Blog Posts
Petitions
August July June May April

Björk: Declare Independence

From Volta

Bill C-61

Position paper of B.C. Civil Liberties Association on Bill C-61

C-61 creates a regime of mandatory data retention that is unbalanced by judicial oversight....

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Bill C-61: An Act to amend the Copyright Act

Afghanistan Futility

Inaction on poppy crops a danger - National Post, 31st July 2008

"[Thomas Schweich] quotes former attorney-general Abdul Jabbar Sabit, a candidate for the presidency in next year's election who was fired by Mr. Karzai this year, as confiding there are more than 20 senior Afghan government officials profiting from narcotics and protected from prosecution by the President."

National Do Not Call List

The National Do Not Call List (DNCL) Should Be Launched By September 30, 2008
news.gc.ca, 30th July 2008

On December 21, 2007 the CRTC awarded a five-year contract to Bell Canada to operate the National DNCL. The National DNCL will be a nationwide registry...

Telemarketers will not be allowed to call you, .... Calls made on behalf of organizations or made for certain purposes as listed below, are exempt from the National DNCL rules:

• registered charities;
• political parties;
• nomination contestants, leadership contestants or candidates of a political party;
• opinion polling firms or market research firms conducting surveys when the call does not involve the sale of a product or service;
• general circulation newspapers calling for the purpose of selling a subscription;
• to a consumer who has an existing business relationship with the organization; and
• to business consumers.

Organizations that are making calls which are exempt from the National DNCL (except for organizations collecting information for a survey) are required to keep their own do not call lists....

If the findings show that a violation has occurred, the Commission may issue a notice of violation and impose monetary penalties for each violation of up to $1,500 for individuals and up to $15,000 for corporations...

There should be a technological solution to this provided by the market such as a special ringtone. The Do Not Call regime is just more interference with our lives that makes it harder for Canadians to do business and make a living. The telecommunications system should not be a trap for people to cause them to break the law if they pick up the phone! Who could have thought of anything more oppressive than "if I don't check this list first before I pick up the phone, I might breaking the law".

I gave my non-totalitarian suggestion for how to indicate a desire for privacy. Now it is up to Canadians to stop using government to oppress other people. Someone might wonder how we were able to survive before the Do Not Call regime came about. How will we survive with it? One more rock piled on top of Canada's economic life.

Bank of Canada Policies

Bank of Canada announcement, news.gc.ca, 29th July 2008

"Mr. Caplan will contribute to the Bank's objectives of conducting monetary policy to achieve low, stable, and predictable inflation, and promoting well-functioning financial markets...

"The Bank of Canada, Canada's central bank, is committed to promoting the economic well-being of Canadians. The Bank's responsibilities focus on the goals of keeping inflation low, stable and predictable, supplying safe and secure bank notes, promoting financial stability, and providing efficient funds management."

Journalism and Liberty

For many reasons, this is a really good educational book for those who are interested in journalism. It’s mainly about the responsibilities of journalists to their audience. It discusses the importance of verification, transparency about sourcing, and the journalist’s duty to conscience. The whole book is about journalistic ethics, how to apply ethics and what elements make journalism of value.

There is a lot of depth and detail that I won’t attempt to summarize. It mentions famous incidents from recent years such as the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal at the New York Times (1), as well as inspiring historical events such as coverage of the Pentagon Papers (2). One of the points the authors make is that journalism is not about pretending to be neutral or detached (3). Journalism is about being independently minded (4). Truth is the real standard and this is the journalist’s first obligation (5).

The entertainment and propaganda-and-lies markets should be kept separate from journalism. Journalists have responsibilities to the truth market. Consumers need truth and they need good journalism. There is a clear example of this when a Chicago reporter, Carol Marin (6)(7), was praised by the public when she resigned from her job when the employer wanted to bring in Jerry Springer. Her audience followed her to her new job at a different station.

Guarding Against Tyranny?

