After all, ‘Pirates’ are all ‘bad’, so anything to get them off ‘our internet’ must be ‘good’, right?
We, surely, the Orwellian language is only a part of the trick here.
The SOPA hearings are being held today and it is difficult to believe that anyone who does not directly benefit financially from this legislation would be willing to support it. The effect of this legislation would be to chill free speech in ways to give Richard Warman and his Section 13 co-oppressors wet dreams in perpetuity!
Right now, even with the ‘moderate’, much less draconian legislation in place, the copyright infringement laws are being used to silence critics of big business – or even just independent voices (lest they become critical in the future).
In this example, a DMCA claim was used to censor a daily tech news episode which criticized a big-music corporation: under the law, a mere DMCA claim was enough to force a takedown of the episode for a minimum of 10 days. If you are running a daily news show, 10 days is an eternity… At least, under the DMCA rules, the news show could appeal to a judge…
Just to add injury to injury: not only are you guilty until proved innocent under SOPA, getting to court to prove your innocence will be much harder. And even if you were victorious and the courts found you innocent of all charges, you would not have a recourse to sue for damages suffered as the result of the false SOPA accusation!
Is this type of legislation even needed?
The Swiss government certainly does not think so: they have gone the opposite route. After studying the data for a long time, these legislators have concluded that downloading music/videos for personal use is not just perfectly legal, they claim it actually channels money away from copyright holders and helps the music/movie industry in the long run.
And what about the people who have been the most vociferous about the need for crippling the internet in the name of copyright protection? Surely, they themselves do not indulge in the very behaviour they wish to stamp out with knee-jerk legislation like ‘three accusations and you are permanently banned from the internet’, right?
“French President Nicholas Sarkozy is a man who has championed some of the most aggressive anti-piracy legislation in Europe. But today it’s revealed that the occupants of his very own office and home are responsible for a nice selection of pirate downloads using BitTorrent. Three strikes? Those with access to the Presidential Palace’s IP addresses have already doubled that quota. “
But, surely, those entertainment legacy industry movers and shakers who have lobbied the legislators for SOPA – the ones who claim that downloading movies and music for free would bankrupt them – surely they are not doing this themselves, are they?
“With increasing lobbying efforts from the entertainment industry against BitTorrent sites and users, we wondered whether these companies hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others. After some initial skimming we’ve discovered BitTorrent pirates at nearly every major entertainment industry company in the US, including Sony Pictures Entertainment, Fox Entertainment and NBC Universal. Busted.”
And those ‘evil Pirates’ – they must be up to even more vile things…
I knew a guy who claimed that within his lifetime, held four ditinct citizenships. At different times, he was an Austrian, Czechoslovak, Slovak and Hungerian – he even held Hungarian citizenships at two separate times!
Yet, he never moved!
Simply, his house happened to be on a bit of land that was held by different countries at different times, all while he lived in it…
This is the reality of human existence.
As nations come into and out of existence, as they jostle with each other for territory, this sort of thing is inevitable.
Now, imagine that all these countries which had a prior ownership claim went to, say, the EU and demanded that this land be returned to them, due to the fact they held it in the past and, even if another country usurped it, they had never really given up their claim to it: it would be a mess!
Just like in Europe, the various nations in North America occupied different areas at different times – as their fortunes waxed and vaned, so did their territory. Just like in Europe, at different times, the same land would be claimed by different groups. And, just like in Europe, territorial wars took place…
This just goes to show that this is a function of the human condition!
However, in Canada, the various Native groups can each make a separate claim on the same piece of land – a claim which the courts consider in isolation from competing Native claims over the same land. And, just as they each had a valid claim on the land at different times, each claim can be supported by some evidence.
Yet, since each claim is examined separately, the court cannot take the competing claims into accout. In effect, this causes the Canadian taxpayers to buy the land (settle the claims) over and over and over… No sooner is one claim settled than another one crops up.
To call this a highly flawed system is a serious understatement.
How to solve this in a way that is fair and equitable to the Native groups with land claims as well as to the Canadaians who hold legal title to the land and have invested their life savings into a home on this land?
How to solve this in a way that is fair to different Native groups making conflicting claims, when their claims would be considered at different times and under differing political conditions?
We do have the Assembly of First Nations – resolving land claims is one of their major ‘raison d’etres’:
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is the national representative organization of the First Nations in Canada. There are over 630 First Nation’s communities in Canada. The AFN Secretariat, is designed to present the views of the various First Nations through their leaders in areas such as: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Economic Development, Education, Languages and Literacy, Health, Housing, Social Development, Justice, Taxation, Land Claims, Environment, and a whole array of issues that are of common concern which arise from time to time.
The solution I propose would not be easy, but it would be simple and fair:
All First Nations land claims – currently pending, whether under negotiation or court action, or ones as yet undeclared – would be registered with the AFN. (The AFN would need to make a call for land claim registration, with a firm ‘register-by-date’.)
In cases of multiple claims over the same land by various Aboriginal groups, the AFN would engage all claimants in constructive negotiations, with full adherence to Native traditions and methods of dispute resolution.
Once the AFN had resolved conflicting land claims with respect to each other, they would then present all the claims together (though only one claim per one tract of land – or with all the various claims to one tract of land by various parties grouped together for, perhaps, a ‘weighted’ ruling), with all the supporting documentation, to either the Supreme Court of Canada or some special land-claim-resolution judicial court that the AFN, Federal and Provincial/Territorial governments would agree on specifically for this purpose. This Court can then rule on each land claim following a thorough an complete review all of the harmonized land claims and apply uniform criteria when it considers them, ensuring that equal standards are applied in all the cases.
I suspect that this is the only way we could even come close to resolving this issue fairly.
Short of this type of action, I do not see any way to avoid protracted legal quagmire – in perpetuity!
This video raises a number of things that I have been wondering about.
For example, the uniformed police officers do not display their badge numbers, making it impossible to identify them. Is this legal? If so, should it remain so?
Another question: what recourse does a population have if a police force either refuses to enforce the laws of the land or enforces illegal orders?
In my never-humble-opinion, the only way an organizational corruption of this scale can be tackled is by holding the individuals within the organization personally responsible for their actions, including holding them personally responsible for following illegal orders to the maximum level the law permits. Yes, this would mean legal action against individual police officers – if not criminal, then civil – even if these police officers are nice individuals. Still, if they follow an illegal order, they must be accountable for this breech of law.
Of course, these are easy words to type and there is a world of difference between writing this and actually doing something about it. Still, one ought to gather as much information first…
So, if you are knowledgable on this topic, please, comment and educate me on the laws, rules and procedures – and any other options legally available. It would be much appreciated.
Because to my way of thinking, this is not a ‘native/non-native’ issue: this is a policing issue and equality before the law issue!
UPDATE: Here is a comment posted by Mark Vandermaas, which, in my neve-humble-opinion, is important enough to bump it into the ‘body’ of the post:
The scary part of Caledonia is that all the organizations, gov’t and NGO, that should have been pro-active in protecting the rights of the innocent were unwilling or unable to help: Human Rights Commission; Ombudsman (wanted to help, but not allowed to get involved in police issues); the Opposition (oh, how we tried); the Federal govt (not only wouldn’t they help Harper annointed Fantino as PC candidate!); the OCCPS (old agency for Police Services Act complaints); Haldimand’s Police Services Board; Haldimand Council (other than former Mayor Trainer); Cdn Civil Liberties Association (repeatedly begged them for help to no avail).
It would be hard to list here everything we tried, but some of the key things that worked well were:
1. Dr. King’s methods of peacefully confronting injustice and forcing them to violate your rights (techniques that he learned from Gandhi to influence the media and the conscience of the nation. When one protests with dignity and is willing to be verbally abused and assaulted without retaliating there is very little defence to this approach. Using it we actually caused the union radicals, anarchists, anti-Israel groups and native militants to curb their violence and aggression because – as one of them said at an anarchist’s conference, we were making THEM look like the racists by applying Dr. King’s methods. Just as King did not demonize whites, we did not demonize native people as a group (the thugs would disagree, of course). We tried our best to ensure people knew that the thugs didn’t speak for the good people of 6N.
