Guest Post by BeaverMoose: ‘Charlie Hebdo’ march in Toronto January 11, 2015

This is a guest post by BeaverMoose:

Attendance wasn’t bad at Toronto’s ‘Charlie Hebdo March’ that started at  New City Hall at 2 pm on Sunday, January 11, 2015:  there were slightly more than 2,000 people in the crowd, about ten percent of the Montreal march’s turnout of 25,000 held the same day.

A marcher explained to me, ‘That’s understandable that Montreal had more attendance. They read Charlie Hebdo and identify more with Paris than Toronto does.’

On short notice, 2,000 wasn’t bad for a march organized in Toronto concerned about free speech in France.  I happened to see a notice about the march on TV and showed up to find about 2,000 people with king-sized, hand-made cardboard ‘pencils’, French, Iranian and Ukrainian flags, a hundred ‘je suis Charlie’ posters.  Many held up home-written posters and slogans in different languages, Dutch, Danish, Iranian and English.

About fifty expat Iranians held large ‘je suis Charlie’ signs in written in French and Arabic script, along with free speech detainees persecuted in Iran.  They described how no freedom of expression whatever is allowed in Islamic Iran.

A Dutchman wearing wooden shoes marched next to a Frenchman holding a hockey stick with a French flag on it.

A woman with a paint brush agreed that artists seem to understand the critical importance of free expression more than people in other lines of work.  ‘As early as I remember,’ she admitted, ‘I was getting in trouble for drawing caricatures, usually of my teachers.’

Another person chimed in: ‘Artists have to maintain a ‘screw-you’ attitude – otherwise, they can’t be much of an artist.’

I agreed.

After speeches about freedom at Toronto’s New City Hall were finished, the crowd marched half a kilometre to Dundas Square, up Toronto’s main street, while chanting ‘Charlie…Charlie…’ and ‘liberté…d’expression’.

Muslims on the street averted their gaze, while a seller of ‘halal’ poutine looked on nervously while muttering prayers to seek refuge from those who were demanding free speech.

There was also a man who wore a sign on his hat that said, ‘I am a Muslim but I am human first.’

I walked up to him and smiled before asking his point of view. He said he doesn’t agree with terrorism. I asked him:  ‘Do you think I am a kafir? ‘ (i.e. a troublesome disbeliever) ‘No, you must do something bad to be a kafir,’ he responded.

Were the Charlie Hebdo artists kafirs? ‘No, I do not think so,’ he said.

Did he disagree with Sharia law about blasphemy? ‘I do not think we should kill people who write something.’

‘But,’ I said, ‘If you do not follow Sharia law, you have left Islam…can you convince the mullahs at Al Azhar University that you are right and they are wrong?’  He replied, ‘No, I do not think I can do that.’  In other words, nice Muslims like this man, realize he cannot change Islamic law.
The Toronto ‘Charlie Hebdo’ march was attended by people who understand that freedom is not free.

Unfortunately, freedom isn’t secure once for all when there are Islamic terrorists who are trying so hard to take it away. I really thought that after the attack on our national Parliament Buildings, Toronto would have had more marchers.  Canadians will need to see they are the ones who must pay for our freedom by getting out of their comfortable chairs and marching for it. Our battle is against those who claim their right not to be criticized is more important than our right to speak out against misogyny and supremacism.

This is my moment to speak to those who did not attend. Canadians, it’s YOUR freedom we marched for today. How important is freedom to you? What has to happen to us Canadians before we realize how precious our freedom is?  Let’s not wait until something worse happens.

So let’s keep marching for freedom (more next time, please).  The Islamic terrorists won’t stop their marching, their bombing and their shooting until they realize that we love freedom more than they love death!

They won’t stop until they realize their actions are completely futile. Rather than give in to them, we have to rally against them and tell our politicians ‘OUR FREEDOM IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!!!’

John Stossel – Property and Prosperity

The Islamic State declared a New Caliphate: How This Affects Every Muslim in the World

To us, Westerners, it does not seem like a particularly big deal that ISIS/ISIL had pronounced the terrirories it now controls as a Capilhate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (whatever  previous names he may have been know by) as a Caliph.

All right, let’s analyze  this, one bit at a time…

Al-Baghdadi simply means ‘from Baghdad’.

So, what does Abu Bakr mean?

It is obviously not the man’s birth name but rather a name he adopted in order to fit/further/support/explain the role he perceives himself (and others perceive him) to play.  Or, if you wish, the ‘mantle’ he had assumed.

Who was the original Abu Bakr?

The ‘original’ Abu Bakhr was the very first person outside of Muhammad’s family to become a Muslim – and he was the father of Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha.

To a person who is familiar with the history of early Islam, the above sentence is chock filled with meaning – so much so that a single little article may not do it justice…but, I will try!

The Early history of Islam is imbued with much meaning and allusions to it will convey many layers of meaning to those cognisant of it.  In order to even scratch the surface, I will need to ‘back up’ to the time of Muhammad himself.

Muhammad was born to a pre-eminent Meccan family.  His paternal grandfather was in control of the temple now know as the Kaaba.  It is now the most sacred site in Islam – the direction in which every Muslim prays.  Back then before Muhammad’s ministry, the Kaaba was a temple dedicated to many, many deities worshiped by the pagan Arabs – including the Moon God, Allah.

As the patriarch of the clan, Muhammad’s grandfather controlled access to the Kaaba temple – and much (if not all) of his income was generated from the fees paid by pilgrims who wished to visit the Kaaba.

Muhammad’s father was the son of this ‘gatekeeper’ of the Kaaba.

As a matter of fact, when Muhammad’s grandfather went to purchase Muhammad’s wife for his son, he saw another lovely woman in that family and purchased her for a wife for himself.  Therefore, Muhammed’s father married Muhamed’s mother in the same ceremony as his father married her kinswoman….and it is from this tradition that the tales of Muhammad’s unnaturally long gestation period come from…

Whatever the truth of the story, Muhammad was born long after his mother’s husband’s death – so long, in fact, that some people have questioned his parentage.  It seems that the worry about Muhmmed’s parentage was shared by Muhamed’s paternal grandfather….who refused to acknowledge Muhammed as being of his kin, prompting the teenage Muhammed’s excommunication from Mecca.  It was not until Muhammed’s paternal uncle officially adopted him that Muhammed was permitted to return to Mecca.

Once in Mecca, Muhammed caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, a wealthy widow named Khadija – who eventually married Muhammed.  

Prior to meeting Muhammed, Khadijah was in love with her cousin whom he believed to be the messenger from the one and only God.  Once she saw the young and handsome cattle-boy Muhammed, Khadija realized she was totally wrong and, afer she married Muhammad, she realized that it was really Muhammed who was the true prophet of the one and only God.

It took a few years of persuasion, but, eventually, the young Muhammed believed his wife (the first convert to Islam) that he was, indeed, special and chosen by God to be his Messenger!

Abu Bakhr, a wealthy merchant, was the first person outside the family to believe this and to embrace Muhammed as the prophet of the one and only God – thus becoming the first person outside the family to convert to Islam.  

When Muhammed told him that, in a dream, he was told that he is to marry Abu Bakhr’s six year-old daughter, Abu Bakhr first argued that she is too young, but, submitting to the will of God’s messenger, he eventually agreed.  

Unfortunately, at about the time of the betrothal, Abu Bakhr’s daughter, Aisha, fell ill and all her hair fell out.  So, Muhammed waited until she recovered and her hair grew back in before bedding her.

Aisha remained Muhammed’s favourite wife till his death.

Which is where the traditions ‘break path’, so to say.

BOTH traditions agree that Muhammed was ill, then felt better, lead Friday prayers, went to spent time with Aisha and then died.

According to Sunni Muslims, Muhammed had been poisoned by a Jewish woman who had served him a meal of poisoned mutton right after he had slaughtered her entire family and clan.  The Sunni believe she did this to test if he was just another King (who could be poisoned) or a true prophet (who could not – by the grace of God).  While he survived the immediate attack, the Sunnis believe Muhammed died as an after-effect of this poison.

The Shi’a Muslims, however, believe that being a true prophet of the one and only God, the poison given him by the Jewess as a test did not harm Muhammed at all. Rather, they believe that while Muhammed’s nephew and bodyguard was out of town, sent on a mission by Muhammed, Aisha killed him on the orders of her father, Abu Bakhr, so that he could assume the command of all the Muslims.

Indeed, there were many stories at about this time about faithful men in line to replace Muhammed as the leader of the Muslims being assassinated, one at a time, by the brothers of Aisha, so that her father could assume the reins of power and reign as the next Caliph.

Indeed, the very first war between the Muslims was about Abu Bakhr’s succession of Muhammed as Caliph…

Th Sunnis believe that Abu Bakhr was the rightful heir to Muhammed’s rule.

The Shi’as belive that Abu Bakhr was an usurper who had no right to power, but attempted to assassinate Muhammed’s rightful heirs in order to seize power for himself.

Whatever the truth may have been so many centuries ago is less relevant to today’s events than the traditions of these events, as told by both Shi’a and Sunni Muslims.

Today, considering the legends (and, perhaps, believing them to be true), adopting the name ‘Abu Bakr’ signals to Muslims that this person believes he is the rightful ruler of all of Islam (the Sunni bits, at least) who considers himself to he a true successor of Muhammed, with all that that implies.

Sure, it means death to all Shi’a Muslims as heretics – as well as all other non-orthodox Sunni followers of Islam.  According to this ‘Abu Bakhr tradition’ – anyone who did not acknowledge Abu Bakhr as the rightful successor of Muhammed and all followers of the forms of Islam that sprung from this must be exterminated as heretics, even ore dangerous than outright infidels…

Which means war in the middle east…

So – why is this important to the people outside the middle east?!?!?

It has to do with the very concept of ‘Caliph’.

A ‘Caliph’ is not just the ruler of a particular geographic area.

A ‘Caliph’ is the spiritual and political ruler of every Muslim in the world!

That is agreed upon by all the schools of Sharia – Islamic jurisprudence.

Thus, a Caliph erases the differences between different forms of Islam – regardless of Shi’a, Sunni, Ahmadi or anything else, once there is a proclaimed Caliph, all Muslims owe HIM and ONLY HIM their allegiance and obedience.

Regardless where on Earth they live, what local jurisdictions they are living under:  once there is a Caliph, Sharia dictates all Muslims must obey the Caliph before the laws of the land they happen to be living in.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may only control a small geographic area.  But, by having had himself declared a Caliph, he now commands the loyalty and obedience of all Sharia-adherent Muslims everywhere on this Earth.

THIS is why we, in the West, must draw a very pragmatic distinction between the Muslims who are immigrants to our lands, hoping to escape Sharia (and whom we must protect from their co-religionists) and the settlers/invaders who came here to try to enact Sharia law in our lands and thus make us conquered by Islam.

Make no mistake:  by having declared a Caliphate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the new Caliph, militant Muslims have, in one move, turned Sharia-adherent Muslims in Western countries into enemy agents, whether they want to be or not!!!


John Whitehead – A Government Of Wolves

What are our innate rights and why are they unalienable?

My post on the Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does verdict has received an unusually high amount of comments – especially for an obscure little blog like mine.  While this is flattering, it does not really diminish the pain this verdict has inflicted on me – even if my interest was not financial (as I was not associated with either the plaintiff nor the defendants, though, I have developed great respect and affection for the defendants over the years that I have followed this case for).

No, my interest may not have been financial, but it is as personal as it gets:  this verdict, as it currently stands, restricts freedom of speech to such a degree that had major media outlets dared to honestly report on it, the populace would rebel.  I honestly believe that to be true – though, some of the comments I received do make me wonder…

For example, one commenter, ‘harebell’, said:

‘You keep posting a series of quotes, that is not an argument for anything it’s a list of people’s opinions.
To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory. But each of those individual ideas on rights and preferences will come into conflict with those of others and then both sets will be accused of infringing on the rights of the other and therefore wrong. A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says. It really doesn’t matter whether that community is based on a moral system or an ethical system they will create laws limiting behaviour because my idea of what constitutes freedom will be different to yours. Giving up absolute freedom is the price we pay to live in Canada because we have to live with others.’

Obviously, I tried to explain this, in the following, highly imperfect way:

Individual freedoms are the cornerstone on which our society is built – just read up on our history.

While Americans valued equality, Canadians have always cherished individual freedoms – until, that is, Cultural Marxists re-wrote our textbooks and educated the last generation in revisionist history, depriving it of even the knowledge of its true heritage.

Historians like Professor John Robson have written extensively on this.

But, if you wish to go into some detail here, let me give you a very, very short version:

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy: this is a form of democracy which is not an absolute democracy ( ‘absolute democracy’ is also called ‘the tyranny of the majority’, as exemplified by two wolves and a lamb taking a vote over what to eat for dinner).

This form of democracy recognizes that each and every citizen has inalienable rights which, no matter how large a percentage of the majority votes to take away, must not be violated. The only legitimate role of government is to protect these rights, so that each and every citizen may exercise them freely.

One such basic right – one we can most easily understand – is the right to bodily integrity. This means that if there are 4 people who need a kidney, a liver, a lung and a heart each, the government cannot arbitrarily appoint a 5th person to be the organ donor, on the grounds that ensuring 4 citizens live outweighs the 1 citizen’s right to live.

(There are very good books by much more intelligent people than I that explain this well – I do urge you to read up on our history.)

In other words, our society is based on the proposition that the majority must not be permitted to harm minorities – even the smallest minority of one citizen. To the contrary, when a government begins to strip citizens of their human rights, that government becomes illegitimate and loses it justification to govern.

It is sad that this was not covered in your civics class in high school…

Of course, the wise and eloquent CodeSlinger answered her much better:


You write “To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory.”

Well, no. It’s not. It’s a contradiction in terms. Rights, being a priori, are derived from first principles and therefore cannot be based on individual preference.

You also write “A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says.”

This, too, is a contradiction in terms. A person’s rights are derived from what kind of creature a human is, and therefore cannot depend on anyone else’s agreement.

Like most Canadians, you have been taught to confuse privileges with rights, and lulled into accepting the poisonous lie that the collective supersedes the individual – in other words, that might makes right. As soon as you accept that, you have enslaved yourself: you cease to be a free individual and become a ward of the state.

The whole idea that rights can somehow be based on consensus is fundamentally flawed.

Consensus, to be productive, requires that each individual contribute independently out of his experience and insight. When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social process is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends.

— Solomon A. Asch

This concept, “powers on which [a person’s] functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends,” is the core of what we mean by a right. To clarify this, let’s go back to basics. Let’s start with some definitions:

privilege: a special advantage, benefit, or exemption, selectively granted to some but denied to others.

right: a freedom, entitlement, or immunity, so fundamental to human nature it cannot justly be taken away or given up.

See the difference? See how you are disempowered by confusing privileges with rights? See how the government benefits at your expense by using the schools it runs to confuse you in that particular way?

When we speak of “inalienable individual rights,” by the way, the words “inalienable” and “individual” are added only for emphasis and clarity. Strictly speaking, these qualities are already inherent in the definition of “rights.”

Okay. So, what are these inalienable individual rights? They are:

Life, liberty, property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression.

Why these and only these?

Well, the rights to life and liberty are the essential primary rights and the rights to property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression are necessary and sufficient to guarantee life and liberty. By necessary and sufficient, I mean that nothing more is needed, and anything less would not be enough.

These six rights form an irreducible core: you either have all of them, or you may as well have none of them.

The inalienable individual rights give form and substance to the idea that every individual is inherently entitled to live and to act in his own self-interest and is immune from being interfered with in so doing. Further, since man is a rational animal, mental life and liberty are as important as physical life and liberty. Neither has value without the other.

Now, these ideas are crystal clear and incontrovertible when people live alone in a state of nature. It is when they come together in groups that confusion often starts – but it need not, if we think carefully and ignore those who have a vested interest in confusing us.

After all, the whole reason individuals form communities is to increase the benefits they derive from exercising their rights in return for accepting some responsibilities to the community – be it a family, village, city, province or nation. This, in a nutshell, is the social contract.

The crucial concept of a contract is quid pro quo: you give something in return for receiving something. Meaning, unless the community increases the benefits you derive from exercising your rights, you owe the community nothing at all.

Thus we must never allow the collective to take precedence over the individual, otherwise we negate the whole reason for forming a collective in the first place! Unless we hold inviolate the principle that the rights of the collective are derived from – and subservient to – the rights of its constituent individuals, the entire social contract becomes null and void, and any attempt to enforce it amounts to tyranny.

From this we can immediately see that the primary duty of the state must be to equally guarantee the equal rights of each and every individual. Whenever the government oversteps the boundaries defined by this primary duty, it breaches the social contract and thereby forfeits its legitimacy.

The whole foundation of the legal system follows just as immediately: a crime is committed whenever any person’s rights are violated and harm results. The severity of the crime is proportional to the harm which results. Thus, where there is no harm, there is no crime. Any law which is incompatible with these principles is unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all.

In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, and vice versa.

The whole purpose of the law and the state is to guarantee that to both of us equally, and anything else it does is unnecessary or illegitimate.

Yes, it really is that simple.

And it all rests on the absolute primacy of inalienable individual rights.

The quotes I posted say all that much more clearly and eloquently than I ever could – and also give proper credit to the great men I learned it from. Read their words again, and you will see what I mean:

A right is not what someone gives you, it’s what no one can take away from you.

— U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

— Thomas Jefferson

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

— Thomas Jefferson

It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Must a citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? … It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.

— Henry David Thoreau’

EFF Sues NSA, DOJ Over Secret Surveillance Program

While on the topic, the Western Center for Journalism asks if, perhaps, some of this NSA-collected material might have been used to influence Chief Justice Roberts to change his vote at the last minute on Obamacare.

And if you still cling to the foolish and long debunked ‘I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to worry about’ fallacy, please, consider the following book:  Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate.  Here is an excerpt from a review of the book:

‘The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.’

After all, Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student, faced 2 felony charges of bomb-making and was to be tried as an adult for a school science-experiment that produced a ‘pop’, in which nobody was hurt and no damage happened – only popular outcry forced the authorities to eventually drop the charges.

And, of course, who can forget why ‘the authorities’ kept such a concise log on citizens’ activities in Fahrenheit 451!  If they could not catch the real culprit, an early-morning dog-walker would be a suitable substitute…  (Yes, it is since having read this book in English that I cannot bring myself to use the word ‘fireman’ and instead use ‘fire-fighter’.)

And, if you think that ‘just’ collecting metadata does not tell ‘the regime’ a lot about you, please, consider this interesting, humorously written article which graphically demonstrates how the analysis of metadata would have helped identify and ‘neutralize’ Paul Revere.

P.S.  In the above video, they say that when the EFF asked the US government to clarify how they were interpreting the laws, they were told the answer was ‘classified’.  Consider the implications of that!  How can you possibly follow the laws if you are not permitted to know how the government will enforce them?  Do you still think you have ‘nothing to hide’?!?!?

That whole ‘State Education’ thing…perhaps we should re-think this!

When teachers are disciplined – perhaps fired – for teaching students that they have rights  and freedoms under the Constitution….

It’s time to re-think this badly run experiment in State indoctrination!

In completely unrelated news:  Waterloo University is looking for a new ‘Director of Equity’.  Should I apply?

The most lucid examination of the gun control issue to date

C0nc0rdance is a scientist who often appears on The Magic Sandwich Show, which I sometimes watch.  And while I do not agree with all the views expressed on that show, I do like the level and manner at which the discussion occurs.

So, when C0nc0rdance put out a video on the topic of the 2nd Amendment and the whole gun control issue, I expected a well thought out, well supported position.

Having heard C0nc0rdance’s views on individual vs. collective rights, I also expected that his conclusion will not be the same as mine.

I was not disappointed – on either count.

I was, however, surprised how long into the video I agreed with each and every word he said.  His conclusion and mine hinge on one very important distinction in how we perceive ‘rights’….

It is my core belief that the only way for a society to function is to recognize the inalienable rights of each and every individual within that society.  The very concept of ‘collective rights’ is anathema to our civilization, where all rights derive from the individual.  It is therefore not possible for any group to have different rights than those the individuals within that group have….because if it did, then those individuals within these privileged groups would have greater rights than other individuals in society and we would no longer have equality before the law.

In other words, in order to ensure that each citizen is treated equally by the courts and the law, we are limited to only legally recognizing individual rights.  This makes any argument based on ‘group rights’ invalid.

Despite this insurmountable difference of opinion in individual vs. collective rights which makes C0nc0rdance arrive at a different conclusion than I, I think his argument is very good and well worth listening to.

Reality Check: VP Biden, “No law abiding citizens fears 2nd amendment infringement”


More thoughts about the issues of ‘privcy’ and ‘presumption of privacy’

Over the weekend, this video, purported to be from ‘Anonymous’, was released.  It demands that the Canadian Minister, Vic Toews, remove bill C-30 (which would permit civil servants unlimited snooping powers on the citizens via the internet without judicial oversight) and that he step down immediately.

The following video also purports to be from ‘Anonymous’.  As I have no connection to that group, I have no idea if it is authentic.  However, I do think it is worth posting because it raises several issues worth further discussion:

This video raises the connection between the desire by various governments to regulate arms and to regulate the internet.

This is a deeper connection that one may think, at first glance.  But, deep down, both are attempts to take away the citizen’s ability to protect themselves – including, if necessary, to resist their government.  Both are ways in which governments make their citizens less secure, more isolated, and more afraid of their government.

Even if you are not as libertarian in your views as I am (I think that monopoly control over infrastructure – even, or perhaps especially, information infrastructure – is perilous to civil liberties), it is easy to see how governments are threatened by citizenry that is difficult to control and willing and able to oppose them.

Firearms are a means of physical self-defense and an equalizer between the strong and the weak.  Even a small woman can protect herself from a rapist with the use of a gun:  her physical safety is no longer dependant solely on the timely response of the state to come to her aid.  This threatens the government monopoly on the enforcement of laws:  as every monopoly’s natural reaction would be, the government’s reaction is to restrict this competition.

Let’s be clear about this:  government ‘regulation’ of firearms is not about increasing public safety by having many well trained, well armed citizens available in public spaces who would be able to stop law-breakers and thus increase public safety.  To the contrary:  it is always specifically designed to restrict gun ownership, use, and the very presence of privately owned guns in public spaces.  This intolerance on the part of government of guns in private hands – even though this increases public safety – is indicative of the government’s disrespect for its citizenry, with the goal to increase government coercive powers at the root of all ‘arms regulations’.

Information is a weapon and a powerful one.

So is anonymous speech.

The internet enables both.

As a matter of principle, anonymous speech is necessary for the preservation of the very freedom of speech.  For example, The Federalist Papers could never have been published had their authors not had absolute anonymity at the time of publication!  The bigger the government is, the more dangerous it is to speak up against it openly.  Without anonymous speech, governments do indeed become more totalitarian and more tyrannical in nature:  this cycle has been repeated so often, it is blatant.

Yet, the ever-growing governments in the formerly-free world now wish to have complete and unfettered access to the information which would identify each and every internet user:  to be able to attach a name to every sentence uttered on the internet, from seeking sensitive advice at an online support group to dissenting political speech!

Of course, the governments are also increasing citizen surveillance on so many fronts…  There will soon be no arena where we do have ‘presumption to privacy’, not even in our homes and certainly not anywhere else.  So, the whole ‘getting a warrant’ might be a mute issue…

Technology is beautiful – but it is a tool, to be used for good or evil.  It is necessary that we understand these tools because our society will need to evolve along with them.  What am I talking about?

For example, drone-based aerial surveillance…

Or this totally awesome ‘bug thech’!  (Do watch the video, it is art and technology combined!)

What is my point?

As new technologies arise, we will need to develop laws to govern their use.  However, these laws (all laws, really) ought to be focused on protecting the civil libeties of individual citizens – not legitimizing the ways that governments and big business can circumvent them!