I completely agree that one of the main functions of journalism should be to guard against tyranny:

“History has taught us by bloody experience what happens to a society in which the citizens act on the basis of self-interested information – whether it is the propaganda of a despotic state or the edicts of a sybaritic leisure class substituting bread and circuses for sovereignty.” (8)

The problem of the mainstream media failing to fulfill this function remains unresolved. The book presents warnings about totalitarianism and emphasizes the role of citizens in challenging the media (9). Very infrequently do they dilute these points as they do in this passage:

“The public continues to be troubled.… But it would be an overstatement to suggest the country has reached some new crisis point…” (10)

On the contrary, it is obvious to some of us that the U.S. is in the midst of an unparalleled constitutional crisis, reported on by some mainstream journalists to their credit but effectively downplayed or not understood by the media as a whole:

• The events surrounding 9/11, and the failure of the press to question the official version of events. (11)

• The war in Afghanistan which the press failed to question. (12)

• The war in Iraq with its casualties and false justifications which the mainstream media promoted. (13)

• Threats against Iran with false pretexts (14)

• The Military Commissions Act (2006) and its attacks on civil liberties (15)

• The PATRIOT Act (2001) and Domestic Security Enhancement Act (2003) – both major attacks on civil liberties (16), not to mention questionable presidential executive orders, torture apologetics, and policies of “extraordinary rendition”.

• The recent proposal from presidential candidate Barack Obama for civilian national service. (17)

• Proposals by Obama for increased global government, shifting accountability even further away from the people. (18)

Mainstream journalists continue to let the people down, continues to let distortions pass, and continue to fail to emphasize the seriousness of these attacks on our freedoms and constitutional structures.

Because of the mainstream media’s failures, it is left to alternative media who are willing to consider so-called conspiracy theories about the criminality of government. Most professional journalists, because of fear or common prejudices, do not allow themselves to do their job properly and will continue to fail to do their jobs of exposing patterns of government corruption and imperialist motivations.

Most journalists and many in the public are philosophically incapable of opposing the state and seeing governments as they really are. They blindly believe in the theory that the U.S. (or Canadian) government actually represents its people, that the government is whatever people believe it is, that it basically stands for good and only makes occasional mistakes.

By now, there should have been dozens of exposes equivalent to the Pentagon Papers and Watergate investigations. Instead we are all going to play the two-party game of trying to choose between Senators Obama and McCain. Many are going to support Obama as a response to Bush’s policies despite the fact that Obama has indicated he will carry on pro-war policies (19) and has proposed shocking “national service” and globalist policies to the American people (17)(18). Even though McCain and Obama believe in the same things, Americans are set to blindly follow the media’s two-party coverage into this hopeless future of more control over their lives, more taxes, more war and less sovereignty.

Journalism and Libertarian Ideology

On the positive side, the traditional American small-r republican doctrine presented in this book is very good for the freedom movement to understand and appreciate. The authors say that journalism is a theory of information that sustains the idea that “people can govern themselves.” (20) Libertarian ideology is also about the idea of self-government.

The first amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (21)

Also among the fundamental freedoms listed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

“freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;” (22)

Words on paper are not enough to protect us, but this powerful tradition of journalistic freedom helps us to ground libertarianism in history and connect with non-libertarians. Just like habeas corpus (the requirement that prisoners be brought before a judge), freedom of the press is an example of a very deliberate and developed tradition that helps protect real people from real threats to their freedoms and rights. At the same time, libertarians develop theory to better understand the principles: self-ownership, non-aggression, property rights etc.

The real significance and intention of freedom of speech is the right to express dissent from the government. It also means the right and responsibility to report on and challenge the institutions of power.

This function of journalism should apply to all citizens who participate to some degree in news and information through their blogs, podcasts, forum postings, email or letter writing – with some people called “journalists” doing a more professional job than others.

Along the same lines, let’s take that one step further! Just as we do not leave journalism to journalists, the function of government and politicians should not be left to politicians and parties! Voting for a "representative" who is unable to represent a citizen’s actual views is not good enough. In Canada, every adult citizen has a constitutional right to run for office. Take that to the logical conclusion. Every citizen’s voice should be heard on everything that matters to them!

Even though I believe it is just a myth that “we are the government”, we should turn that myth around and take advantage of it. We should overrule and undermine the credibility of the system that continues to treat us as subjects. As an alternative to running for office, motivated individuals should build up a parallel movement of direct representation through virtual assemblies in order to restrain government power and hold governments directly accountable. Those citizens who want to attack freedoms and rights should explain themselves directly to their fellow citizens instead of hiding behind the oligarchic myths of the major political parties and mainstream media.

References

1. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, 2007. Ch. 10, p. 227.
2. Ibid. Ch. 10, p. 237.
3. Ibid. Ch. 5, p. 118.
4. Ibid. Ch. 5, p. 119.
5. Ibid. Ch. 2, p. 36.
6. Ibid. Ch. 10, p. 236.
7. Carol Marin resignation covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAQ-TV#Jerry_Springer
8. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, 2007. Ch. 11, p. 254
9. Ibid. Ch. 11, p. 253.
10. Ibid. Ch. 11, p. 254
11. See journalist Gore Vidal recommending The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF4wmDwVLkc
 
12. BBC, Sept. 18, 2001, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’” before Sept. 11, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
13. Dennis Kucinich lists the propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZ8seg4Nr4
14. On Iran, see for example http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EVE20070228&articleId=4967
15. Military Commissions Act   See http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html

“In the final hours before adjourning in 2006, Congress passed and the president signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). In doing so, they cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. They also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.”

“We will ask Americans to serve…”
"…We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.

“But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Watch this documentary if you haven’t seen it already. A copy can be found here at video.google.ca

In my opinion, this documentary demolishes the global warming scam from top to bottom. Go ahead and argue any of these points if you disagree. If there are any errors or contrary interpretations of the science, feel free to comment.

(12 min into program) – There was global cooling from 1940 to 1975 even though it was a period of massive industrialization and increases in carbon dioxide levels.

(14 min) – Greenhouse gases are only a small part of the atmosphere. Water vapour amounts to 95% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, eclipsing carbon dioxide levels which are miniscule.

(15 min) – The rate of warming should be higher in the troposphere if the greenhouse effect is the cause of warming, but it is not. Surface temperature is warming faster.

(19 min) – Examining past atmospheres imprisoned in ice, the link between temperature and carbon dioxide levels is the wrong way around from what Al Gore asserts. Carbon dioxide rises with increases in temperature. There is a lag of hundreds of years. In other words, warming produces more carbon dioxide.

(22 min) – Carbon dioxide is a natural product of life. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is how living things grow! Human activity produces a small fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than all man-made sources put together. Animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatonnes whereas humans produce only 6.5 gigatonnes per year. Dying vegetation is an even larger source of carbon dioxide.

(23-24 min) – The biggest of all sources of carbon dioxide is the oceans. The oceans are a major reservoir of carbon dioxide. The oceans emit carbon dioxide when heated – when earth temperatures rise - and absorb carbon dioxide when cooled. The time lag is explained by the fact that the oceans are vast and deep and therefore take hundreds of years to warm up or cool down.

(26 min) - If carbon dioxide is not driving climate, then what is? The Sun. The direct effect of the Sun’s heat is discussed, including the success of Dr. Piers Corbyn’s long-range weather forecasting based on sunspot activity. The science shows a direct relationship between sunspot activity and global temperatures.

(30 min) - The Sun also has an indirect effect on cloud formation. When the Sun is more active, its solar wind is stronger and deflects more cosmic rays so that fewer cosmic rays reach the earth. The result is that fewer clouds are formed and temperatures increase. When there is less solar activity, there is less deflection of cosmic rays. Therefore more clouds are formed and temperatures decrease.

(34 min) - The same type of alarmism was going on in the 70’s about the threat of a new ice age! The Weather Machine was the name of the BBC documentary.

(36-39 min) - Politicization of science. Margaret Thatcher wanted energy independence for the U.K., and especially favoured nuclear energy. British government funding began in order to promote the climate change theory. Research funding from governments distorted the science. A clear example of this is presented by Nigel Calder (39 min).

(39 min) - Those who demonized industrialization, economic growth and capitalism were promoting the same global warming message as Western governments.

(43 min) - U.S. government funding jumped to billions of dollars a year. Research funding was tied to research with a global warming focus.

(46 min) - It is ridiculous to ignore the Sun, and ignore water vapour and focus on something as inconsequential as carbon dioxide as a presumed cause of earth temperatures rising.

(47 min) - Limitations of computer models which are based on groundless assumptions about carbon dioxide. Discussion about the media only being interested in what is dramatic.

(52 min) - Ice caps are constantly expanding and contracting. It is an ordinary event that huge pieces of ice break away. It makes for very dramatic news.

(54 min) - Discussion of sea level disaster predictions and how sea level actually works.

(55 min) - Discussion about the scare of malaria moving north. This is a false scare, because mosquitoes do live in cold climates contrary to misinformation in the IPCC report. Prof. Paul Reiter gives the example of a malaria tragedy that occurred in the Soviet Union, even at the Arctic circle, with 600,000 deaths. Malaria is not just a tropical disease.

(56-57 min) – Prof. Frederick Seitz’s June 12, 1996 letter to the Wall St. Journal about the IPCC : “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

(58 min) – Prof. Reiter resigned from IPCC because of his disagreements, but his name was still on the draft report. He threatened legal action to have his name removed. He says that others who also disagreed became part of the list of scientists who supposedly affirmed the final report.

(59 min) – It is difficult for dissident scientists to get funded. Taxpayer (coerced) money goes to the global warming theory.

(1h) – Constant accusations that climate dissidents are getting paid by oil and gas industries - even though billions of dollars of government funding goes to climate change science. For the global warming fanatics, it’s somehow ok for taxpayers to be ripped off but private sector funding is just fine. A hysterical activist is shown denouncing “climate criminals”.

(1h 1 min) – Africa is coming under intense pressure not to develop. In contrast, 6000 delegates are shown at the climate conference in Africa. There is now a huge bureaucracy dependent for their livelihoods on this belief system

(1h 4) – The power of the global warming campaign. Even Bush has joined up – what a surprise that was. Not.

“The policies being pushed to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.” Draconian measures are being threatened based on the “precautionary principle”. They never talk about the risks of poor nations NOT having access to industrial technology, oil and coal! They are preventing Africans from becoming industrialized and standing on their own feet. As always.

(1h 6) – The poor have to live with polluting wood smoke. No electricity, no lights, no refrigeration, no hot water. Life is hard without electricity.

(1h 7) – Africa has coal and oil but environmental groups are campaigning against these efficient and cheap sources of energy. Solar and wind power are unreliable (demo included). The idea that the world’s poorest people should be restricted to the most expensive and inefficient energy sources is morally repugnant. How can solar panels power a steel industry for example?

(1h 11) – Romanticization of peasant life. “Someone is keen to kill the African dream.” The environmental movement is preventing development in undeveloped countries. It is “anti-human” to think of people trying to improve their situation as if they are some kind of scum.

Janet Ajzenstat on the Canadian political system

Janet Ajzenstat’s books The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament(2007) and The Once and Future Canadian Democracy: An Essay in Political Thought (2003) gave me a better appreciation of Canada’s classical liberal / libertarian heritage.

The author is convincing in arguing that Canada's founders professed the classical liberal ideals of philosopher John Locke: individual rights and representative government. To quote the back cover:

"Convinced that rights are inalienable and that legimate government requires the consent of the governed, the Fathers of Confederation – whether liberal or conservative - looked to the European enlightenment and John Locke…"

I also found Ajzentstat’s books very helpful in gaining a better understanding of Canada’s history and constitution. For one thing, I can see why the parliamentary system implies freedom of speech, since it is designed to institutionalize opposition and diversity of opinion.

The author argues effectively that Parliament was intended to protect individual rights. Instead, the legitimacy of Parliament has been eroded by three factors in particular. Two of these are the Canadian “penchant for constitutional reform” and the “use of the courts to effect change in public policy”. I am impressed that she also acknowledges the third factor, “recourse to international tribunals to resolve Canadian disputes”(1).

Ajzentstat has a section on this in the Canadian Founding, Ch. 10

"Globalization in the sense that I have described is our new imperialism. … Parliamentary deliberation and parliament’s claim to represent and speak for Canadians go by the boards."(2)

In other words, international government – the political side of globalization – has eroded John Locke’s principle of representation in our parliamentary system.

Because of this, I prefer The Canadian Founding to the earlier Once and Future Canadian Democracy where she seems to lump skepticism of globalization and American hegemony into the "romantic" category. To explain, she designates two categories of people – rational "liberal" and discontented revolutionary "romantic" - and based on her descriptions, I felt divided between the two. So I’m not sure how much in sync I am with all of her views.

There are so many valuable topics covered by these books. I just wanted to comment on a couple of issues.

First, I think that both the Canadian and U.S. systems of representative government are failing to represent the best interests of their publics. From a Lockean or libertarian point of view, the failure level is getting closer and closer to total failure every day.

I do not believe that Canadians understand and value the current political system - for good reasons I think. It just is not possible to represent each individual's actual points of view on various issues through a representative in Parliament. In my view, power needs to be put in each individual’s hands through direct democracy, meaning virtual assemblies and direct votes issue by issue, so that all proposals can be considered and all past legislation and decisions can be put on the table for consideration.

In my opinion, for many Canadians, direct democracy would be very appealing, because politics would then become relevant and those of us who favor greater individual rights could work for that goal in such a system and debate others directly without any intermediaries.

I oppose any authoritarian system or majority tyranny that seeks to control people who do no harm to others, but I believe there is a better chance of reaching this libertarian ideal through negotiating individual rights within a direct democracy that retains constitutional restraints on government power.

Second, I don’t want to try to interpret the author’s views but I want to assert my own views in response to discussions in her books about minority identities.

I think it’s healthy to identify with the positive things in one’s own culture if individuals choose to do this. But I do not identify the Canadian, British and Western cultures or political systems with classical liberal ideals. The Canadian political system contains true liberal (some say “true conservative”) principles which freedom advocates can point to, but it also contains the opposite. What if the political system is mistaken or the reality doesn't match the theory? In that case it fails to be the universal solvent that perhaps the founders wanted it to be. Membership in Canada as a nation - confederation - should be voluntary and based on whether people appreciate what Canada stands for.

What I mean is that there is no liberal system existing called “Canada”, “America”, or “Western civilization” that is truly liberal or democratic. And even if it was truly liberal or democratic, which is a fantasy, it would not have the right to lord it over "conquered" aboriginal nations, the Red River settlement, Quebec, Alberta, or any other province or nation in the name of its presumed superior ability to protect individual rights. This kind of blind collective pride in "our freedoms" obscures the truth about our lack of freedoms and the conduct of our own governments historically and in the present day.

Canadian identity and history is more like Jekyll and Hyde or Two-Face! On the one face, we have Lockean ideals and respect for rights and freedoms, but on the other face, we have imperialism, colonialism, militarism, socialism, mercantilism, social engineering, denial, delusion, etc. Libertarians should not allow these two faces of Western culture to be confused anymore. The free market should no longer be falsely identified with corporatism and imperialism. Anti-imperialism should no longer be falsely identified with socialism. We should always separate libertarian ideals from coercive ideologies of "left" and "right". And for that monumental effort, we need to have both our rational and compassionate faculties in place!

So there is no moral superiority which gives Canadians and Americans the right to force our system - whatever it is - on other nations. Let them learn on their own! They can find libertarian ideals about freedom and equality in books and on the Internet – not at the end of bayonets, tanks and gun-ships!

Truly to be a hard-nosed classical liberal, as per Locke, we need to recognize the self-government rights of groups of individuals who did not voluntarily submit to the Canadian government’s rule. Let’s recognize the reality of where we are at with respect to aboriginal Canadians, for example, instead of continuing the idealistic fantasy that Canada is undivided. This is the myth that we have been taught by the school system, the myth of the Canadian map drawn in a single colour.

And I’m not talking about guilt about what "we" have done. I'm talking about living in denial about our history and continued abuse of each and every citizen and their freedoms by institutions of taxation and regulation - governments that fail to represent, that are out of our control. We need to recognize our own powerlessness politically before we can have the motivation to do something about it.

And even though I wish they would be more sympathetic towards aboriginal Canadians, I think most Canadians are not going to be sympathetic towards their grievances until individual rights - liberty and property rights and freedoms - are put on a pedestal again. Each individual needs to find himself/herself empowered politically within a new system of government that is ultimately moving in the direction of responsible voluntary self-government.

Until Canadians start to set our own house in order by openly expressing our discontent with the chains on our backs (if we can see them), the political system will become ever more oppressive and unrepresentative. If we are waiting for the political class to fix it for us, we are headed for disaster. We Canadians need to recover our founding ideals about freedom and individual rights and ditch the top-down political system.

References:

1) Janet Ajzenstat, The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament, 2007, Ch. 10, p. 186.
2) Janet Ajzenstat, The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament, 2007, Ch. 10, p. 191.

George Galloway on Iran: thoroughly thrashes pro-war caller

brasschecktv.com

Premiers Plotting Carbon Controls

Canadian Press, 17th July 2008 - Premiers strike deal on energy efficiency but could not agree on emissions plan

Council of the Federation meeting:

Alberta and Saskatchewan support "carbon capture" technology - sure, a really useful technology for storing carbon dioxide in the ground?!

B.C. and Central Canada support cap-and-trade which allows "polluters" to buy credits from "greener" companies (Western Climate Initiative). "Polluters" is in quotes because they probably define carbon dioxide as a pollutant also. Since plants need it to live (don't tell anyone), this is insane.

The 13 premiers agreed on energy conservation efforts, which usually means imposing communist-like rationing and moralizing on consumers, whom they believe to be clueless about saving their own money. We're so used to that. They do the same with water and health care. Every summer the ninnies are shrieking about how we're using too much water and too much hydro for air conditioning - because their price-regulated top-down monstrosities don't meet consumer needs (it's impossible). And don't get me started on garbage pick-up. Which do you prefer? Escalating rationing and controls on your life - or free market? Tell the politicians what you want.

Thankfully, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said that cap and trade is "un-Canadian" and is a "tax for wealth redistribution from the energy-producing provinces to the rest of the country."

In more good news, the Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald opposes the carbon tax, because it would lead to significant increases in coal-generated electricity costs.

But to one degree or another, they all take this stuff seriously - or pretend to (especially in the case of the federal government). It's all delusional peer pressure and if people think that everyone buys into this, they're just dreaming. The worst effects of this propaganda about human-caused climate change are the "solutions" which we need to be suspicious of. Simple as that. All of this fluff has the hard edge of control and taxation driving it.

Afghanistan

National Post, 19th July 2008 - 88th Canadian soldier lost in Afghan mission

"Each time we lose a soldier, it causes us to reflect on why we are in Afghanistan and whether or not our presence here is making a difference," said Mr. Thompson. "Let there be no doubt -- we do have our work cut out for us in Kandahar province as we work with our Afghan partners to bring peace and stability to the area."

I.O.U.S.A. Movie Trailer

Article by Marc Emery, "Scary Times"

Westernstandard.ca, 15th July 2008: Scary Times

Marc Emery's excellent article covers a lot of ground: the effect of the drug war on our liberties, surveillance of the electrical grid, warrantless searches, regulatory tyranny, asset forfeiture, roadside drug testing, his battles with U.S. officials invading our sovereignty, strip searches, fear of the police, Harper's agenda, Bush's criminality.

