Ottawa’s ‘green-bin’ program and Orgaworld: an open letter to journalist Rob Snow

December 23, 2010 — xanthippa

Hi Mr. Snow!

There are some very important questions we need to learn about Orgaworld – how they got awarded the contract and what type of due diligence was or was not done leading up to this.  Forensic audit should only be one step in this process.

I wonder if there is a clause in the Ottawa ‘deal’ with Orgaworld which would permit us to cancel the contract without penalties (to us):

  • IF Orgaworld fails to produce ‘usable’ compost?
As per The Toronto Star, the compost Orgaworld produces from the Toronto ‘diversion program’ is so toxic, it would kill any plants growing from the soil it was used to ‘enrich’.
The sole reason for the green-bin program is to produce compost that can be used as fertilizer. 

If independent tests show that the compost Orgaworld produces is so toxic that it cannot be used as fertilizer, would this constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?

  • IF Orgaworld is caught shipping some of the materials from the green-bins to be disposed of as garbage?
In Toronto, whose program is admittedly different from ours, they estimate that up to 22% of the materials Orgaworld accepts is not composted, but burned or dumped in landfills.
Is this standard practice here? 

What percentage of the ‘Ottawa green-bin materials’ we think is being composted does Orgaworld dispose of as ‘garbage’?

We are paying much more for ‘composting’ than we would be for ‘garbage disposal’:  if Orgaworld does not actually compost a certain percentage of the material, should they not refund us that percentage of the fees we pay them?

Would ‘not-composting’ materials we pay them to ‘compost’ constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?

  • IF any of the materials (finished or not) Orgaworld releases from their plant is found to contain active pathogens which should have been rendered inert in ‘properly produced compost’?
The Toronto Star had found that some of the compost produced from the Toronto program which had been sold as ‘finished product’ actually still contained some live germs which should have been killed in a ‘proper’ composting process.  (To be fair – it does not specify if it was Orgaworld’s product or another manufacturer’s.) 

In an separate incident, it was found that Orgaworld had dumped tons of semi-processed bio-matter – ‘unfinished’ and in various stages of decomposition in places like gravel pits, farm fields and city-owned land without preparing these places to accept bio-waste.

This is an active threat to public health!

Rotting food contains bacteria and other micro-organisms which are toxic to us, humans.  The composting process kills these infectious agents, so that by the time the finished compost is spread on land, the deadly pathogens are neutralized and cannot enter the drinking water system and/or cling to the produce grown in that soil (like, say, e-coli contamination of spinach…).  Some pathogens can become airborne, causing people who inhale them to become ill.

The ‘accelerated’ processes in use in the modern ‘composting factories’ rely on a highly controlled and regulated environment to achieve the composting process which kills these deadly germs. (In the natural, non-accelerated composting process, this takes years and this is why our ancestors had exact composting practices instead of just dumping rotting food on their fields.)

If the bio-matter is dumped outside of this controlled environment before it is completely turned into compost, these pathogens will still be active and pose a serious danger. 

(In addition to the ‘leaching’ and ‘airborn pathogen’ dangers, this could lead to a type of decompostion during which Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released:  this ‘greenhouse gas’ is 240 times ‘stronger’ than Carbon Dioxide (CO2)!)   😉

Would endangering public health through disposal of only partially-neutralized bio-waste constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’?

Which brings me to some questions:

What is the quality of the compost Orgaworld produces from the Ottawa ‘Green-bin program’? 

Has anyone tested it?

If so, who?

And where?

How independent are the testing facilities?

The Orgaworld’s Ottawa composting factory had a fire a few months ago.  Fire/smoke is an indicator of ‘improper composting practices’.  Has there ever been an investigation to ascertain which ‘best practices’ were breached in the composting process and caused the fire and how the resultant product will be impacted?

What are the provisions in the Ottawa-Orgaworld contract for non-compliance/breech of contract?  What are the penalties specified?

Are these provisions/penalties ‘similar’ to the ‘industry standard’?

How does this compare to the ‘standard’ for other ‘City contracts’?

How does this compare to the ‘standard contracts’ in the private sector?

Who is responsible for the oversight?  What are the terms and conditions?  Are they being fulfilled?

Who is responsible for any action should there be non-compliance/breech of contract?

Where/how can citizens (especially taxpayers) monitor this process?

Mr. Snow:  you are an excellent journalist who often interviews our City Officials as well as all kinds of other interesting people.  Would you, please, find the answers to these questions?

If you do find any answers to these questions – or any other relevant information – I would be very happy to publish all of it on my blog.

