Do you think it is a good idea for police to be allowed to listen to phone calls without getting a warrant first?
That is exactly what the Harper Conservatives are proposing to imbed into our Criminal Code.
We should all oppose this – especially as more of use use VOIP and as our cars and smart meters are constantly recording bucketloads of information about us.
If only more of the #occupy folks were like this…
With the Harper Conservatives poised to scrap the long-gun registry, this is a timely message: freedom of speech can only be exercised as long as we have the means to defend ourselves from any government that would usurp onto themselves the power to muzzle us.
Our right to be armed at all times, in all places, is essential for us to retain the most core of our innate and unalienable rights, the very cornerstone of our society: the freedom of speech!
(And, yes, I AM one of the proponents of the idea that ALL teachers ought to be required by law to be fully gun-certified and armed at all times while we entrust our children to their care: it is of little consolation that the best 9-1-1 response times to schools are at under 10 minutes….a lot of kids can be shot by an intruder in 10 minutes! If we entrust our children to their care, each teacher MUST be personally responsible for their protection – even from an armed attack.)
The government’s right to possess and use arms derives from us, the citizens: we may, if we choose to, confer upon the government the right to carry arms and, as our proxy, use violence in our defense as we, the citizens, have the responsibility to. This does not, in any way, abrogate our right – or diminish our responsibility – to do so ourselves at all times.
Any attempt at arms regulation – and I DO mean ANY regulation – by the governmenonly weakens the government’s own power to arm its agents and use violence on out behalf!
As someone somewhere put it:
Video H/T: CodeSlinger
If you still had any doubt, SlashDot has a nice, short blurb with links in it confirming they are not the best thing for your health.
Not sure what ‘Backscatter Vans’ are?
They are vans equipped with backscatter x-ray machines which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been driving up and down the streets, especially in urban centres, scanning all the people in the viscinity – without their consent or even knowledge. (Yes – just imagine the nightmare scenario: a woman, in the early weeks of pregnancy, stops innocently nearby one of these unmarked surveilance vehicles and has her baby’s DNA scrambled…) This has been happening for quite some time – quetly, but definitely.
Now, through FOIA, there is confirmation that these machines produce x-rays at levels that are unsafe for humans.
But, don’t worry – since they are classified as covert operations machines, they do not need to adhere to them old-fashioned safety standards!
When is the last time you went to a restaurant – and did not leave a tip?
Chances are – never.
Or the service was so poor, you were ‘making a point’…
Why?
Because we all understand that servers rely on tips for their income.
And we wish to encourage good service and so on and so on.
Nobody has the right to force you to tip. You may not like the practice, but chances are, you still do tip ‘good service’.
This same principle also ought to apply to taxes!
Governments would be much more careful with their revenue if they did not usurp onto themselves the power to extort taxes from its citizens. Any government caught in corruption (AdScam, e-Health, Sewardship Ontario and on and on), that government’s revenue would dry up – and rightly so!
This, in my never-humble-opinion, is the best (if not only) means through which citizens can keep governments ‘honest’ and fiscally responsible!
Perhaps this sounds extreme – and perhaps it is.
Still, ask yourself why is it that ‘tax collectors’ have powers much greater than police officers or the military. Why is it that in the name of ‘collecting taxes’, governments create personal files about each and every citizen, where they collect and access decades very private information?
Governments only have the powers we delegate to them.
If you do not have the right to do something, you cannot delegate that right to anyone else (including the government) to do it on your behalf.
You do not have the right to demand to know the financial details of your neighbour’s life. Since you do not have it, you cannot ‘delegate’ this ‘right’ onto the government. Therefore, demanding to know the details of our financial circumstances is not a power any government can legitimately exercise on behalf of its citizens.
Again, please ask yourself: why is it that when governments cannot seem to catch ‘careful’ lawbreakers, they try to ‘get’ them on ‘tax evasion’?
That alone should make us pause.
I know this sounds extreme – it is meant to.
The reason I am raising this point is not because I am advocating any sort of a tax revolt – at least, not on a practical level.
Rather, I am saying is that we ought to think very hard about exactly how we got into the current state where we consider it ‘normal’ that the State suspends our civil liberties in order to take from us whatever amount of money it has unilaterally set.
Just like only total seclusion will provide the environment in which an individual can exercise 100% of their personal freedoms, countries/nation-states must also find ways to ‘get along’ with its neighbours and the all the other ‘countries’ out there. Therefore, countries must develop rules: treaties, agreements, etc. to govern their interactions.
This is kind of like the matryoshka dolls!
Families have ‘rules’ which govern how individual members interact, villages/towns/cities have by-laws that govern how people and families in that municipality behave and interact, provinces/states have the next level of rules that govern how all the people in the municipalities that form that province/state behave and interact…. and so on, and so on…
Through this very process – through agreeing to rules how ‘communities’ at each ‘level’ interact with each other, we are necessarily building the governance framework of government at the ‘next higher level’. The treaties and agreements governments enter into become binding rules which their industries and citizens must abide by.
And THAT is where a very great danger to the ability to exercise our individual rights and freedoms is coming!
We have, to a better or worse degree, worked out rules about what rights we can exercise, and to what degree. This we have done within our borders, all the citizens agree (or, at least, respect) in the form of constitutions and the body of our national laws. Right?
But, our countries do not exist in seclusion. We need to trade and interact in all kinds of ways with ‘other’ countries.
To do that in as peaceful and amicable way as possible, we enter into international agreements about ‘things’. All kinds of things. But, the primary focus of most international treaties is ‘trade’.
When our legislators propose laws, we examine them publicly for all kinds of ‘things’ – including any infringements on the ability of us, the citizens, to exercise our freedoms. And so it should be. But, when countries enter into binding, international agreements with other countries, there is nowhere this level of scrutiny!
These agreements and treaties are negotiated by a limited number of representatives (all bureaucrats) from each side, usually in secret, giving in here to get an advantage there… And the aim of these treaties is usually one form of economic interaction or another: ‘freedoms’ are not usually even ‘on the radars’ of those doing the negotiating.
Please, do not misunderstand – I have nothing against international treaties and agreements in principle. They are necessary. All I am trying to do is highlight something many people do not consider very seriously: whenever our government signs a treaty or similar international agreement, its rules are just as binding on us as the laws our government passes, but do not undergo anything like the scrutiny…
A recent example relevant to Canadians is the EU-Canada Trade Agreement…
To make this work, some of our laws – and even attitudes – would have to change.
For example, our ideas about our ‘property rights’ might need a serious adjustment…
Right now, if we purchase a painting – or another other piece of art – most of us think that we own it. That we can hang it on our wall, store it in the attic or even use it as kindling… Or, perhaps, that if we wish, we can sell it.
That might be just one of the laws and attitudes we would have to change: according to a leaked chapter of the EU-Canada Trade Agreement now under negotiations, the EU is pushing for a royalty to be paid to the artists EVERY TIME their work is re-sold, FOR EVER!
This post is not about that particular trade agreement.
It’s about the fact that so many of the people who are valiantly and tirelessly fighting to preserve our freedoms are focusing only on ‘government policy’ and on the laws which our governments are passing. And that is important!
But, our rights and freedoms can be lost ‘through the back door’, so to speak, when our governments enter into binding international agreements which are very large ‘packaged deals’ which our countries may be forced to enter into in order to remain a member of the international community…
And THAT is something we should be thinking and talking about!
The context for my idea here is that Ottawa, Canada’s capital, is on day 34 of a full and complete public transit strike. And while these comments were inspired by this particular strike, I think my observation might be general enough to be portable.
While a ‘bus strike’ is inconvenient any time, an Ottawa winter is a particularly unpleasant time for it: biking or walking are much less attractive options during snow-storms or when the mercury dips to -20 degree Celsius or lower…
The reason for the strike? Control.
The details of this particular strike are really not all that important… The City of Ottawa had, a few years ago, been amalgamated from the local communities. During amalgamation, the governance structures were not properly designed to balance the concerns of the civil service labour unions to look after their employees on the one hand and the ability of the City to manage its employees on the other. The current Mayor and City Council have been attempting to regain the very ability to manage the City’s operations – and the City’s employees.
Now, the first of 8 or 9 employee union contracts (bunched together, from the amalgamation) has come up for renewal. Surprisingly enough, this union chose to go on strike!
The City has offered a substantial salary increase in its latest offer (certainly above expectations) in exchange for increased ability to manage – and prevent some blatant abuses of ‘the system’ identified in a recent audit. Currently, this is controlled by the union – and the union has made it clear they will not give up their power, no matter what.
Before a vote on the most recent contract offer (when the union had to be legislated to even present it to its members), the head of this union as well as the head of the ‘umberella union of unions’ have urged the members to refuse the contract ‘in solidaruty with all the other unions whose contracts are coming up shortly’. Some members told me they left the union rally, shouting: “We’ll stick it to Mayor O’Brien!”
Thus, we are in day 34 of the ‘bus strike’.
In a way, this bus strike has unified the citizens of Ottawa. People give lilfts to friends, co-workers or, at times, complete strangers (I have). It has become a sort of a ‘community building’ project. Just about everyone, even merchants whose businesses are suffering the most, are united in their support of the City Council’s strong position – saying the Council must not give in.
Today, I was (as I often do) listening to a local open-line radio station where the host was – very effectively – asking callers what would be an effective solution: cut through the rhetoric, the ‘rights and wrongs’ of each side’s positions, and actually try to come up with a solution which might work. Very constructive – my compliments to him (though I have criticized him in the past on this blog).
I am a slow thinker… so, it was not until it was too late to call in that I got an idea – one I have not heard discussed anywhere before, but which I thought might break this stalemate. And, if acceptable, this could help unions throughout ‘The West’ reinvent themselves for the emerging economy. Have we not all seen evidence of just how out of touch with today’s economc and cultural situation many of the labour unions are? Perhaps this could help…
It is impossible to serve two masters. The employees cannot possibly be managed by both the union and the City at the same time – not in an effective way which would create an aimcable workplace atmosphere. As long as there is a power struggle, there will be tension and stress and things will not work well. Translating to bureaucrateese: ‘Responsibility to multiple governance structures with non-congruent goals often results in an environment which has historically been unlikely to result in a positive atmosphere within the community of practice; in particular, one which would be conducive to collaborative efforts implementing best practices, thus creating a centre of excellence.’
The Resolution of the ‘Ottawa Bus Strike’ :
Responsibilities:
An employer – private or public – has a responsibility to its customers, citizens/shareholders as well as to its employees to manage effectively. Here, the employer is the City of Ottawa. In order to do fulfil its responsibilities, the City must retain management control – it is not their right, it is their responsibility to the user’s of OC Transpo (Ottawa’s public transit), to the citizens of Ottawa (the taxpayers) AND to its employees.
The labour union also has a clear mandate: look after the interests of their membership in the workplace. To this end, it is their responsibility to negotiate the best possible contract for their members form the emplolyer.
The employee/union member has the responsibility to live up to an agreed-upon contract. They also have the responsibility to elect a union leadership which understand and accurately represents their best long-term interests.
Goals:
The goal of the City is to provide service to the citizens in the most effective manner possible and to live up to its responsibilities to the City’s employees.
The goal of the union is to manage things to be most beneficial to its employees.
The goal of the employees/members is to have a good job with fair compensation, with a good working conditions.
The way to satisfy all these responsibilities as well as all the goald – the best win-win solution – (in my never-humble-opinion) is to ralign who the employer is!
If these civil servants ceased to be employed by the City, but became employees of the union instead, all the goals and responsibilities would be satisfied!
The City and the union would negotiate a contract, clearly and specifically defining all the services the union will provide to the City, and the price the City will pay the union for these services. All expectations and details would be clear in the contract, with legal consequences for non-compliance from either side clearly spelled out.
The benefit to the union? The members would retain the self-management which they are demanding by this strike – plus more. This would not only respect the union’s jurisdiction, it would present them with an unprecedented opportunity to truly look after its membership.
The benefit to the union members? Since the union leadership is elected by the members, this would, in a very real way, be a form of self-government and would empower them. This could only improve the workplace atmosphere – as they would be in full control of their working conditions!
The benefit to the City? By contracting the union, rather than its members, the members would no longer be City employees, which would remove the City’s responsibility to them. The City could abolish the now-redundant layer of management and streamline its operations. The final contract’s cost would be fixed, which would make the city’s budgeting much more efficient.
Is there a down side to this solution?
If it works,l could this model be used by other labour unions to help themselves re-structure, in order to remain relevant in the emerging economy?
Update: Today, on day 35 of this transit strike, an opportunistic Councillor turned his back on the principles he defended as late as last week and broke ranks with the rest of the Council and, in a transparent effort to secure the backing of the powerful unions in his upcoming bid for the Mayor’s Chair, he has thrown his support behind the union.
Still, according to my proposed model, his position would be accommodated: the union would indeed retain the control they seek. They would have to accept the responsibility which goes with the control they are striking to retain.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 