Our freedoms are crumbling and only the tolerance and live-and-let-live attitude of many Canadians can save us.

He mentions this terrible story about a woman losing her home.

National Shame - Canadian government and Omar Khadr

Video of Omar Khadr released. The Canadian government and people allowed this Canadian boy to be mistreated in a foreign dungeon for 6 years. Canadians all knew his name, and we knew what was happening and we knew it wasn't him who was guilty of all the evil in the world. He was the scapegoat. No trial. No justice. Just torture and isolation. And Harper wants to keep it going longer. That's right. Make the kid suffer some more. Keep trashing our reputation as a compassionate and peaceful nation.

Here is a thorough explanation by a war supporter(!) at the National Post(!) of why it's wrong to let the U.S. keep detaining Omar Khadr.

You will now be required to submit blood and urine samples

Canwest, 24th June 2008 - Mandatory Body Fluid Samples Loom for Drivers Suspected of Being High   From the National Post

"Drivers who get behind the wheel while high on drugs will face roadside testing and they could be ordered to surrender urine, blood or saliva samples at the police station under a controversial new law that takes effect July 2nd. Drivers who refuse to comply will be subject to a minimum $1,000 fine...

"...The new law, however, has sparked warnings about potential court battles from critics who contend that demanding bodily fluids is overly intrusive and scientifically unreliable in detecting drug impairment."

BCCLA Submission on Bill C-16 (Roadside Drug Testing) - These clear and extensive arguments were presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on June 10, 2005 by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. The bill became law in late 2005 and obviously the majority in parliament didn't read it and didn't care about liberty, due process and privacy rights.

The Canadian Bar Association raised serious objections to the law also. But what do they know, right?   So Members of Parliament didn't read it - they were too busy destroying our liberties and listening to ignoramuses.

Arbitrary detention and forced testing - it's all going to be a lot of fun. Thanks Canadian parliament!   Why didn't anyone think of implementing mandatory blood and urine testing before? Were they "too hung up on rights and liberties"? It takes a bunch of geniuses to be so creative. Notice how their war for "freedom" in Afghanistan doesn't prevent the government from destroying liberties at home. That's creative.   True innovators.   None of this "rights" stuff for them.

Notice how they had "five years of intense debate" in the federal parliament over this. Yes, it's "overly intrusive". Period. It's a violation. The person is being compelled to have their body personally invaded without due process, for something they may or may not have in their bloodstream rather than based on any evidence of harm to another person. This is the fundamental issue. Victimless so-called "crimes".

Those drivers who do real harm should be the ones given the attention - that's the principle of personal responsibility. Instead, the government and our society is escalating attention to personal habits. What about legal and prescription drugs? What about falling asleep behind the wheel or other distractions? If someone's driving badly, sure, stop and give them a ticket, take them off the road if necessary. I don't agree with testing for alchohol either - observation is enough - if somebody has been hurt, make the person pay.

Invading the person's body IS a punishment in advance of a proper trial. I think driving offences and road behavior should be managed by separate security, without dragging the police into it unless real harm is done by the driver. But our society is going in the opposite direction. Why? Perhaps because it is convenient to focus on easy compliant targets - stripping them of their rights and freedoms - instead of focusing on real justice reforms and truly irresponsible drivers.

The DUI frenzy was the thin end of the wedge and this is what it led to - the ultimate invasion of personal privacy. And now, in addition to the fine, Canadians are more vulnerable to having all the new offences that governments have introduced dumped on them at a roadside stop if they don't cooperate.

Wrong beliefs, children seized

CBC, 10th July 2008   Winnipeg 'white pride' mother regrets redrawing swastika on child's arm  

Child and Family Services seized the mother's children, causing her intense grief, because of symbols found at the home indicating white nationalist beliefs.