Sincerely yours,

Alexandra,
blogging as Xanthippa

References (in case the links get stripped out from the text):
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/660864
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/660862
http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/orgaworld/

Click to access 382500-11.pdf

http://www.ehow.com/list_7313994_hazards-composting.html
http://www.pma.com/resources/issues-monitoring/food-safety/key-learnings-real-world-terms
http://www.extension.org/article/28585
http://www.owma.org/committees/members.asp?mode=d&org=244
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Smouldering+compost+sends+firefighters+Orgaworld+plant/3427666/story.html

Posted in corruption, debate, politics, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Richard Warman v Free Dominion: the ‘prima facie’ hearing, part 3

December 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Disclaimer:  These are my observations, my opinions and I have no legal training at all.  So, take it for no more than it is!

Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.

When I left the tale at the end of part 2, Mr Katz – Richard Warman’s lawyer – was making a presentation to Madam Justice Blishen that Mr. Warman’s request that Free Dominion hand over the IP addresses of the site’s members whom  Mr. Warman wishes to sue for defamation satisfies the 4 points set out by Justice Wilton-Siegel and, therefore, that FreeDominion should indeed hand over the info.

Context, Mr. Katz kept stressing, is essential.

He also expounded that this case is not about freedom of speech on the internet – it is only about defamatory statements made about his client!

Some of the defamatory statements were couched as ‘statements of opinion’.  And THIS is where Mr. Katz made one of several pronouncements which rather floored me.  This is probably because I am completely lacking in any law school stuff, so my mind must be insufficiently trained to ‘get’ it.

Please, judge for yourself!  (And, if you could explain it to me, I’d greatly appreciate it.)

Mr. Katz said that in order for something to be a ‘statement of opinion’, it must contain the information on the basis of which this opinion had been formed.

In other words, the statement:  “Lawyers are, in my opinion,  cute little bunnies.” would not, under Mr. Katz’s suggested definition, count as ‘statement of opinion’ because it does not say why I had arrived at this opinion!  By his definition, this is a ‘statement of fact’.

I sure hope I’m misunderstanding this, but this  sure is what I thought I heard – as I have written it down as such. (See – I’m supporting my opinion, just in case…)

Mr. Katz then went on for significant length to say that one of the things his client was called suggests ‘unnatural sex acts’.  I will, of course, not repeat the term itself because I do not wish to defame Mr. Warman, even indirectly!  Let it suffice that Mr. Katz explored at length the damage that could be done to one’s reputation by accusations of ‘unnatural sex acts’.  (Again,  I did not hear the word ‘unfounded’ or ‘false’ in there, but I am certain from Mr. Katz’s tone that this was implied.)

Mr. Katz belaboured this point until the judge began to show unmistakable signs of impatience.

At this point, Mr. Katz referred to the Vigna v Levant case, where (if I caught this bit correctly – my notes show I was not sure I heard this bit correctly) Mr. Levant was found guilty of defamation by calling someone ‘a censor’ on his blog.  Whatever the detail – someone was found guilty of defamation by calling someone else ‘a censor’ in a blog.

Mr. Warman had, apparently, been called ‘a censor’ by the defendants in this case.  This, according to Mr. Katz, constituted the ‘prima facie’ case for the defamation lawsuit to proceed, thus satisfying the ever-important Wilton-Siegel point #2.  (Again,  just because one person is defamed by being called ‘a censor’ does not mean the term is, in itself, defamatory.  The term is only defamatory if it is used falsely.  My best guess is that to get ‘prima facie’ ruling, the term has to be found defamatory in some instances while the actual defamation trial has to find that it is defamatory in THIS case.)

At this point. Mr. Katz recapped the 4 Wilton-Siegel points (not in order):

  • he had demonstrated point #2:  the ‘prima facie’ case for defamation
  • his client did all he could to ferret out the identity of the ‘John Does’ through other methods, satisfying point #3
  • he read into record the Free Dominion membership disclaimer, in order to demonstrate that if the members made defamatory statements on the site, they had lost their expectation of anonymity (and thus satisfying point #1)
  • balancing of ‘stuff’ for point #4….

Since Mr. Katz had not really addressed this bit before, he got to it in greater length at this point. In my imperfect understanding, the gist of his argument was that since Mr. Warman was a private citizen and not a public figure, calling him bad things is not part of public debate or political debate or any such related thingie.  It is nothing but defamation – not ‘free speech’, protected on any grounds whatsoever.

Therefore, Mr . Warman’s right to sue those defaming little bastards (I AM paraphrasing to reflect Mr. Katz’s tone of voice) trumps their weasely little ‘right to privacy’ and their identities ought to be handed over on a silver platter.  Like, yesterday.

At around this point, the York case was cited as precedent. Mr. Katz said this case was, to a great degree, based on the York case.  Again, my lack training in ‘the law’ is interfering with understanding:  I would have thought that the York case would not be something Mr. Katz would like to bring attention to, because (unless I am mistaken), the York case judge goes pretty far to stress: ‘Internet encourages free speech and anonymity is a critical component of this speech.’

But, back to Mr. Katz and his case: this is when Mr. Katz made the other statement that took the breath out of my lungs!

While trying to establish that Mr. Warman is a private citizen and not a public figure – and therefore the law does not protect criticism of him as ‘political speech’, Mr. Katz stated, with a straight face, in the most ‘everybody KNOWS this is so’ voice, that in order for someone to be a ‘public figure’, they have to be ‘AN ELECTED OFFICIAL ONLY’!!!

According to Mr. Katz, even Her Majesty, Queen Elisabeth II, would not qualify as a public figure!!!

Who would have thunk it…. our good Queen, not a ‘public figure’…  Tomorrow, it will have been 27 years ago that I swore my oath of allegiance to Queen Elisabeth II and all her heirs – as I enjoyed the privilege of becoming a Canadian Citizen!  I take my oath seriously – and this really, really offended me.

Of course, Mr. Katz did not mention that Mr. Warman did actually RUN for public office – he just failed to get elected.  I think.  Or, I could be mistaken.  I am not making any statement about Mr. Warman, whatsoever!

With this, Mr. Katz finished up.

….more to come….

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Richard Warman v Free Dominion: the ‘prima facie’ hearing, part 2

December 9, 2010 — xanthippa

I have absolutely 0 legal training, so all these are simple observations and the conclusions and opinions are in no way expert.  I will do my best to be accurate, but these are all still nothing more than my personal observations and opinions.

Part 1 can be found here.

When I left off the tale, it was high noon and Madam Justice Blishen was listening to Mr. Katz, the lead counsel for Mr. Warman, present an argument why Mr. Christie, counsel not for Free Dominion but one of the co-defendants in the main defamation suit, has no standing at this hearing and should not be permitted to address the court.

This hearing was held solely to determine whether Richard Warman’s request that Connie and Mark Fournier, of Free Dominion, hand over the ip addresses which would reveal the identities of a number of Free Dominion members meets the 4 criteria, as set out by Justice Wilton-Siegel.  Mr. Katz argued that since that had nothing to do with the defamation itself, and since Mr. Christie was only representing clients in the defamation portion of the case, he has no standing before the court.

Mr. Christie eloquently argued that his client is being sued for defamation.  The second of the Wilton-Siegel points requires that Warman demonstrate that there is enough damaging ‘stuff’ there for a defamation lawsuit to go ahead ( establish a ‘prima facie’ case – this is to avoid ‘unjustified’ requests for identity disclosure).  If he can show that there is no ‘prima facie’ case – this second point – then there is no case against his client in the least!

Therefore, it is in his client’s interest that he address the court at this hearing.  (There was some specific word that was used in both Mr. Christie’s client’s case – so that was brought up and discussed, but to my untrained mind it seemed that the word itself was less important itself as it was only one of the ‘means’ to break the ‘prima facie’ point,)

Mr. Katz also pointed out that since Mr. Warman had arrived at a settlement with Mr. M– last Thursday, who had been Mr. Christie’s client, Mr. Christie has even less of a standing….

Mr. Christie pointed out that he is not there on behalf of Mr. Martin, but rather of Mr. B–.

In a most reasonable voice, Mr. Katz said yes, but Mr. Christie is trying to represent Mr. M.– here, and that has already been settled!

Mr. Katz truly does use his voice very, very effectively:  he conveys at least as much (if not more) meaning in the tone of his voice as he does in the words he speaks.  An excellent skill for a trial lawyer!  (My personal opinion is that without Mr. Katz’s expertize, Mr. Warman’s may lawsuits would never have gotten as far as they have…)

Of course, Mr. Christie could not be rattled that easily – and the judge ruled that since the rights of Mr. Christie’s client are going to be affected by any ruling here, she will permit Mr. Christie to address the court briefly after the other parties have made their main arguments.

Point one to Mr. Christie.

At this point, Mr. Katz complained that this is supposed to be a short hearing and now, so much of it had already been wasted by the above argument…

The man has some daring!  He was the one wasting the court’s time – now he complains about it, trying to shift the blame on to Mr. Christie!  And in such reasonable tones….  He truly is another Daniel Webster!  (The one from the story, not the Canadian lawyer…)

As he opened his main argument, Mr. Katz presented to the judge that the main aim of today’s hearing is to determine if there is a ‘prima facie’ case for Mr. Warman to proceed with his lawsuit.  (i.e. Wilton-Siegel point #2)

Point #3 – whether his client has done all he can to ferret out the identity of the anonymous posters on his own has been satisfied:  Ms. Kulaszka, the counsel representing Free Dominion, has conceded that this point has, indeed, been satisfied.

The judge pointed out that points #1 and 4 are also important. (#1 is whether or not the posters had a reasonable expectation of anonymity and the tricky one, #4 deals with weighing ‘public interest’, ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘right to privacy’)

Mr. Katz cited a precedent ruling set in Nova Scotia in June of 2010.  Unfortunately, even though I was aware of the ruling at the time, I cannot remember enough of the important details to find it, so I could link it.  (And, yes, I have spent a lot of time in cyberspace, sidetracking, while looking for this bit – so I have stopped in order to finish writing this up…)

Mr. Katz went on to argue that the specific libels against Mr. Warman are pretty clear.  He listed them.  For obvious reasons, I will not.  (In case you are not aware, it has been alleged that one of the defendants is being sued because he quoted Mr. Warman, from a deposition, where Mr. Warman complains about being called a list of names.  Apparently, repeating these – even when identified as a direct quote of Mr. Warman, could land one in a lot of hot water.)

Mr. Katz stressed that ‘context is important’ and addressed what he called the defendant’s position ‘that nobody takes bloggers seriously, so it is irrelevant if Mr. Warman is slandered in a blog…’.  (My imperfect understanding of the defendant’s position suggests that this is a re-phrasing-to-the-point-of-error of their position, but mine is not the legal mind.)  Of course people take bloggers seriously!

I think it is very nice that Mr. Katz thinks so highly of us!  I like him too!

Then he showed a legal ruling from the US that ‘it is defamatory to refer to someone as a Nazi’.

In my never humble opinion, that statement is clearly false.  Truth is always a defense.  Therefore, that statement could only hold water if it said:  ‘it is defamatory to FALSELY refer to someone as a Nazi’!

No, I am not making any inference as to Mr. Warman:  just because he had joined a number of Neo-Nazi sites does not necessarily mean he is a Nazi.

I am simply addressing the incorrectness of the statement itself:  in our country, truth still IS a defense!  In a real court, anyway…

Alas – I see the wordcount has climbed rather high… So, I will break for now and continue this tale in Part 3.

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Richard Warman v Free Dominion: the ‘prima facie’ hearing, part 1

December 7, 2010 — xanthippa

Today, I spent observing more ‘courtly manners’.

In the court-room, that is.

With Madam Justice Blishen presiding over the next installment in the ‘Warman v Free Dominion’ saga.

Background:

  • FreeDominion is the oldest, longest-running online message board in Canada which deals with political matters.
  • Richard Warman is a former Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer and the most frequent user of Canada’s Human Right’s Legislation’s controversial ‘Section 13’, often described as ‘the censorship clause’.  Richard Warman has also personally pursued complaints under ‘Section 13’ where he was not the ‘injured party’ – on the grounds that there could, one day, be an injured party – and collected a tens of thousands of tax-exempt dollars in ‘damages’ as a result.
  • Richard Warman has also initiated tens, perhaps hundreds, of civil lawsuits against people whom he perceives as having slandered or defamed him
  • Many people on the internet call Mr. Warman all kinds of things….some of them not nice things.
  • Several people have made posts on FreeDominion which Mr. Warman believes defame him – and he has attempted to sue them, as well as the people who run the FreeDominion site, Mark and Connie Fournier.
  • As they have posted under pseudonyms, Mr. Warman has not been successful in discovering the identity of all the people who posted the comments he believes to be defamatory.  He has therefore demanded that the Fourniers reveal to him the identities /IP addresses of these anonymous people, so he can sue them
  • Earlier this year, in an appeal, FreeDominion successfully argued that they should not be expected to just hand over this information when asked:  a ‘prima facie’ case has got to be made that there are indeed grounds for a lawsuit for defamation there, first!  There were two ‘other parties’ permitted to speak to the appeals court about this:  the Civil Liberties people and Michael Geist’s ‘Internet Freedom’ people.
  • THIS HEARING was to determine whether or not the conditions for the disclosure of identities of anonymous bloggers (including a ‘prima facie case’ for a defamation lawsuit in these posts) have indeed been met.

 

And what a hearing it was!

Since this hearing was to determine whether there was there was sufficient reason for the disclosure of the identities of anonymous bloggers, perhaps it is best to re-state the conditions, as per the above-mentioned appeal.  From Defamation Law Blog:

After surveying previous decisions, Justice Wilton-Siegel set out four considerations, aimed at preventing abuse of the Rules and respecting the privacy of internet users, that should have been considered by the motions judge in deciding whether to order disclosure under the Rules:

  • whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;
  • whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;
  • whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and
  • whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

[Warman, at para. 34]

To reduce the anticipation a little, let me first state that the third point was not much discussed:  everyone agreed that Mr. Warman had indeed done a lot to ferret out the identities of the anonymous bloggers.  So, the arguments revolved around the other 3 points:expectation of anonymity by the posters, whether there is enough material there to proceed with a defamation suit (as in, not just a nuisance lawsuit) and last but not least, balancing of ‘legitimate interests’.

The morning arguments opened a little late:  there was another motion scheduled ahead of this hearing – one involving an almost 30-year lawsuit over some inheritance, which was in the 2nd and 3rd generation of litigants.  I suppose this set the tone a little…

This earlier motion hearing meant that Madam Justice Blishen did not begin to hear this case until two minutes to noon.  To my untrained, layman’s eyes, it looked like this was very good news for Warman and his legal team (headed up by the eloquent and expressive Mr. James Katz).  Mr. Warman kept leaving the court-room and coming back with more and more papers, which he quietly discussed with his lawyers.  Mr. Katz’s student also kept running into the room, bringing in reams of paper and passing them to her boss.

I wondered what this was all about… and I suspect the reason might have been the second lawyer, sitting on the Free Dominion side of the lawyer’s table.  The ever-loyal and very intelligent Barbara Kulaszka was, again, representing Connie Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion.  The other lawyer was representing several of the other co-defendants in the lawsuit – and was none other than the formidable ans wholly unexpected Mr. Doug Christie!

No wonder there was some serious scrambling from the Katz team!

As the hearing opened, Mr. Katz argued that as this is a hearing to determine if the conditions for revealing the identities of the anonymous posters has been met and not the defamation hearing itself, it only concerns the Fourniers and not the other co-defendants in the defamation suit.  Therefore, Mr. Katz suggested, Mr. Christie had no standing there and should not be permitted to address the court.

In my completely legally untrained mind, it looked like ‘they’ really really really really did not want to give Mr. Christie a chance to speak at all – more than just mere procedural jostling for position or some type of lawyer-bickering.  It almost smelled like ‘they’ were afraid of M. Christie.  And here, I thought he was best known for making good cookies…

All right – I am getting silly.  It has been a very long and exhausting day for me – if I continue now, the likelihood that I will craft my report to accommodate as many puns as possible will increase with every new line.

So, please, forgive me:  I will sign off for now and continue my tale tomorrow.

 

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 9 Comments »

Michael Geist: Bill C-32’s Digital Lock Rules and Education

November 28, 2010 — xanthippa

Michael Geist has posted a clip on YouTube which, in 18 short seconds, unequivocally explains the relationship between the new digital copyright laws and the use of materials for strictly educational purposes:

In a somewhat related news, all your Sun is belong to that woman….and she plans to charge you to use it.

Posted in freedoms, technology. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Your choice: nude photos or sexual assault

November 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Usually, I rant and nag about ‘stuff’.

Not this time.

This time, I am full of questions, not answers.

Frankly, I don’t really know what to make of it all.

Where it began, how it became accepted, how come this is happening!?!?!

As in, how has this behaviour become so normalized in our society that we accept it without questioning?

OK – I need to back up a little bit….and explain what I am talking about.

When a citizen of a ‘Western Democracy’ wishes to travel from one point to another, they are supposed to be ‘free’ to do so.  They are not to be hindered by any government actions.

Of any kind.

This is all about that ‘freedom of movement’ thingy…..one of them pesky ‘innate’ human rights!

Now, if a said person contracts someone (a person or company) to facilitate his/her travel, it is a private contract between a free citizen and either another free citizen or, more frequently, a company.  Let’s call it ‘a concern’…

Like, say, a concern that runs taxis, buses, horse-dawn carriages, trains or airplanes from one city to another – within the city or without, within the country or internationally.  (A government has the jurisdiction to control who crosses the border, but not how ‘free citizens’ travel within them….)

Therefore, said contract is a private, civil business transaction between a free citizen and a private concern.

Since the citizen has the right to freedom of movement, any and all security measures are strictly a matter of the contract between the free citizen and the private concern which is providing said transportation service.

Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, any security involved in a private individual contracting a private concert to transport them, is a matter strictly between the two contracting parties.  A strictly ‘civil’ matter!

Yet, somehow, we have permitted ‘government’ to play that role!

How?!?!?!?

How in the world did ‘government’ get to dictate the security terms of civil contracts of private citizens?

How could, in a truly free society, any such government regulation be permitted, much less legislated?!?!?

And from what I read and hear, the government is now dictating the terms of all air travel, forcing private citizens to either submit to scanners which render photographic-level images of the citizens’ nude form (which, of course, also reveal a huge amount of bio-graphic data which can – and likely will – be used to identify that person in the future) – or submit to a ‘pat down’ which, in any other situation, would be grounds for charging the government agent performing said ‘pat down’ with sexual assault!

Of course, if we submit to this treatment – guilty until proven innocent – during air travel, it WILL spread to other venues…using the same justification:  security above freedom!

Admission – I do not often listen to Alex Jones; sometimes, he is a bit ‘out there’.  But, there are instances where the ‘outliers’ truly are the proverbial ‘canaries in the coal-mines’.  So, I invite you to listen to his interview of a woman who was traveling with her children and all of whom (including the very young children) were subjected to having their genitals probed in a highly intrusive manner:

(Caution:  this is disturbing and graphic description of what, under any reasonable circumstances, would be described as sexual assault of a woman AND her children – the interview starts a few minutes into the video)

This is more intrusive than what used to happen in the slave markets!!!

Yes, you would be naked and exposed – no more than the ‘naked scanner’ machines do now – but at least, in slave markets, the buyers were not permitted to touch your genitals out in the open…..and nobody was permitted to store the biometric data gained from the ‘naked body scans’!!!

And THAT just involves ‘VOLUNTARY’ examinations:  the ones you permit yourself to be subjected to in order to be permitted – by your government – to exercise your innate freedom of movement, as agreed to in a private contract between yourself and a non-government controlled private individual/company!!!

I simply do not understand why this is acceptable.

Why do we permit our governments to pass laws which permit them such intrusive regulation of our freedom of movement?!?!

An ‘airline ticket’ is a private, civil contract!

It is the business of the airline to provide the security sweeps of the people who contracted them for transport.

If one private company’s security checks are more intrusive than another’s, it will be a matter of private contract made at the time the services of the transport company were contracted.

Companies whose security measures were ineffective would soon loose their customers.

Ditto for companies whose security measures were way too intrusive.

But, throughout it all, the customers would have a choice:  do I choose to travel with company A, whose civil contract does permit the performance of highly intrusive security checks before permitting their customers entry onto aircraft….and who, presumably, offers greater ‘security’, or do I choose to travel with company B, who does no real security checks at all?  Or, do I choose company C, who is somewhere in-between?

Either way, it is the customer’s choice to enter into a private contract which specifies the level of  inspection/security one is both ‘subjected to’ and ‘protected by’.

And, it is a part of a civil contract!

It is, in no way-shape-or-form, the government’s business!!!

So, why do we permit the government and its agents to be the ones who not only perform all security scans, but also have jurisdiction over who is or is not permitted to exercise his or her rights to freedom of travel?

To collect and store all this data about us?

Why do we permit our governments to regulate a whole industry which permits us to exercise one of our  core human rights?

How did we ever permit governments to usurp this level of control over us?

Leto was right:  a population which walks is easier to control!

Not a single terrorist has been caught through any of these ‘security measures’:  so, what is their actual purpose?

Truly, do think about it…..and ask yourself:  Why do we permit this?

…

If you figure it out, please, let me know:  I sure cannot see any reason  for all this beyond conditioning us towards ‘general acceptance’ of greater and greater oppression….of normalizing greater and greater infringements on our freedoms!

In the name of keeping us ‘safe’, of course!

Of course, this type of ‘surveillance’ is not limited to airports:  we now have disguised vans roaming our streets, taking x-ray images of everything they encounter:  the dose of x-ray radiation we unknowingly receive, we are assured, is no greater that that received during a routine x-ray….

How is that ‘safe’ for, say, a fetus during the first trimester?

Can somebody please explain to me how this is ‘enhancing our freedom’?!?!?

Or even ‘respecting’ our bodily security?

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Obama to get power to turn off the internet – worldwide

June 18, 2010 — xanthippa

Sit up and pay attention.

I have been ranting on and on, that we need to set up a parallel system to the internet:  one so diffuse that it could not be controlled by any authority.

Why?

Because various governments have been attempting to strangle the freedom to exchange information which people all over the world have been exercising:  and which has been a powerful weapon against suppressing information that various governments would rather not make public.

This coming Sunday will be the first anniversary of the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan.  If her death was not caught on video and posted on the internet for all the world to see, would we know as much as we do about the protests against the rigged elections in Iran?  (On this note – the demonstration which is taking place in London, England, to mark the anniversary of her death this Sunday has had its location moved by the police at the last minute:  instead of Trafalgar Square, it will be held at Richmond Terrace junction with Whitehall opposite Downing Street.)

Of course, this is just the tiny tip of a huge iceberg!

It’s EVERYTHING!!!

It usually starts with ‘protecting children’ – after all, who could be against protecting our children?!?!

So, filters and tracking traps go on.

Then it’s pornography.

And black lists.

Of course, history has shown us (the last revelations were from Australia, were they not?) that most of the sites that are blacklisted and censored do not actually have anything to do with paedophilia or even pornography.  Rather, most have been political sites critical of the ruling government and/or the censorship bodies.

After these two biggies comes ‘security’.

Again, it is an emotional appeal that precludes any reasonable argument without being accused of siding with terrorists and criminals and other ‘enemies’.

And it is exactly this reasoning that lies behind the PCNAA (Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act) that Joe Lieberman, with vigorous support from Jay Rockefeller (the guy who thinks the world would be better off without the internet) is pushing through!

This bill – once law – would give Obama the power to shut down the internet.

Everywhere.

Remember that saying – the one about people who are willing to give up freedom for security not deserving either?

So, any ideas on an alternate method of connecting up?

If we get a few good ideas, we can take this off-line:  you know, before the line goes dead….

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

The ‘Wilson’ case

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

This is supporting material for my narrative of the ‘Richard Warman v FreeDominion/internet privacy’ appeal hearing on 8th of April, 2010.

The arguments made during the hearing referenced various cases, rulings and precedents. Since I am not a lawyer, nor trained in law in any way, it helped me understand what was going on when I looked up a few of them.

The ‘Wilson’ case

This may be a distasteful case, but the ruling in it establishes an important principle.

Miles Wilson was accused of possessing child pornography.  The police followed a trail where they found an IP address they believed would lead them to the suspect.  The police officer found out that that IP address was served by the ISP provider Bell Canada, and wrote them a ‘form lettter’ requestisng disclosure of the physical location of this IP address.  Based on this information, the police officer obtained a search warrant for the residence indicated, executed the search and found the evidence the police were seeking to prosecute Mr. Wilson.

An analysis of this case from ‘The Court’:

The fundamental issue before Leitch R.S.J. of the Superior Court of Justice was whether, in accessing the accused’s name and street address from Bell without first obtaining a warrant, police had infringed upon the accused’s reasonable expectation of privacy, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. Remove the legalese and the issue in Wilson becomes far more dramatic: are Canadians free from unbridled state surveillance of their online activities while in the confines of their homes?

…

First, in rejecting the accused’s s. 8 claim, Leitch R.S.J. determined that one’s name and address, or that of one’s spouse, falls beyond the inference-resistant “biographical core” threshold of Plant. Second, Letich R.S.J. found that given the fact that names and address are “information available to anyone in a public directory”, they are, in isolation, largely meaningless pieces of information as far as s. 8 is concerned.

Here, the issue is in the criminal realm, not the civil case we are talking about here.  However, there are aspects of this case which were examined and discussed during the appeal hearing, specifically as related to the IP address, the expectation of privacy and the differences between this case and the one under review.

Posted in freedoms, opression, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

The ‘York University’ case

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

This is supporting material for my narrative of the ‘Richard Warman v FreeDominion/internet privacy’ appeal hearing on 8th of April, 2010.

The arguments made during the hearing referenced various cases, rulings and precedents. Since I am not a lawyer, nor trained in law in any way, it helped me understand what was going on when I looked up a few of them.

The York University case

York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises, 2009 CanLII 46447 (ON S.C.)

This is an important case because here, the Norwich order (precedent) was used to obtain information about email accounts from an ISP.

Some people wrote a letter about the president of York University which alleged ‘bad stuff’. York University wanted to find out who sent the email, and sued the internet provides (Bell Canada Enterprises and Rogers Communications) to get the information.  The Norwich order was accepted by the judge (G.R. Strathy J) as applying in this case, as per Slaw.ca:

The 5 elements identified in this case for granting such an order include:


(i) Whether the applicant has provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim;
(ii) Whether the applicant has established a relationship with the third party from whom the information is sought such that it establishes that the third party is somehow involved in the acts complained of;
(iii) Whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information available;
(iv) Whether the third party can be indemnified for costs to which the third party may be exposed because of the disclosure, some [authorities] refer to the associated expenses of complying with the orders, while others speak of damages; and
(v) Whether the interests of justice favour the obtaining of disclosure.
[emphasis added]

…

Additionally, a strong case of fraud removes the possibility of a frivolous or vexatious application of the order.

However, there were some significant differences between the York University case and the ‘Warman v FD/internet privacy’ one.  This is just transcribing a few arguments from my notes from the hearing (any and all errors or misrepresentations are mine and I apologize – it is hard to write things down as fast as people are speaking).

Ms. Matheson for the CCLA (I am paraphrasing, keeping as true as possible to her speech):

The York case is a good decision because it ‘passed the test’ – the judges ruling was based on an established prima facie case.  There was a second reason – the agreement between the users and the ISP – but, the judge did apply the test fist.

Internet encourages free speech and anonymity is a critical component of this speech.

It is not a ‘blank cheque’ for defamation, but due regard must be given to Freedom of Expression. In this case, in front of the court now [the ‘Warman v FD/internet privacy’ case], no such consideration was given.

So, in my amateur observations, it appears to me that the significance of the ‘York University’ is two-fold:

  1. The judge first considered the strength and potential validity of the statements which were ‘potentially defamatory’ or ‘fraudulent’.   Only after a strong ‘prima facie’ (or ‘bona fide’ – there was some significant discussion there – it appears that ‘bona fide’ was acknowledged but the strength of it was sufficient for ‘prima facie, which is the test which both the CCLA and CIPPC suggested should be done – I think….but I could be wrong, as the discussion was fast-paced and I could not write that fast…but the fact remains that a strong case WAS established)  case was established – only after this strong case that the ‘speech’ was ‘defamatory’ had been established did the judge rule that the private information ought to be handed over.
  2. The anonymous people in the ‘York University’ had a user-agreement which permitted the disclosure of their information to authorities upon request.  This constitutes ‘consent’ to have their names released:  which is not the case in the FreeDominion user agreement, so there is a difference between the two cases right there, meaning a higher standard of proof is needed to compel the Fourniers to release the confidential information about their users.

Posted in freedoms, opression, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

The ‘Norwich precedent’

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

This is supporting material for my narrative of the ‘Richard Warman v FreeDominion/internet privacy’ appeal hearing on 8th of April, 2010.

The arguments made during the hearing referenced various cases, rulings and precedents. Since I am not a lawyer, nor trained in law in any way, it helped me understand what was going on when I looked up a few of them.

The Norwich Case

Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]AC 133, 175, HL

From the ‘Cambridge Law Journal’:

No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

This case deals with disclosure of private information:  when and how.

In Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, the owner of a patent knew that infringing goods were entering the UK, but could not ascertain their identity. The Commissioners, in the course of performing their duties, had information that would identify the imports. Also, they had unknowingly played a part in facilitating importation of infringing goods. The House of Lords found that where a third party had become involved in unlawful conduct, they were under a duty to assist the person suffering damage by giving them full information and disclosing the identity of wrongdoers.

In other words, the ‘disclosure’ of private information by a witness is not ‘automatic’ but some threshold of proof has to be met to satisfy a judge that the request is reasonable and for the information to be released.

However, if the person who holds the information sought is ‘an accomplice’ (in some way – knowingly or not), if that person is facilitating the ‘wrongdoing’, then they are compelled to release all relevant information right away.

This became important during the ‘Warman v FD/internet privacy’ case, because Free Dominion and its administrators, Connie and Mark Fournier, were named as co-defendants in the action by Mr. Warman.

The question, in my never-humble, not-legally-trained, opinion is whether the Fourniers are simply witnesses, or if they are also culpable in the defamation.

If they are simply witnesses who hold private information, then they cannot be compelled to release it until a judge is satisfied there is a ‘prima facie’ – or at least ‘bona fide’ case to do so.  (Yes, there was much back-and-forth as to which threshold, ‘bona fide’ or ‘prima facie’ ought to be used.)

If they are also partially guilty, then it is their duty to turn all information they might have over, right away.

That is the relevance of the Norwich precedent to this case.

Posted in freedoms, opression, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »