I might just vote Liberal in the next federal election

Yes – it’s true!


OK – I am suspending my rant against institutionalizing young children, in order to comment on something WAY OVER THE TOP!!!

Yesterday, our Conservative Ministers of Justice (!) and Public Safety (Rob Nicholson and Peter Van Loan, respectively) have announced sweeping new legislation which would give police the power to snoop on all internet traffic – and the identity of people on the net – WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!

From The Canadian Press:

The proposed legislation would:

-enable police to access information on an Internet subscriber, such as name, street address and email address, without having to get a search warrant.

-force Internet service providers to freeze data on their hard drives to prevent subscribers under investigation from deleting potentially important evidence.

-require telecommunications companies to invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications.

-allow police to remotely activate tracking devices already embedded in cellphones and certain cars, to help with investigations.

-allow police to obtain data about where Internet communications are coming from and going to.

-make it a crime to arrange with a second person over the Internet the sexual exploitation of a child.

Did you notice that???

They ‘tack on’ the last one – protecting children from sexual exploitation – on to a whole set of really, really oppressive things.  This way, if anyone speaks up against it – they can SMEAR him/her by saying he/she does not want to ‘protect our children’!

I don’t even know where to begin my rant!!!

Do I start with the oppressive police-powers, or do I start with how the issue was intentionally manipulated, using our children’s well-being as a guise to strip us of our rights!!!

OK, I am a ‘little’ angry.

And I think I am right to be angry!  And every Canadian ought to be bloody angry about this, too!!!

The Harper government has repeatedly failed to reign in the Stalinist HRCs – which have now been shown to be staffed with political activists, religious extremists and corrupt ex-police officers, and which are trampling on REAL human rights in this country!

It is frightening that the federal Conservative Finance Minister’s wife, Christine Elliot, is running for the leadership of the Ontario Provincial Conservative Party leadership:  this kind of ‘political dynasties’ are bad for everyone….and I cannot believe that Conservatives (I am a ‘little ‘c’ conservative – so it is not my place to do so), in Ontario AND federally, have not caused major fuss about this.  But, her stand on the HRCs is truly frightening:  it is not’ politically expedient’ to reign them in – and the people be damned…this is about ME getting elected!!!

Now, it appears that her shalowness and political opportunism are a reflection of her husband’s federal Conservative policy… and THAT explains why the HRCs are allowed to rattle their sabres and continue to persecute anyone who dares to speak up against them!!!


But, even worse, now federal CONSERVATIVES(!) are planning to pass LAWS which would make it easier for the HRCs to abuse people who have committed thought crime – and will give such corrupting power to the police forces, too!

I don’t even know what is happening any more…

How could they?!?!?

Has Ezra’s lesson not sunk in?!?!?

How DARE they?!?!?

This is one lesson that if we wait until after we have learned what it means, it will be too late to ‘undo’ it!!!

What the (insert expletive of your choice) is going on?!?!?

Will I be forced to vote Liberal?

Damn them all!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

2 Responses to “I might just vote Liberal in the next federal election”

  1. EBD Says:

    Xanthippa, I feel like a fireman tonight. Not because I’m muscular and handsome, but because I’m running around trying to put out a wildfire of utter misinformation being promulgated by various media outlets in what I consider to be a deliberate use of implication, innuendo, key-words to evoke paranoia through (it seems to me) the willful, cynical provision of mindfully inaccurate information.

    First and most important, and it can’t possibly be stressed enough: under the proposed legislation, law enforcement WOULD require a warrant to access one’s online communications, exactly like they require one now when they “tap” phone lines.

    Through Canadian Press’ use of the words “greater access to Internet activity…”, in their headlines, and the Globe and Mail’s “Tories seek to widen police access online,” it seems like everyone is taking their partisan false-inudendo campaign at face value; this is sad because the information spread by the media is, IMO, mindfully misleading beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    The Globe and Mail piece began “Police will have sweeping new powers to collect information about Canadian Internet users without a warrant.” This is in effect a semantic trick, because the “information” they’re referring to is the list of users of a particular ISP — in other words, it’s the analog of a phone book. When you or I pick up a phone book, this doesn’t mean in the slightest that we are therefore able to eavesdrop on the conversations of any of the individuals’ names we see. In the case of users of an ISP, of course, it’s “sweeping” by virtue of being complete, and “new” because it’s not a phone book but a new technology.

    I’ve seen numerous headers on Conservative and other blogs repeating the “without a warrant” line, but this is *absolutely false*:


    The fact that police will be able to see if the subject of a criminal investigation is on the customer list of a particular ISPs has been readily morphed into such phrases as “sweeping new power to collect information,” etc. Again, it’s technically accurate but deliberately misleading; the bill is merely an updating to new technology to give law enforcement agencies the same sort of access that they’ve had years now to the phone lines of the subjects of criminal investigations. In both cases, a warrant issued by a judge *IS* required.

    I would be just as outraged as you over this if ANYONE had access to private communications without a warrant; issues pertaining to privacy and to state surveillance are critically important, and it’s for that very reason that it’s important that we not expend all our energy chasing phantom concerns. The CHRCs, for one example, are a far, far, FAR more serious concern to liberty than the fact that police, who *will* require a warrant from a judge, will have the same sort of access to internet communications that they’ve had for, what, fifty years, to phone lines.

    Sorry if I repeated myself once or twice or more (I’m pretty sure I did) but it’s really important that deliberately misleading information — inflammatory scare-stories sell — from the media not be reiterated as fact.

  2. captainff Says:

    I share your anger! The UK Government has adopted the “terrorists and peadophiles” tactic for a while now, with each new piece of authoritarian legislation being justified as aiding the interception and arrest of these groups.

    The worst part? All 3 of the main political parties here are broadly in favour of, or have proposals similar to, the bulk of the new laws.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Xanthippa says:
    I am – and I truly understand the reason!

    The scope of it all….very, very bad.

    Which is why we MUST find an alternative to the internet which will not be ‘regulatable’.

    I welcome all ideas!

    Where there is a will, there will be a way. Do we have the will???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: