurring in business or in government. It includes
disclosure to authorities within the organization, to outside agencies
or to the media.
Reason
for Whistle blowing Laws
Whistle blowing
provisions are designed to facilitate regulation and enforcement of laws
by encouraging employees to report evidence essential for industry regulation
and the prosecution of corporate wrongdoers.
New
Brunswick is the only Canadian Jurisdiction Providing Specific Protection
for Whistle blowers
In New Brunswick, Section 28
of the Employment Standards Act, Chap. E-7.2 provides, in part,
as follows:
28. Notwithstanding anything
in this Act an employer shall not dismiss, suspend, lay off, penalize,
discipline or discriminate against an employee if the reason therefor
is related in any way to
(b) the making of a
complaint or the giving of information or evidence by the employee
against the employer with respect to any matter covered by this
act; or
(c) the giving of information
or evidence by the employee against the employer with respect to
the alleged violation of any Provincial or federal Act or regulation
by the employer while carrying on the employer's business; or
if the dismissal, suspension, layoff, penalty, discipline or discrimination
constitutes in any way an attempt by the employer to evade any responsibility
imposed upon him under this Act or any other Provincial or federal
Act or regulation or to prevent or inhibit an employee from taking
advantage of any right or benefit granted to him under this Act.
Statutes
that Address Whistle blowing
Ontario's two main environmental
statutes, the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. E.19 and the Environmental Bill of Rights, S.O. 1993, c. 28,
contain extensive protections for employees who have been discharged,
disciplined or harassed for complying with Ontario's environmental legislation.
Under both statutes, employees who have had reprisals taken against
them are authorized to file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations
Board, which will first try to effect a settlement or, if unsuccessful,
hold an inquiry into the complaint. If the Board finds the employee's
complaint justified, it has broad powers to order rectification, reinstatement
or compensation. Because Ontario's Environmental Protection Act prohibits
an employer from taking reprisals against an employee for complying
with the Act, an employer who contravenes this section could be prosecuted
under s. 186 of the Act, which states that every person who contravenes
the Act is guilty of an offence.
The Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-15.3 ("CEPA") also
contains a whistle blowing provision. It declares that no federal government
employee shall be disciplined, dismissed or harassed for reporting on
the release of certain toxic substances to a CEPA inspector. These provisions
have been criticized for applying to only a limited number of violations
under CEPA, for protecting only reports to a CEPA inspector, rather
than the media or other officials, and for extending only to federal
public servants, rather than all employees in the federal sphere (Environment
Canada, CEPA Issue Elaboration Paper #10 -- Public Participation for
Environmental Protection, 1994, pp. 119-20).
Ontario's Occupational
Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1 prohibits employers
from taking reprisals against a worker because the worker has complied
with the Act, sought its enforcement, or given evidence in a proceeding
brought under the Act. Alleged contraventions are dealt with either
by binding arbitration pursuant to a collective agreement, if one exists,
or by filing a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board. If
a penalty for contravention is not established in the collective agreement,
the Board can substitute such other penalty that to the Board seems "just and reasonable in all the circumstances".
The employment standards
provisions in the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. c. L-2, which
apply to employers under federal jurisdiction, contain similar protections
for employees who have testified, given information to an inspector,
or sought enforcement of the Code. Employers who contravene these provisions
are guilty of a summary conviction offence and liable to a fine of up
to $15,000.
The Canadian Human
Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, prohibits any person from threatening,
intimidating, or discriminating against an individual because that individual
has made a complaint, given evidence, or assisted in the initiation
or prosecution of a complaint under the Act.
Whistle blowing on One's Self - (Immunity from Prosecution
can be Extended to Companies)
Canada's Competition Bureau's
immunity policy was initiated in 1991, when then Director Howard Wetston
outlined nine factors that "could be relevant in determining whether
to recommend immunity from prosecution to the Attorney General" (Wetston,
"Notes for an Address to the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association",
Aug. 19, 1991)
the firm must be the first
to approach the Bureau with evidence of the offence;
the firm must provide full
and frank disclosure of the facts;
the firm must cooperate
fully with the Bureau's investigation, and with any ensuing prosecution;
the evidence provided by
the firm must be important and valuable in terms of any prosecution
or other legal proceeding;
the firm must be prepared
to make restitution commensurate with the facts and its responsibility
in the matter;
the evidence must confirm
that the firm took immediate steps to terminate the activity and report
it to the Director as soon as it was discovered by its senior executives;
a prior record of antitrust
violations will be a significant factor in deciding whether to recommend
immunity;
the firm should usually
be prepared to consent to the issuance of a prohibition order; and
the role of the firm in
the conduct in question.
In a Canadian Bar Association
speech in October 1993, Francis Rioux, Senior Counsel at the Department
of Justice, suggested four factors that would be taken into account to
determine whether immunity could be granted in these cases:
At what point in time did
the corporation come forward as compared to others.
Whether at the time the
corporation comes forward there exists sufficient evidence against the
corporation to sustain a conviction against it or other parties to the
conduct.
The importance, degree and
completeness of the cooperation and the importance of the evidence offered,
if any.
