*Promote because everyone should not only be seeing this but promoting it to parliament as being so past obvious. You have to ask yourself Why. Why does our government not free us from this corrupt system? Indeed, why did they switch from the Bank of Canada to public banks in the first place?

And thus why are they not listening to us and switching back even when the obvious is put right under their noses?

>> ^Enzoblue:
How many of these can we fight? They'll keep coming until some loosely worded, (exploitable) whatever gets passed - or they'll attach a rider on some other christmas tree bill and go under our noses. I don't see 'getting the word out' as being effective in the long hall.


You're right, though we shouldn't be discouraged. Having said that, while we're constantly fighting off legislation (not just in the USA, but worldwide) such as SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA you just know they're going to use the fact we're distracted to get other legislation in place.

It's weird that as a teenager I believed fully in the power of our vote and couldn't possibly comprehend why Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up parliament in the UK. Now I understand fully although I hasten to add I'm not encouraging it. Simply understand where Guy Fawkes was coming from.

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.

Related: protest within the Polish parliament, and Kader Arif, rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament, quit his role as rapporteur.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'funk, pfunk, parliment funkadelic, bootsy' to 'funk, pfunk, parliament funkadelic, bootsy' - edited by bareboards2

>> ^kevingrr:
...Most of the 'Christians' fought against things like ... the end of slavery

One thing I can argue with is using "most" falsely to strengthen arguments.

Most defending slavery were Christians.

Not

Most Christians defended slavery.

Most people in a position to argue about slavery either way in the 19th century were Christians.

William Wilberforce's success at pushing the English parliament into approving the abolition of slavery in the entire British empire can be considered the beginning of the end for chattel slavery around the world. The history of the abolitionist movement is full of religious people claiming to act out of religious conviction. I don't say "most" and certainly not "all." Lincoln obviously kept his religion (or lack thereof) necessarily vague.

Point is, don't just grab every modern liberal idea out of a bag when making a list of the evils of Christianity -- sometimes Christians have these ideas.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't like clutter. I don't like victorian buildings with fretwork, cornices faux columns etc. Nooks where dust collects and never leaves. Long planes of molded concrete surrounded by trees appeal to my aesthetic sense. >> ^kymbos:

As an architect's son and a former Canberran, I can only disagree with you on the architecture front. With the notable exception of the members bar of Old Parliament House - that thing is gorgeous.
Good luck in the Can. The place is empty over summer, as the public servants exodus to Bateman's Bay takes hold.

As an architect's son and a former Canberran, I can only disagree with you on the architecture front. With the notable exception of the members bar of Old Parliament House - that thing is gorgeous.

Good luck in the Can. The place is empty over summer, as the public servants exodus to Bateman's Bay takes hold.

@Skeeve

I love debating on the Internet and clearly you're spoiling for a fight, but I'm gonna take a pass on this one. I think we agree more than we disagree (i.e. that no one should ever be arrested for the content of their message unless it causes or is about to cause harm).

If I understand what you're saying, you'd like freedom of speech to protect not just content but manner, time, and place of speech and I suppose that's where I'd disagree. The laws in the U.S. and the U.K. that regulate the time, manner, and places where free speech are allowed seem to indicate that neither congress/parliament nor the courts agree the freedom extends that far. And I'm grateful for that. You're not. Fair enough.

Happy Sifting.

EDIT: See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#OffPriFreSpe for a good breakdown of the benefits and dangers of making offensive speech illegal, and an analysis of the times when it might be in the public's interest to make it illegal.

Anonymous advised its members to protect their online identities, and not to wear the traditional Anonymous mask in public, or even purchase them online, as a core group decides if it should take on a Mexican drug cartel that is said to have kidnapped a member of the group.

The hacker group had earlier threatened to expose the identity of members and supporters of a Mexican drug cartel by Nov. 5, in retaliation for the kidnapping of a group member, and hacked the web site of a former state official, alleging that he has associations with the dreaded Zetas cartel.

But there are fissures showing among the leaders as fear of handling the drug cartel builds up, with some expressing concern that new, inexperienced members could get quickly exposed and compromised.

The action has been cancelled, Sm0k34n0n wrote in a Twitter message in Spanish on Monday. High-profile colleague anonymouSabu described sm0k34n0n as one of the campaign's promoters in another Twitter message. But other groups from Latin America are said to be considering a core action group, and warning other members to stay away. AnonymouSabu was all for the action late Sunday.

A video in Spanish posted on YouTube on October 6 by a person calling himself "MrAnonymousguyfawkes", threatened that Anonymous will publish the names, photos, and addresses of police officials, journalists, and taxi drivers that collaborate with the drug cartel, hoping the government will arrest them.

"You made a huge mistake by taking one of us. Release him. And if anything happens to him, you (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5th," said a masked person in the video, according to a translation provided by another user of YouTube.

November 5 is known in the U.K. as Guy Fawkes day after his November 5, 1605, conspiracy to attempt to blow up the British Parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask, popularized by the movie V for Vendetta, has been adopted by Anonymous.

Anonymous claimed on Sunday to have defaced the website of a former official in the Mexican state of Tabasco. On Monday, the website bore a message in Spanish by Anonymous Mexico stating that he was a part of Zetas.

"We all know who they are and where they are," said the speaker in the video. Anonymous did not however claim that its hacking skills gave it special access to information on the cartel. Nor are its traditional tactics such as DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on websites likely to be of use against armed gangs, according to various analysts.

The drug cartel has killed people who have criticized them on blogs and other social media, according to reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York reported in September the murder of a journalist in direct retaliation for information posted on social media.

As newspapers are censored by fear, Mexican citizens, and many journalists, are turning to social media and online forums to share news and inform each other, said Sara Rafsky, a research associate in CPJ's Americas program. "So it should be no shock that drug cartels are turning their attention to the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242845/anonymous_threatens_to_expose_mexican_drug_cartel.html

Seems to fit:

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

-William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada.