"Workers in debt are slaves to their employers..."

I'm looking at you, student loans... *promote.

For those who don't know this man (I didn't) he spent 50 years in and out of the British Parliament.

"Anthony Neil Wedgwood "Tony" Benn, PC (3 April 1925 – 14 March 2014), the former 2nd Viscount Stansgate, was a British Labour Party politician who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1950 to 2001 (with two short breaks) and a cabinet minister under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan." /wiki

Unions would not come into existence if it was not for wasting time and resources because that is what companies care about. Clogging up the airport with opt outs is a valid form of protest and could be effective if many people got on board.

I would love to be a optimist like you and believe government follows facts and studies and just calling a congress person would solve the problem but realistically that does not happen. I could give you examples of this if you want but I believe this fact is obvious enough for it to stand on its own.

I am Canadian and I have met many Members of Parliament over an issue I cared about as well as protested over the same issue. A multipronged approach is best and I believe when it comes to the TSA it would help to clog the system with opt-outs till it breaks.

Thanks for posting quality stuff!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
Thanks for the promote!
In reply to this comment by notarobot:
*promote.

Good question can we get an answwer from @dag on that?
>> ^messenger:

The longer version is much more exciting. Is it considered bad Sifting form to replace an embed with a significantly extended one?>> ^notarobot:
I watched the whole match. It was nice to see Trudeau sporting a Katimavik logo (strength +1) on his right shoulder. Even more fun was hearing disappointment build up in the voice of commentator Ezra Levant's voice as the Trudeau turns the match around from Brazeau's strong opening.
Full fight here: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012
/03/20120331-233549.html

The longer version is much more exciting. Is it considered bad Sifting form to replace an embed with a significantly extended one?>> ^notarobot:

I watched the whole match. It was nice to see Trudeau sporting a Katimavik logo (strength +1) on his right shoulder. Even more fun was hearing disappointment build up in the voice of commentator Ezra Levant's voice as the Trudeau turns the match around from Brazeau's strong opening.
Full fight here: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/03/20120331-233549.html

Thanks for the promote!
In reply to this comment by notarobot:
*promote.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

No. What happened was the victim/shopkeeper was robbed and the thief got away. Some time later the shopkeeper saw the thief near the store so he ran out and "arrested" him (read: tied him up and locked him in a delivery van).

The problem is that Canadian law is pretty clear that a citizen can arrest someone during the commission of a crime. It's not so clear on arresting someone who is currently not committing any crime - even if the person is known to have committed one in the past.

In the end, the shopkeeper was vindicated in his arrest and two Members of Parliament have introduced bills to amend the citizen's arrest provision in the Criminal Code.

>> ^ponceleon:

Wait, so the Toronto guy was holding the wrong person?
>> ^Skeeve:
I totally agree. Though there were some extenuating circumstances in the Toronto one, like the fact that the citizen who held the thief did so long after that actual theft, having recognized him sometime later. (The citizen was found not guilty in the end, as it should be.)

Once inside the building, they barricaded themselves in and set to work. Equipment used to make weapon components were trashed and computers, filing cabinets and office furnishings were thrown out of the windows. Once they were done they calmly waited for the police to arrest them. Two activists who supported them outside the factory gates were also on trial. All of the defendants have argued that what they did was not only morally necessary but crucially that it was legal. U.K law allows the commission of damage of property to prevent greater crimes.

Two of the accused, Simon Levin and Chris Osmond have extensive experience of working in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement. Chris Osmond told the court that ’the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza at that time meant it was imperative to act’. He cited the words of Rachel Corrie, the U.S activist who was killed by an IDF bulldozer in Rafah, as an inspiration. The court heard a passage of Corrie’s diary ’I’m witnessing this chronic insidious genocide and I’m really scared, this has to stop, I think it is a good idea idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop’.

During the trial the court heard not only from the defendants themselves but from Sharyn Lock, who was an international human rights volunteer in Gaza during Cast Lead. She was inside Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City when it was attacked with white phosphorus. She concluded her evidence by saying that she had no doubt that those who armed the Israeli Air Force ’had the blood of children on their hands’. The jury saw footage of the air attacks on the UNWRA compounds where civilians were sheltering and have been given an edited version of the Goldstone report.

Recently elected member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also gave evidence supporting the decommssioners, saying that the democratic process ’had been exhausted’ as far as the factory was concerned.

On January the 17th 2009 the bombs had already fallen relentlessly on Gaza for three weeks. Massive, passionate demonstrations and pickets had been held in many cities around the country and the world in protest against Israel’s war crimes, but to no avail. A growing sense of helplessness was grabbing hold of the movement as the Palestinian body count stood at over 1400 and counting. 300 of the dead were children. It was against this background that the “citizen’s decommissioning” of EDO MBM/ITT took place.

EDO/ITT is an arms manufacturer, based in Brighton since 1946. They were acquired along with the rest of EDO Corporation by the multinational arms conglomerate ITT in December 2007. Their primary business is the manufacture of weapons systems such as bomb release mechanisms and bomb racks. This includes crucially the manufacture of the VER-2 Zero Retention Force Arming Unit for the Israeli Air Force’s F16 war planes.

Over the years, EDO have consistently denied supplying Israel, and despite over fifty court cases campaigners were not able to properly expose the links between the factory and the IAF. However the serious nature of the charges against the seven (the factory sustained nearly £200,000 of damage and may not have recommenced production for weeks) means that for the first time courts took the argument that EDOs business is fundamentally illegal very seriously.

Paul Hills, the Managing Director of EDO MBM, spent his five days on the witness stand last week being confronted with all the evidence gathered by campaigners over the years –evidence which exposes a complex network of collaboration between British, American and Israeli arms companies and the way in which their deals are clouded in secrecy. The Decommissioners were able to present Mr Hills, for the first time, with a dossier of evidence showing how EDO MBM use a front company in the U.S.A to indirectly supply components for the F 16 to Israel. Under U.K law the supply of weapons components that might be used in the Occupied Territories is actually a crime.

After hearing Hills’ explanations of his company’s business practices, Judge George Bathurst-Norman said that, despite Hill’s denials of dealing with Israel, it was clear that their was enough evidence to justify a genuinely held belief they did. He also offered the opinion that End User Certificates required for arms export licences were “ not worth the paper they are written on” as they can be easily manipulated.

There is a history of juries in British courts finding anti-war activists not guilty when they attack machinery used in war crimes. In 1996 four women from Trident Ploughshares decommissioned a Hawk jet that was about to be shipped to Indonesia – they were found not guilty. In 2008 the Raytheon 9, who damaged a factory in Derry supplying weapons to Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war, were acquitted by a jury and only two weeks ago a group of nine women carrying out a similar action at Raytheon during the Gaza attacks were also found not guilty by an unanimous jury.

On Friday, the jury found Simon Levin, Tom Woodhead, Ornella Saibene, Bob Nicholls, Harvey Tadman, Elijah Smith and Chris Osmond not guilty of “Conspiracy to Cause Criminal damage” by unanimous verdict in Hove Crown Court.

Chris Osmond said “This action was taken because of EDO MBMs illegal supply of weapons to the Israeli military. We brought the suffering of ordinary Palestinians into a British courtroom and confronted with the evidence they took the brave decision to find that our actions were justified.”

The decommissioners’ stance made it clear to companies like EDO that they can no longer count on not being held to account for their actions. There are now a growing number of people in the international community who are willing to risk their own liberty to stand up for the people of Gaza and to challenge Israel’s war crimes through whatever means possible.

I don't know that we pretend it's not there. I'll say this, though - I was studying politics in the late 90s when there were a handful of her party members (One Nation) in the Queensland Parliament. We went on a field trip to the Parliament, and these people sat by themselves, acknowledged by no one else. Every other member of parliament pretended they weren't there. They were complete outcasts, thoroughly ignored by every major party. It was fascinating. Apparently it wasn't just in the sitting house either. Even in the corridors, in the street, at functions - the major parties just pretended they didn't exist. And then, eventually, they didn't exist.

Surprise surprise.

"The Pentagon maintains that no crime was committed and no investigation will be carried out."

I'm not big on writing to your Member of Parliament/Congress - but I think in this case there should be some repercussions.

When I was in grade 9, we had a 'go to work with your parents day'. My mother ran a business, but my father was a Member of Parliament, 2000 kilometers away. I asked him if I could come to work with him the following week, and he said "sure, son".

We traveled to Ottawa, went to work on Parliament Hill, got a round of applause during Question period when my father mentioned I was there, and flew back home the next day.

That was awesome.

They could make exactly the same video about USA or Israel or anyone else. Design in a Very shallow way for morons and the masses.

If these are actual soundbites, no they can't.

This video clearly shows a consistent pattern of elected Hamas Members of Parliament calling in public speeches for the complete death of their enemies and for conquering the rest of the world. The context of those statements is unmistakeable.

This is not just a single nutjob reverend from the Bible Belt preaching "kill the homos" here, these are official government representatives endorsing the death of members of another culture. You won't find many occurrences of American politicians saying the same thing without being completely marginalized, even though through its actions, America is doing some of the same things Hamas is saying they want to do in this video.

Right let's be factual.

"Venezuela's parliament, dominated by supporters of President Hugo Chavez, has begun its final debate on proposed changes to the constitution. The changes would remove term limits for the presidency, and extend the term of office from six years to seven.

The assembly on Tuesday added 25 amendments to a previous 33 passed by Congress, including proposals to detain citizens without charge in emergencies. If passed, all the measures will be put to a popular referendum in December.

There are no opposition politicians in the Venezuelan National Assembly, since most of the anti-Chavez parties boycotted the last election in 2005. However, several members of parliament have questioned the way these late changes have been introduced, calling it constitutional fraud. "

Mr Chavez said the changes were "imperative to the revolution" and would help make the country more socialist. One of the most controversial amendments would allow the president sweeping powers during a state of emergency.

The international organisation Human Rights Watch has condemned this, saying under international law all countries have to guarantee certain freedoms at all times. "Recent Latin American history shows that it is precisely during states of emergency that countries need strong judicial protections to prevent abuse," said HRW Americas director, Jose Miguel Vivanco.

Also on Tuesday, a long-standing critic of the president, Roman Catholic Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara, died, aged 85. He had consistently spoken out against Mr Chavez, saying the president was increasingly authoritarian and "fundamental democratic principles [were] ignored or violated".

For his part, the president called Cardinal Castillo Lara "a hypocrite, bandit and devil with a cassock".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7048229.stm

On August 15, 2007, Chavez called for an end to presidential term limits to extend his rule and consolidate a self-styled socialist revolution in Venezuela. He also proposed eliminating central bank autonomy, strengthening state expropriation powers and giving himself control over international reserves as part of an overhaul of Venezuela's constitution.

Appealing to the masses, then coercing that trust into fulfilling selfish aims is the mark of every dictator known to mankind. Am so tired of this endless drivel that Hugo Chavez is just a saintly person, nothing corrupts like power. The sweeping nationalist powers that Chavez would enjoy would allow him to claim any number of emergency states (e.g. foreign threats) to garner absolute power overnight. The Myth of Saint Chavez is already complete, the poor have rallied around him and will do as he wishes regardless what that could mean for V's future state of democracy.

The latest on this story:

Turkey to call general election:

The AK party is still backing Abdullah Gul, Turkey's foreign minister, as its presidential candidate [AFP]. Turkey's parliamentary constitutional committee has recommended that general elections be brought forward from November to July. The electoral board made the decision on Wednesday after Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, requested that general elections be held to end a political deadlock over the election of a new president. The decision still needs to be approved by parliament which is likely to meet on Thursday to discuss the proposal. Erdogan had asked for elections to be held on June 24, but the committee settled instead on July 22. Senior members of the AK party had called for national elections to be brought forward from November to June 24 in order to resolve a stand-off with the country's military. "Bringing forward the general election will reduce uncertainty," Bulent Arinc, a senior AK Party member and parliamentary speaker, told a news conference on Wednesday. "[The decision] will meet our people's expectation for trust and stability." The AKP appeared to be hoping that its success in promoting economic growth and pushing down inflation would see it returned to power with a renewed and strengthened mandate. Erdogan also said that he was considering changing the constitution to enable the president to be elected directly by a popular vote.

Presidential elections:

Also on Wednesday, Turkey's parliament ratified a timetable for electing a president that was put forward by the country's ruling Justice and Development party (AK party). MPs from the 550-seat parliament will vote on Sunday in the first of four rounds of voting that will culminate in the election of a new president, parliament ruled on Wednesday. The decision to hold a re-run of the first round of voting came a day after the Constitutional Court ruled that a similar vote held last week was invalid because not enough members of parliament had been present. Senior members of the army threatened on Friday to intervene in politics if the AK party moved to dismantle or weaken the country's secular constitution.

Constitutional crisis:

Parliament held the first of four rounds of vote to elect a new president last Friday.
Abdullah Gul, the AK party candidate, won the largest share of the vote but failed to achieve the required quorum after opposition parties boycotted the vote and failed to put forward their own candidate. The opposition parties - mainly composed of secularist, pro-army parties - then argued that the vote was invalid and appealed to the country's constitutional court to consider ordering a re-run. On Tuesday, the court ruled in the favour of the opposition parties and said that the vote must be repeated."

(Al-Jazeera 3/5/2007)