Canada’s Political Prisoner Is Due In Court

UPDATE:  JE SUIS ERIC!

In case you have not been following his case, Eric Brazeau is most definitely Canada’s Political Prisoner.

OK, so he may not be a very likeable guy – I’ve heard from people who are frustrated with him but support his cause as well as from people from the freedom of speech movement who cannot stand him.  Having never met the guy, I am unable to pass my own judgment.

BUT!!!

And this is the crux of the matter ‘BUT!!!’.

Regardless of anything else, it would be irresponsible to not bring the facts of the matter to public knowledge.

Fact #1:

Eric Brazeau had a politically incorrect conversation while using Toronto’s public transit.

Fact #2:

Eric Brazeau was very, very careful to restrict his commentary to a codified, dogmatic doctrine – without any allusions to peoples or cultures.

Fact #3:

As a direct result of this conversation (and, I have seen a private video of it, so even though I am not permitted to publish it, I can honestly report to you, my dear reader, that this conversation was limited to factually accurate criticism of a doctrine without any allusions or references to people, individuals or practitioners of any doctrine), Eric Brazeau was arrested and jailed without any possibility of bail.

Fact #4:

Eric Brazeau charges criminal charges as a result of this private conservation because it is charged that the conversation ‘offended’ some people who eavesdropped on it.

Fact #5:

The judge said that the possibility that Mr. Brazeau might have another politically incorrect conversation while on bail was sufficient reason to keep him in jail to await his trial without any possibility of bail.

Fact #6:

By now, he has spent more time in jail awaiting trial than the longest possible sentence he could receive for the charges he is facing!!!

Yes!!!  Please, allow me to repeat this:  Eric Brazeau has ALREADY SPENT MORE TIME IN JAIL THAN HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO IF FOUND GUILTY!!!!!!!

If being held in jail for longer than the maximum potential sentence – and for speech, not deeds – is anything other than the very definition of being a ‘political prisoner’ (and I say this as the daughter of a former dissident in a communist country – not some naive idealist), then the term ‘political prisoner’ has been rendered meaningless!!!

OK – disclosure: this really, really gets under my skin!

Many of the ‘free speechers’ will not stand up for this guy, because he is not likeable.

The last time I looked, being an asshole did not mean you did not have human rights – or that setting a precedent of our society being OK with stripping a jerk of his human rights because we don’t like him is OK….because when people who don’t like you come to power, the legal precedent of it being OK to treat YOU as less than human will have been set…

So, I planned to be there tomorrow morning, in the Toronto courtroom, to witness Canada’s baby-step towards tyranny.  By the way, his case number is 4815998145000366701, in case you can follow it or go to 2201 Finch Av W in Toronto this Monday, 5th of January, 2015 and report on it (if you can and do go, I will be very happy to publish your report on the case – just contact me with your account!).

I had planned for months to attend – I planned to travel to Toronto the day before and attend this trial and then, on Wednesday, the ‘Concerned Citizen’s appeal’ in the Presto scandal case. But…

…you may have noticed, my dear reader, that I have been unusually ‘quiet’ lately…  I’ve been a little under the weather and am simply not fit to travel and so, unhappily, I will miss both court dates.  You cannot imagine how angry and sad this makes me, but, as the saying goes:  the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak…

So, if you can make it there, do let me know and I will do my best to spread the word!

EDIT:  P.S.  There are two trials scheduled for 10 am in courtroom #211 at the Finch Street Court location in Toronto – so, there is no way to tell whether Mr. Brazeau’s trial will be first or second…but, scheduling two trials for one day….having witnessed quite a few civil cases (but no criminal ones), I find it difficult to believe two trials which could strip people of their civil liberties could possibly be sufficiently heard by one judge in one day…

Cop’s Obama Rant Embarrasses Officials, Spurs 2014 Nanny of the Year Win

Milton Friedman – The Road To A Collectivist State

‘Twas the Night Raid Before Christmas

Walter E Williams – A Discussion On Wealth Inequality

Walter Williams makes I point that reminds me of something that happened back when I was in high school. One of my English teachers was an old hippy who considered himself to be very progressive and who thought socialism was the best thing ever.  Now, having been born and grown up in a socialist worker’s paradise aka the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, I knew the reality of that life and disagreed most vociferously with his characterizations of it.

One time, when discussing the difference between political systems in the West and East, he presented what he considered to be an unassailable argument:  “If you are hungry, and somebody hands you a steak, you don’t ask where it comes from!”

I pointed out, rather sharply, that there is a big difference:  the Western way, if you were hungry, people would hand you a steak out of the goodness of their heart.  The Socialist way was to hand you a gun and say:  “Your neighbour eats steaks every day and that is not fair.  Go and take them from him at gun point!”

This is born out again and again:  the more robust the ‘social support net’ is perceived to be, the less people give to charity.

The more wealth in a society is redistributed at gunpoint, the less people are predisposed to share with the less fortunate people out of the goodness of their heart – and rather understandably so.  No longer do they feel it is their job to help – they are already paying the government to do it for them!

And we all know how good kind and caring large bureaucracies like the government are!

John Stossel – Property and Prosperity

DRM discriminates against the visually impaired

DRM – Digital Rights Management, is the digital copyright protection placed on electronic media by the major manufacturers/distributors of content (movies, CDs, etc.).  And while some people argue that some copyright protection is reasonable, the rules regarding DRM are so one-sided and shortsighted that all impartial observers criticize them – for many reasons.

We can now add one more reason for valid and legitimate criticism:  DRM directly discriminates against the visually impaired:

‘Any digital text can be read aloud through text-to-speech, granting people with visual impairments the basic human right to read — unless there’s DRM in the way.

Tricking the technology used by Amazon, Apple, Adobe and Google to stop blind people from adding text-to-speech to their devices isn’t hard — but it is a felony, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A UN treaty intended to help people with visual, cognitive and sensory disabilities access copyrighted works has been all but killed by the big publishers.’

If you are new to this debate, I encourage you to get informed because there needs to be a balance of rights:  protecting the rights of the content creators/owners must not rob purchasers of said material from being able to access it in a format that they would like.

At the current time, the rules governing content purchased on electronic media are created by politicians on the advice of industry lobbyists – very powerful and rich industry lobbyists – without any weight being given to the needs, much less the rights, of the consumer.

More balance is needed or electronic vigilantes WILL gain widespread public support.

The Robin Hood myth has survived many centuries for a reason.  Unless the society wishes for hactivists to become the next incarnation of the Robin Hood character, fixing the deeply flawed and corrupt copyright governance is a necessary first step!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 131 other followers