2. Civil Lawsuits to a degree. I say that because while there were some important court victories such as the $20M Caledonia Class Action, the Brown-Chatwell settlements and some victories achieved by us via the small claim and superior courts, the fact is that racial policing is still practiced and the gov’t, 6N and the OPP have never apologized or ammended their policies.
3. Private Prosecutions under the CCofC. You know, of course, that Gary M, despite not being a lawyer, convinced the courts to charge 5 individual police officers for offences such as Mischief, Influencing Municipal Official and Obstructing Justice, and even won a case at the Court of Appeal. This has reigned in their abuses quite effectively, but apparently, they still have more to learn.
We’ve tried just about everything during the last 5 years. in the end, it’s not one magic bullet. It’s ordinary people taking advantage of every opportunity when presented and, as Gary says, ‘withstanding the test of time’ (while you’re being vilified, assaulted, and arrested). And…don’t wait for anyone to come to help. But, that’s the wonderful thing! A small group of committed people with no money, no power and no connections really can make a huge difference.
Having said all this, there were some good people who did help and paid a price for doing so. At risk of leaving someone out and inadvertently insulting them, I won’t try to list them. But one guy who doesn’t get enough credit is lawyer John Findlay of the Class Action, a lawyer who represents us in several cases including one where he helped mediate a solution whereby the OPP union finally admitted in writing they had no evidence we were inciting hate and violence. Couldn’t have done it without him.
Sorry to go on so long. Thks for listening.
Readers who want to know more should visit the Caledonia: No More Nightmares page at http://www.HelplessByBlatchford.ca which has videos and notes from our 2011 presentation of the same name in Ottawa – where you and I met. Thanks for being there, and thks for the coverage.
Mark Vandermaas Editor, VoiceofCanada Founder, Caledonia Victimis Project
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has upheld the law which forbids polygamy. This is an important ruling – and one which is bound to end up before the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is also an issue I am deeply conflicted on: just where does the line lie between individual choice and State interference lie?
“On an intellectual level, polygamy amongst men and women who have reached the age of consent should be no one else’s business but the participants’.”
“The cold, hard fact is that in the real world, non child-abusing polygamists are pretty much non-existent. Non-wife-abusing polygamists are rare, too.”
While I might disagree with some minor points Mr. Gunther makes, these are tangential to the subject of his article, the body of which reflects my own opinions quite accurately.
Let’s hope that now that we have confirmation of the validity of anti-polygamy laws, these laws will be applied to all members of our society equally!
A few places have been picking up on the implications of the US SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) bill, but I think that The Agile Panda has a very good analysis of the situation with comparisons to how this is being done in China.
“To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.”
Yes, SOPA would define ‘all’ Canadian IP addresses as being under US jurisdiction – and if you want to argue about it, just to get your foot into the door to register a complaint, you must acknowledge US has jurisdiction…no, I am not being circular, SOPA is. And, as we have seen with other internet legislation, an accusation is sufficient to force your ISP to deny you service – as well as all online financial services would be cut off based on an accusation.
As I have said before – and doubtlessly will say again – we really really really need a diffused peer-to-peer internet alternative that will, by its very structure, be uncontrollable.
“…we give Wireless Carriers and Handset Manufacturers unprecedented insight into their customers’ mobile experience.”
‘Unprecedented’ is right!
It is understandable that any business would like to have a deep insight into their customers’ needs and desires in order to serve them better: satisfying customers is good for business.
However, customers also have a right to – and most have at least some expectation of – privacy.
The problem arises when customers are not even aware of the volume and detail of information about them that their mobile devices routinely report to their carriers: this lopsided information level makes any meaningful discussion about privacy vs data-mining virtually meaningless.
From the article:
“This [CIQ software] is given root like rights over the device, which means that it can do everything it pleases and you will have nothing to say about it.”
“…Because of all the metrics that could be obtained via the different triggers, that same network admin will not just know that you got a dropped call at 5 pm in California, but he/she will also know where in California you were located, what you were doing with your phone at that given time, how many times you accessed your apps until that time, and even what you have typed in your device (no, this last one is not an exaggeration, this thing can act as a key logger as well). Scared already? If not, here is a snippet of some…”
“…what kind of permissible purpose is out there that can allow a company to legally place a key logger on something and use it when you are not even getting service out of them?”
And, of course, we know no person or corporation would ever abuse any information they get access to!
If only more judges acknowledged that, even in circumstances as difficult as divorce, the best interests of a child trump everything else.
In this case, the mother wanted the ruling to be done in Saudi Arabia so that it would be made under Sharia – a set of laws which only considers the Islamic religious beliefs, not the rights of people, much less the best interests of the child.
Thank you, judge Michael Kent!
After all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that inserting a hyperlink does not constitute re-publishing (Crookes v Newton).
Justice Abella wrote:
Hyperlinks thus share the same relationship with the content to which they refer as do references. Both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. And they both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral – it expresses no opinion, nor does it have any control over, the content to which it refers.
There is much equivocation in the ruling, so it cannot be regarded as a full victory of reason – but it is close. And it clearly states that one should err on the side f not restricting free speech:
To prove the publication element of defamation, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has, by any act, conveyed defamatory meaning to a single third party who has received it. Traditionally, the form the defendant’s act takes and the manner in which it assists in causing the defamatory content to reach the third party are irrelevant. Applying this traditional rule to hyperlinks, however, would have the effect of creating a presumption of liability for all hyperlinkers. This would seriously restrict the flow of information on the Internet and, as a result, freedom of expression. (my emphasis)
The Quebec Minister for Culture is not the only one who seems to think that ‘bloggers’ ought not be granted the same treatment as ‘journalists’. This presumption that ‘journalists’ are ‘professionals’ while ‘bloggers’ are ‘unwashed scum’, that ‘journalists’ ought to be granted privileges while ‘bloggers’ ought not has found fertile ground among our ‘elites’.
I came up against this personally, just last month.
At the Ontario Court of Justice – of all places!
Which is rather ironic, because it was the Ontario Courts who (among other courts) ruled that everything bloggers post on the internet is indeed ‘an act of publishing’ and therefore subject to all the laws, rules and standards that apply to any print publication.
Actually, if one thinks about it, this ruling places ‘bloggers’ on par with ‘publishers’ – one rung above mere ‘journalists’, who are, after all, just employees of ‘publishers’…but let’s not be elitist here! ;0)
{Let’s also not pretend that ‘blogging’ is actually ‘anonymous’: the vast majority of bloggers do not take elaborate precautions to hide their identity – and their ISPs will reveal their names the moment it is clear the blogger broke the law. It’s right in the ISP’s contract… So, blogging ‘anonymously’ is simply a means of filtering out the frivolous bullying of bloggers too small or not connected enough so that they are pretty much defenseless. If anyone has a legitimate case and goes through the legwork, the real-life identity of the blogger is accessible to them. Plus, most bloggers are better known by (and their reputation is thus built on) their online persona – our ‘nom-de-plume’ – than by our mundane name.}
So, what is it that I am actually talking about?
Last month, just one week after they came to Ottawa for the Baglow case, Connie and Mark Fournier were back in Ottawa in court: this time, they were applying for leave to appeal the ‘Blishen’ ruling in the Warman case. Their case was last on the docket and we had waited around all day only to be told that they would not get to us. (The case itself ended up being heard last week, and the result was not a good one for the Fourniers.)
While waiting in the courtroom for the Fourniers’ turn to come, I kept writing in my notebook. It is a bit of a habit – it keeps me focused. And while I didn’t actually take notes on the cases that were going on, I did note the demeanour of Warman’s team of lawyers (headed by the charismatic Mr. Katz) and doodled to pass time. The judge took pity on those of us waiting and told us that they’ll not get to the Warman case until way after lunch, so we all filed out of the courtroom, intent on finding sustenance. As in, food.
The bailiff followed us out, caught up with me and informed me that I was not permitted to take notes in the courtroom. We all stopped, surprised at this: I had taken copious notes at previous hearings – in several different cases, without ever any complaints against me. And, I saw journalists take notes at some hearings, too…
We (the Fourniers, Fred Litvin of the Free Thinking Film Society and of GayandRight, a few other supporters of the Fourniers and I) peppered the bailiff with questions. Many questions…
He was very polite and exceedingly civil – and I do not doubt that he is a nice man and a truly good human being. He was simply informing us of the rules, as he – as an officer of the court – understood them. The upshot of what he said was:
the plaintiff/defendant, their lawyer and their lawyer’s aides may take notes in court, as they are ‘participants’
no spectators who are simple ‘members of the public’ may take notes in the courtroom, because they might not understand things properly or such and get a false impression of what was happening (I could not help but wonder why a person would need to be taking notes to get a false impression of what is going on – why not ban us unwashed masses from the courts altogether if we are too stupid to follow the proceedings?)
‘journalists’ may also take notes, because they are ‘professionals’ – they are trained and presumably licensed (or will be, in Quebec), so it is OK…
‘bloggers’ don’t count as ‘journalists’ – they are simple ‘members of the public’
When I pointed out that the courts themselves decided to hold us, bloggers, to the same standards as journalists were – so why should we have fewer rights to go with the same obligations – he shrugged, smiled, suggested that I should ‘get a life’ and said that if we really wanted to know more about the rules, we should check with ‘Court Services’….
So, after lunch, armed with a notebook and a pen and a healthy dose of righteous indignation, Fred Litvin (who graciously agreed to come with me for help and support) and I set out to seek the truth behind this double standard.
In the end, we were told that there really was no such rule, that members of the public – even lowly bloggers – were free to take all the notes we wanted to at any hearing in which a judge did not specifically forbid it … and – the bailiff had gone out of his way to find this out independently and then looked up not just me and Fred to apologize for having unintentionally misled us, but also each of the other people who had overheard him give out erroneous information. I give him full credit for trying to rectify his mistake.
But – that is not my main point. Well, not one of my two main points (I seldom have just one).
The fact remains that, based on instructions from a number of different judges, on a number of different occasions, the bailiff had been directed to deny anyone but ‘the participants’ in the cases and ‘certified journalists’ the right to take notes in their courtroom. So many judges had done this, in fact, that he was convinced this was the law!
WHO ARE THESE JUDGES?!?!?
And, once they had demonstrated this level of elitism (and contempt for us, regular citizens), why do WE – the citizens they would prefer to gag – permit them to remain judges over us?!?!?
Seriously – if these judges think the general public is too stupid to follow what they are saying to us, how can they pass impartial judgment on us? They have already formed a highly negative view of us – before we even entered their courtroom!
These are the people we are to entrust ourselves to?
REALLY?
…and the other point…
It took us a bit to find the proper wicket/window at the courthouse for ‘Court Services’ – the few inquiries we made sent us off in the wrong directions. Our bad. But…
Wherever we went – and wherever we identified ourselves as ‘bloogers looking for an answer’ – we elicited a very unusual response.
Well – unusual in the sense that I have not experienced this type of response from bureaucrats in the past.
Fast.
Courteous beyond belief.
And, before we could begin to explain the particulars of our question, their supervisor or their manager, or their supervisor’s manager (or was that their manager’s supervisor?) was called in to deal with us. Immediately!
And the boss – and bosses’ boss – came right away!!!
And they all looked – highly anxious…
….sort of like I imagine that government officials looked when facing ‘investigative reporters’ at the time of ‘Watergate’…
Perhaps bloggers have filled the void left behind when most newsmen and newswomen abandoned ‘investigative reporting’ in favour of quoting press releases; when they joined the cultural elites as ‘journalists’ whose job is not to ‘report facts’ but to ‘present stories’ in a way that helps the social engineering elites control the unwashed masses….you know – us.
No wonder the Quebec Minister of Culture – and every other social engineering elitist [insert insults of your choice here] is attempting to diminish the role of ‘bloggers’!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 