Big Brother in India

While most of our information is saturated with the news of the latest wave of fighting in the Middle East, with the latest terrorist attacks around the world, it is understandable that we become more and more afraid about our physical well being.   Add to this the whole ‘world financial crisis’ and the fear that we might soon loose our ability to pay our bills…

This has lead to two things:  increased sense of danger (justifiably, perhaps) with the accompanying desire to give our ‘authorities’ all the means necessary to protect us (physically and fiscally) on the one hand and a sense of apathy (or, perhaps, information overload) when it comes to ‘non-urgent’ or ‘non-critical’ news. 

It is understandable – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and all that. 

These dangers are very real.  Yet, let’s face it:  for most of us, they are not as immediately dangerous as the atmosphere created by the mainstream media would make us feel.  (Yes, I do use the word feel rather than think – most of this coverage beamed constantly at us is not designed to make us think, but rather to evoke an emotional response from us:  feelings and emotions sell better than making people think does.)

While we are busy paying attention to these perceived dangers, we are not paying attention to some very real, very immediate dangers around us.  Perhaps they may not deprive us of our livelihood, or our life – but they are certainly depriving us of our liberty!

We are all aware that in many ‘not-so-free’ states, internet censorship is high.  Very high.  Malaysia, for example, has now been monitoring Malaysian bloggers to make sure they did not post anything that could be insulting to Islam.  (Actually, this does seem in keeping with the UN again passing the ‘blasphemy is not allowed under free speech’ resolution…)   And we all remember the fuss the MSM reporters kicked up when they got to the Beijing Olympics and found their internet access limited:  they did not particularly care if the Chinese citizens were oppressed or not (after all, they went to Beijing to ‘celebrate’ the current Chinese oppressors), they were just upset that their own ‘special privilages’ may have been limited….  But, I am going off on a tangent again…

The next country whose internet Big Brother has turned his attention to?  India.

Many people consider India to be a part of ‘The West’ – and, despite the fact that it is geographically located rather east, I concur that, philosophically, economically and politically, India is indeed more of a ‘Western’ country than not.  It is a democracy – and quite a big one – where the standard of living has risen, education has become the standard, and people do enjoy a lot of freedoms (including the freedom of religion).  In my never-humble-opinion, India has been succeeding in integrating the best things from ‘The West’ into its distinctly ‘Eastern’ culture – and has not lost her identity in the process.  No country is perfect, of course, but – as countries go – I think India is moving in the right direction.

That is why I was so chilled when I learned that the extent of interntet survailance which India’s new laws would permit (nay, require!).  Via Slashdot and Zero Paid , here is an article (very well written) on Countercurrents.org by Binu Karunakaran:  ‘India Sleepwalks to Total Surveillance’.

The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2006 passed by the Indian Parliament recently allows the government to intercept messages from mobile phones, computers and other communication devices to investigate any offence. Not just cognizable offence, the kind you witnessed in Mumbai 26/11, but any offence.

Any email you send, any message you text are now open to the prying eyes of the government. So are the contents of your computer you surfed in the privacy of your home. “

The amended Act also grants the state absolute power to block access to any website in the national interest. In short a total gag and surveillance act that doesn’t set any limits for law enforcers, or have inbuilt safeguards against misuse. “

‘Policing’ and ‘pornography’ (in one form or another):  these are the two things always evoked as states usurp freedoms – this is the predictable pattern!  ‘National security’ and ‘morality’ – how come we are still buying into this debunked pretence???  (Yes, I have written on this before, so I don’t want to belabour the point…but, are humans really this gullible?)

What is quite frightening in the current laws passed by India is not just the extent to which these laws abolish privacy, but also the means through which the laws are to be implemented:

“…A law so sweeping in its powers that it allows a police officer in the rank of a sub-inspector to walk in or break in to the privacy of your home and see if you were surfing porn or not. It’s the personal morality of the official that will decide whether the picture/content you were looking at was lascivious or appeals to prurient interest.”

I wonder if Jennifer Lynch, the chief opressor of Human Rights in Canada, is planning any expensive trips to India to ‘study’ these laws – and to try to figure out how to implement them here!

In his article, Binu Karunakaran goes on to explain that people in India are now going to have to follow 3 new commandments:

  1. Thou shalt not author a joke.  Not even forward one.
  2. Thou shalt not surf Bollywood news (even things not explicitly pornographic, but ones which could ‘evoke lascivious thoughts’, are banned).
  3. Thou shalt not watch porn.

He explains each commandment.  Read the whole article hereif you dare!

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

My response to ‘DMCAs as an instrument of censorship’ video on YouTube

If you read this blog regularly, you may know that Freedom Of Speech is near and dear to my heart. 

It is essential that we defend our freedom of speech, because if we are not free to speak up, we cannot defend any of our other rights.  Therefore, quite uncharacteristically for me, I have gone and made a response to the video telling the YouTube community about how some groups and individuals filed fraudulent DMCA charges against a number of YouTube channels whose message they do not like. 

Instead of using their freedom of speech to challenge the messages they did not agree with, these people (and organizations) tried to curb freedom of speech….  Even though they knew that each one of their DMCA charges would be proven false, they knew that simply by having DMCAs filed against them, it will create a bad reputation for tha channel.  As a result of this ‘bad reputation’, this channel can be suspended by YouTube. 

It is a variation on the ‘lawfare’ we have seen in Canada to silence some voices….

So, here is my response:

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

DMCA’s a an instrument of censorship

As 2009 opens, I am encouraged to see that more and more people are waking up to the dangers to the growing trend of censorship of free speech – with the dangers this entails!

It really does not matter who it is that is attempting to impose censorship of free speech:  it is the attempt itself that must be opposed, by every freely thinking human being, regardless of their particular world view, philosophy, religion, or whatever else they choose to call their outlook on life!

In Canada, we have seen the insultingly called ‘human rights commissions’ censoring any speech that seems to advance the Christian point of view.  Ezra Levant higlighted this when he demonstrated that publishing the very same words which got a Christian pracher, father Boissoin, a lifetime ban (!!!) on conveying his opinions on marriage and homosexuality (he was, among other things, a marriage councellor, so this, in fact, deprived him of his livelihood). Yet, when Mr. Levant – a Jew – published the very same letter that father Boission had written, he was not persecuted…. 

Thus, Mr. Levant demostrated clearly that it was the speaker’s religious affiliation – not the words he spoke (or published) – which determined his ‘guilt’….

On the other hand, we have the ‘YouTube case’ where several radicalized Christian organizations had abused the Digiatal Millenium Copyright Act in an attempt to censor areligious and anti-rligious voices.  It really is chilling!  Please, join in the fight to stop DMC abuse to impose censorship on this particular forum or free thought:

All of this is not happening in a ‘vacuum’ or in some sort of ‘isolation’.  During this time, the UN has, quietly, decided that it is reasonable to limit freedom of speech in order to suppress ANY SPEECH that would criticize any ‘religion’!  This should strike the fear of censorship into every one of our hearts!

The great philosopher Hypatia had said:

“All forms of dogmatic religions are fallatious and should never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final!”

While I agree wholeheartedly with Hypatia’s sentiment, if it would not be too presumptuous of me, I would like to ‘update’ her statement to encompass the relalities of today:

“All forms of dogmatic doctorines (religious or secular) are fallatious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final – and must never be allowed to form a basis for laws and policies!”

Hypatia’s martyrdom marked the end of the classical era and the onset of the ‘Dark Ages’:  times where thought was replaced by blind obedience to dogmatic doctorine, learning was replaced by ignorance, respect for knowledge was replaced by book-burning and the destruction of all who entertained ‘opposing thought’

Are we at similar crossroads now?

Much of what is happening in the world indicates that we just might be. 

Yet, the dawn of 2009 is also bringing to us the beginning of the awareness of the danger of being at such a crossroads!  And, whether it is ‘Christian thought’ which is being censored – or which is attempting to do the censoring – the ‘dogma-affiliation’ (religious or secular dogma, it really makes little difference) is much less important than the action it takes:  censoring free speech and, by extention, free thought!  I really do not care who it is that is the censor, or who is being censored.  

Those are just the details of the larger precedent:  the desire and ability to censor!

This is something we must all stand together to oppose.  I just hope enough of us realize this and, setting aside our doctorinal differences, we lend our voices to the battle which would silence us all!

Muslims Against Sharia: ‘Hypocrisy in Action’

Here is an interesting post on ‘Muslims Against Sharia’s’ Blog:  ‘Hypocrisy in Action’:

After listing a number of headlines from many various ‘news sources’ from around the world which unanimously decry the Israeli air raid on Gaza, Muslims Against Sharia ask this key question (emphasis and colour accent is theirs):

Where were Egypt, Russia, OIC,

EU, Britain, Sarkozy, US and Austria

when Hamas was pounding Israel

with daily barrage of rockets?

 

Where indeed…

At least, many people are now asking the question.  (Yes, I am an idealistic optimist…)  And, ‘questioning’ is the first step towards change. 

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

Corporate censorship – tip of the iceberg…

‘The Economy of Ideas’ by John Perry Barlow, the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is an excellent (if a little long – but well worth reading) essay published in 1994 in Wired Magazine.  I would be a visionary essay were it published today!  Here, Barlow warns us that in the coming years, corporate censorship could be the greatest danger to our freedom of speech.

A provocative – but well reasoned – position, to say the least. 

“Throughout the history of copyrights and patents, the proprietary assertions of thinkers have been focused not on their ideas but on the expression of those ideas. The ideas themselves, as well as facts about the phenomena of the world, were considered to be the collective property of humanity.”

“Notions of property, value, ownership, and the nature of wealth itself are changing more fundamentally than at any time since the Sumerians first poked cuneiform into wet clay and called it stored grain. Only a very few people are aware of the enormity of this shift, and fewer of them are lawyers or public officials.”

“Whenever there is such profound divergence between law and social practice, it is not society that adapts. Against the swift tide of custom, the software publishers’ current practice of hanging a few visible scapegoats is so obviously capricious as to only further diminish respect for the law. “

“I believe that law, as we understand it, was developed to protect the interests which arose in the two economic “waves” which Alvin Toffler accurately identified in The Third Wave. The First Wave was agriculturally based and required law to order ownership of the principal source of production, land. In the Second Wave, manufacturing became the economic mainspring, and the structure of modern law grew around the centralized institutions that needed protection for their reserves of capital, labor, and hardware.

Both of these economic systems required stability. Their laws were designed to resist change and to assure some equability of distribution within a fairly static social framework. The empty niches had to be constrained to preserve the predictability necessary to either land stewardship or capital formation.

In the Third Wave we have now entered, information to a large extent replaces land, capital, and hardware, and information is most at home in a much more fluid and adaptable environment. The Third Wave is likely to bring a fundamental shift in the purposes and methods of law which will affect far more than simply those statutes which govern intellectual property.” (my emphasis) 

Barlow makes the case that corporate interests will, if allowed, protect their investment in the ‘ideas’ which are the ‘currency’ of the Third Wave – and that could involve significant curbing of our freedom of expression.

Interestingly enough, I have come across this video (and there are many others which raise this issue) that might just demonstrate a tiny little bit of what Barlow is talking about:

It is something to ponder….

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

REAL cultural tolerance!!!

A few days ago, I had an experience that proved to me something I think most of us already know:  the ‘official bureaucrats’, ‘brave and steadfast guardians of multiculturalism’ (in the name of which they are ready to oppress us) really have no clue what ‘being multicultural’ is all about!!!

Having arrived a little early for my son’s ‘parent-teacher interview’, I walked around a little, admiring the pictures and poems posted in the school hallways.  Unusually, in front of the library door, there were a couple of chairs and a desk.  In these chairs sat two girls, I’m guessing about 12 years old.   They were supervised by one of their Mom’s (sitting off to the side) – their smiles betrayed the heritage.  Both mother and daughter wore a hijab – so I am making a presumption that they were Muslim.  The other student, the daughter’s friend, did not wear a hijab. 

Yet, the two of girls were obviously good friends – and they made an awesome team.  These two girls decided that it was important to help kids less fortunate then they – and they figured out a way they could make a real difference in the world!

In order to raise money for a charity helping kids in Africa, they focused their creative efforts.  Taking up card-stock, delicately ornate origami paper, glue and calligraphy markers, they made a whole slew of Christmas cards to sell to parents coming to the parent-teacher interviews!

When I asked, they told me they came up with the idea together.  Their eyes shone with pride of ‘doing right’!  And, they were justly proud – their cards were beautiful!  At a $1.00 a piece, I saw every parent passing them (including myself) dump all the change from their wallets and walk away with a stack of Christmas cards.

The Mom was the ’empowering parent’:  not only did she agree to supervise the ‘sales’, she was the one to buy the supplies, too.  The Mom was happy when other parents stopped and asked questions, and she looked downright ‘parentally proud’ when someone complimented the two girls or their Christmas cards – or their greater goal! 

And the girls deserved every compliment they got!  Many young people have awesome ideals, but these two girls had actually figured out a way they themselves could have an impact in making this world a better place for others.  My deep respect goes to them!

Now, I would like to repeat the reality of this:  I (an ignostic) have just bought a whole pile of the most beautiful Christmas cards ever from 2 very young people, one of whom wore the hijab (and, thus, was presumably not a Christian).  And the adult supervisor/enabler was (in my best guess) a Muslima.  I have no clues as to the cultural or religious thoughts of the third person.  Not one of us found anything in the least offensive in making, selling and buying cards wishing everyone to have a ‘Merry Christmas’!

To me, that is a perfect example of the way that people – without government imposed ‘official multiculturalism’ and the bureaucrats who force us into cultural apartheid – will do that most human thing ever:  build communities! And it proves we can do it without regard as to our background culture, religion, or any other superficial means of labeling us, classifying us and dividing us! 

That whole ‘divide and conquer’ will only work if we allow ourselves to be divided!  And if we allow ourselves to be divided, we will be conquered and our rights and freedoms will be taken away!

We must not be hiding our cultural icons from each other, for fear giving offence!  If we hide them, we cannot share them – nor can we rejoice in them!  We can learn from each other by sharing in each other’s festivals, ideas and thoughts.  That is the most human thing ever – and we must not allow those who wish to rule us by dividing us into ‘cultural solitudes’ to succeed!

We can understand that anything which celebrates the human spirit and the beauty of caring and sharing can help us build our community and grow as human beings.  And, at times, our young people can even teach us how sharing in each other’s celebrations can help people whom we do not even know!

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is REAL cultural tolerance! 

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

Dangers of online journalism

This article might be of interest to the online community we call the blogosphere:

CPJ’s 2008 prison census: Online and in jail

Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium.

China continued to be world’s worst jailer of journalists, a dishonor it has held for 10 consecutive years. Cuba, Burma, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan round out the top five jailers from among the 29 nations that imprison journalists. Each of the top five nations has persistently placed among the world’s worst in detaining journalists.

“Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists has captured the attention of repressive governments around the world, and they have accelerated their counterattack.”

Illustrating the evolving media landscape, the increase in online-related jailings has been accompanied by a rise in imprisonments of freelance journalists.

“The image of the solitary blogger working at home in pajamas may be appealing, but when the knock comes on the door they are alone and vulnerable,” said CPJ’s Simon. “All of us must stand up for their rights–from Internet companies to journalists and press freedom groups. The future of journalism is online and we are now in a battle with the enemies of press freedom who are using imprisonment to define the limits of public discourse.”

Read the whole story here.

My husband has been googling for classes in how to bake a file into a cake…

The ‘Censorship Creep’

People tend to react strongly when someone comes along and strips them of their rights.  Unless it is done gradually, over time… with reassurences at each step that this will ‘only be used in extreme cases’.

Laws are laws.  We must recognize what power each law gives the government – whether or not the government is claiming to ‘reserve it’ for such ‘extreme cases’ or ‘justifiable instances’ or not.  Because eventually, these laws will be applied to their fullest!

One such example is Australia.

Everybody is against child pornography.  We would also not like our young kids to be able to access regular pornography over the internet, would we?  We would all go to great lengths to protect our children!  That is part of human nature.  So, when Australia began to make sounds about the dangers of pornography over the internet and needing to protect our children from it, people listened – and allowed the government to pass some of the most restrictive internet censorship laws!

Of course, much of this was not enforced.  Everybody knew this was just a way to get at child pornographers – and to keep little kids off porn sites – and had nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech and expression!  Right?  Yes, everyone was obliged to install the ‘censorship software’ on their computers, but since the government was not enforcing much of these laws, people could choose to either turn it on or off.  So, no problem, right?

Except that last week (mostly unnoticed in the US pre-election frenzy), the Australian government announced that it is going to begin enforcing that the ‘censorship software’ be turned on!

Consider the implications of this – in order to censor something, the Australian government will have to scan it.  Therefore, any ‘sensitive’ or ‘proprietary’ or ‘private’ information will be accessed by a government bureaucrat….which opens an incredibly large potential for abuse – as well as goes against the inherent spirit of the internet.  Want to encrypt sensitive information you send over the internet?  That just might be illegal, because it would hamper the government’s ability to monitor the content…

Does it really do anything for the welfare of our children, to give the government this much power over our lives?

And it would be silly to speak up now – after all, it is a law that has been in existence for a while….there’s nothing wrong with a government enforcing its laws now, is there?  But, it started slowly and reasonably…. and next year, as it slowly becomes enforced, it will be too late to begin to protest against this law.

Let’s take another example – one that is not aimed specifically at the Internet:  Canada’s ‘Section 13’ of the Human Rights Act (NOT to be confused with the Human Rights CODE, like I have done in some of my comments in the past.  My bad).  When it was passed, we were all told it was simply a tool to root out neo-nazis and dangerous anti-semites… so we all nodded our heads and went along with it. 

The Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals – established as the guardians of Human Rights – were set up with the best ideals.  To make them accessible to people who have no means to afford a lawyer, they were made a little less ‘rigorous’ than a ‘real’ court.  At that time, it seemed a good idea to make ‘getting justice’ accessible to everyone…

But, the HRCs have now used ‘Section 13’ to force a Christian priest to renounce his faith and forbid him to ever – privately or publicly – comment on issues relating to homosexuality or marriage.  It has also been used to fine a restaurant owner who did not permit a patron to smoke cannabis on his premises – even though allowing it could have cost the restaurant owner his liquor licence.  It has aslso been used to try to force a doctor to perform a medical procedure for which he did not think he was qualified.  The list goes on and on!

But what is insidious about this ‘censorship creep’ is what it does to our society as a whole.  It rips us apart!

It gives those pompous apartchicks and busybodies the ability to wrap themselves in the cloak of righteous indignation and impose their will in ways that would otherwise not be tolerated! 

Here is an example of what I mean:  reccently, a College (well, University) radio station manager, Matthew Crosier, wrapped himself up in such a cloak of righteous indignation and got rid of a show which he did not like.  The reasoning?  Even though the hosts assured him they would comply with any policy he might impose on them, he retorted that – and I kid you not, this is a direct quote:

“We are not looking for people to conform to our mandate we are looking for programming that fits our mandate.”

In other words, Mr. Crosier is saying:  “Your obedience is insufficient – you must  believe what I believe, or I’ll kick you off the air!  Your actual behaviour is secondary to your political and personal views.”

This same person also refused to pass any actual complaints from listeners onto the show’s hosts – even with the names and contact info of the complainants redacted.  And, this is what he said about the fact that during ‘Canadian Islamic History Month’, they did a show about the Prophet Mohammad:

How do we build community by presenting the history of Mohammed by two non believers?’

And, there you have it.  Denying someone their right to speak their mind, because they do (or do not) belong to a specific religious group.

In my opinion, by making that statement, Mr. Crosier had himself breeched Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code – but because his beliefs and views are in in agreement with those of the current elites, in whose hands the control over Human Rights issues lie, he will never be prosecuted or in any way punished for breaking the law.  We have seen it before…

Because this ‘creeping censorship’ is not about changing behaviour – it is about changing peoples’ beliefs! 

It is not enough to obey, you must also LOVE big brother!

‘Linking to offensive site is not defamation’ – legal precedent set in BC court

As many Canadian bloggers are being targetted for ‘lawfare’ – using real courts or the semi-judicial (but just as legally binding) Human Rights Commission/Tribunals in order to bully them with the threat of stressful, expensive and long-term legal battle – we have a legal precedent that might serve to curb at least some of these.

For example, Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury  is being dragged in front of the HRC for having linked to a site which contained something that was ‘potentially offensive’.  She, and many others like her, may now have a new weapon in their defense:  the precedent set in a BC court (a real court – unsurprisingly, is not as random as the HRCs!).

In this case, Jon Newton (p2pnet) was being sued for publishing a link – the argument being that the link itself constituted ‘re-publishing’ the offensive material. 

From p2pnet, in his own words:

Following a landmark decision by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Stephen Kelleher, p2pnet is the victor in a case in which Vancouver businessmen Wayne Crookes, once an important federal Green Party of Canada official, tried to claim I defamed him by linking to articles he didn’t like.

That amounted to publication,  he maintained.

The full decision can be found here (from p2pnet) and the actual pdf is here.

An excellent summary can be found at ‘EXCESS COPYRIGHT’:

Essentially, the Court held that a link is much the same as a footnote, except a lot more convenient.

Congratulations to both Mr. Jon Newton and his lawyer, Mr. Dan Burnett!  And, Judge Kelleher – well done!

Steal this post!

With the upcoming conference ‘The Media’s Right to Offend: Exploring Legal and Ethical Limits on Free Speech’ in Halifax (Yes, Ezra will be speaking), I cannot but make the connections between the limitations on the freedom of speech the government on one hand and corporate interests on the other.

This is not meant to distract from the one – rather, it is to call attention to the connections between the two, and to make sure we don’t get side-swiped by corporate censorship just as we will have won the legal battle against the government.  And, it seems clear to me that corporate censorship is as much of a threat to our freedoms as government censorship is.

xkcd’s ‘Steal this comic’

If you dont like this, demand DRM-free files
xkcd says:  … I have lost every other piece of DRM-locked music I had paid for. 

While I have too much respect for the rule of law to advocate piracy, I do think that we need change bad laws.  And laws which turn the majority of the population into criminals (even without their knowledge) are bad laws – in my never-humble-opinion.

If you want more info on this – and missed my earlier rant on this, please, watch ‘Steal This Film’!  It is important that we understand how these laws can affect us….and what USED to be perceived as ‘piracy’:

  • in the 1970’s, network TV fought against Cable, saying putting their content onto a cable that ran to people’s home was ‘piracy’
  • when the VCR was invented, Hollywood movie studios predicted that this would be the end of them, as this ‘piracy’ would rob them of revenue.
  • the ‘sheet music’ people – as well as many musician unions – resisted ‘recorded music’, because they perceived it as ‘piracy’
  • the 1st mp3-player out there (long before ipod) was met with lawsuits for ‘facilitatin piracy’

Traditionally, copyright violation was a matter for civil courts.  In order for a criminal prosecution to occurr, there had to be more than just simple copyright violation.  But that is no longer the case, as corporations are forcing criminal charges to be laid agains simple, non-commercial copyright violation….that is something we need to pay attention to!

So, please,

Steal This Film