The corporation's relative
culpability in the conduct and past record.
May,
2001 Newspaper Article on the need for Stronger Whistle blower Laws
Whistle blowing:
Breaking the Silence of the Lambs
by
Rosella Melanson
There are people
in Canada who would report something they know - health or environmental
hazards, abuse, theft, corruption - if they felt protected from
retaliation.
But whistle blowers
sometimes pay a price in Canada. In any case they don't get
nominated for the Order of Canada.
(Whistle blowers are
usually defined as those who disclose information about something
they believe to be harmful to the public's interest, occurring
in business or in government. It includes disclosure to authorities
within the organization, to outside agencies or to the media.)
Earlier this year,
an inquiry into 12 infant deaths at a Winnipeg hospital concluded
that at least five of the deaths were preventable - and that
whistle blower legislation would have helped protect nurses from
reprisal when reporting a particular surgeon.
Scientists Margaret
Haydon and Shiv Chopra complained last year they were being
forced to approve an unsafe growth hormone for cows. Their employer,
Health Canada, protector of Canadians, imposed a gag order!
A judge then ruled the scientists have a constitutional right
to speak if they have concerns about public safety. Recently,
Ms. Haydon spoke out again to say the Canadian ban of Brazilian
beef was not based on science. Another gag order was imposed.
"I was doing
my job as a public servant", Ms. Haydon said when she won
a Whistle blower award recently.
Dr. Nancy Olivieri,
senior scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, discovered
evidence suggesting a drug she was testing might be life threatening.
The firm which partly funded her research told her not to publish
the results; the Hospital and the University of Toronto left
her ‘hung out to dry'. She eventually won.
Joanna Gualtieri
reported on lavish spending by Foreign Affairs personnel abroad,
concerns which the Auditor General of Canada had raised years
earlier. She eventually had to go on medical leave and is now
trying to sue for the harassment she says she suffered; she
has started a group of Ottawa whistle blowers.
A government-commissioned
report recently said the Department of Fisheries and Oceans "treats public criticism ... by employees as an offence
akin to ... mutiny on the high seas."
It is worlds away
from a British government suggestion that whistle blowers be
included in the British Honours system for their good corporate
citizenship. The British whistle blower-protection law is said
to be the most far-reaching in the world, even voiding gagging
clauses in contracts. There is now a regular whistle blowers'
column in the London Times Higher Education Supplement.
In numerous international
disasters, whistle blowers had in fact spoken out about the risks
and suffered penalties for their public-spiritedness. The British
law was enacted only after several inquiries into scandals revealed
that employees had been too scared to report problems. Canada
has had its share of similar episodes, including military scandals
and cover-ups.
Most Canadians are
not protected from retaliation - except in New Brunswick. We
are one of the few jurisdictions in North America to offer protection.
Since 1989, New Brunswick's Employment Standards Act has protected
employees in the public or private sector who provide information
about an employer's violation of a provincial or federal law.
This legal protection is as yet untested - no complaints have
been filed with the government - and covers only the 75 per
cent of workers who are under provincial jurisdiction, but it
is still to New Brunswick's credit. The very existence of such
protection for whistle blowers should be an incentive for employers
to comply with laws.
During the 1993 federal
election, the Liberals promised to introduce whistle blower legislation
in the first session of Parliament. To date, only private members'
bills have been introduced, including two now under consideration.
No law has been adopted.
Some federal laws
on business competition and health and safety and the environment
do offer some narrow protection to Canadians, but only if a
complaint is made to a certain authority. Of course, some laws
require whistle blowing: Everyone is required by law to report
suspected child abuse.
As a result of a
series of scandals about covered-up manufacturing defects, Japan
- the land of rigid company loyalty - is now encouraging employees
to blow the whistle when they have information of concern.
Recent laws in the United States also champion whistle blowing,
while establishing a distinction between ethical whistle blowing
and groundless complaints.
One American law
gives whistle blowers a percentage of the savings realized when
inappropriate activity is ended by their disclosure: In its
first six years of implementation, $147 million has been saved
and the average whistle blower has received $400,000.
American cases have
included reports that a company was passing off false test results
on the MX missile's guidance system.
Recently, two Florida
journalists who had tried to report on the dangers of Monsanto's
bovine growth hormone won a $425,000 judgment, the first time
journalists have won a ‘whistle-blower' case against a
news organization accused of distorting the news.
Movies such as The
Insider and Silkwood made us marvel at the courage it took for
decent persons to simply do their duty. The federal government
- Health Canada actually - made a lot of hay when it used The
Insider hero himself, Jeffrey Wigand, as a consultant on its
dealings with tobacco companies.
We sure like them when they blow the whistle on the other guy.
Rosella
Melanson is a writer residing in Moncton. Her weekly column, Subject
to Debate, appears in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. She
can be reached at rosellam@nbnet.nb.ca.
copyright: Rosella Melanson
First published in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal May 2001.
Despite all the rhetoric and anger over the release of the cables no legal action has been taken against Julian Assange. The US probably cannot take any legal action since Julian Assange is an Australian and does not reside in the US. Note that the 