"The mother has been fighting in court for four months to get back her children, who are living with extended family. The mother can see her children for two hours a week. ... ...The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right to protect children from their parents' beliefs..."

"University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears taking custody based on beliefs is draconian."

""If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said."

The state does not have a moral right to abduct children because of their parents' beliefs. Seizing children is an extreme punishment. This website supports freedom of conscience and freedom of expression *especially* when it comes to political beliefs. Yes, I know, it sounds like the Charter of Rights.

The parents are primarily responsible for their children, not the state. The state and others have a right and obligation to protect children from genuine abuse. This isn't genuine abuse at all, except of the parents. No, we shouldn't tolerate the state abusing parents. And I don't buy in to the belief of associating goodness with the government, because I know these governments used to be involved in eugenics, and removing native children from their parents.

The lessons from the bully-class are clear: Watch what we say. Watch what we believe and think. Live in fear of government employees, including teachers, who monitor our beliefs.

War resisters in Canada

CBC, 9th July 2008, U.S. war resister granted stay of deportation order - Good news for now.   Also, after some obfuscation by ABC News,

"Glass added that while he was discharged from the California National Guard, he was transferred to the individual ready reserve, a federal branch of the military, meaning he could be called up for active duty and could still face prosecution for desertion.

"...he spoke with a U.S. Judge Advocate General and a civilian lawyer who said he's still facing punishment."

Demonstrators in Washington thanked Canadians who supported the war resisters. The Canadian government should end its efforts to deport them.

More on this story:

• CBC, 3rd June 2008 - On June 3rd, the House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to "grant permanent residence status to American military deserters and their families". And the Tories voted on the wrong side - observed and noted.   There are approximately 200 Iraq War resisters in Canada. "Lee Zaslofsky, co-ordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign and a Vietnam War resister, said Glass would face imprisonment if he returns to the U.S."

• CBC, 15th Nov 2007 Top court refuses to hear cases of U.S. deserters - Back in November, the Supreme Court refused to hear the "cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who each deserted to Canada in 2004 after learning they were to be deployed to Iraq."

  The War Resisters Support Campaign back in June 2007 commissioned a poll showing 64.6 per cent of Ontarians who responded believed that U.S. war deserters should be allowed to settle in Canada, which is hopeful.

  There is some nonsense at the end about how the Immigration and Refugee Board thought the U.S., as a democracy, could do no wrong.

Yes, Canadians still have the freedom to listen to some foreign propaganda stations

China Rights Network, 8th July 2008: The freedom to distort? -

"China Rights Network ... has complained to the CRTC about CCTV-4 broadcasts in March and April that characterized protesting Tibetans as violent thugs and criminals. ... doubly distressing that distortions and lies are given free access to Canadian homes. Freedom of the press should not include the freedom to distort".

Wrong. I can understand wanting to oppose the actions of the Chinese government, fine. So why don't you make your own broadcast to counter it? And advocate among those who are watching.

Why are we regulated by the CRTC anyway? We don't have the freedoms we should. It should be up to consumers what information they want in their homes. What about all the distortions from the mainstream Canadian and American media?

Each individual should freely decide what is distorted and what is not. That is how our society is supposed to work. That is what freedom means. This group is calling for censorship in Canada, not freedom in Canada. Even if it's information from a tyrannical government, it's still information that Canadians should have access to, just like we have access to the Canadian and American establishment propaganda outlets who fed us a constant stream of lies from Colin Powell and George Bush!

As we slowly descend into a more totalitarian system (yes, based on the steady escalation in regulations and surveillance that you're not paying attention to), some of us will appreciate this Orwellian joke about how concerned we are supposed to be at the lack of freedom in foreign countries we know nothing about. As in 1984, I'm sure our own government will have us focus outwards more and more at foreign despots while rehearsing empty rhetoric about Canadian "freedoms". Same old same old. Why is the CRTC still allowed to regulate our society? Why do those of us who believe in freedom put up with that?

Don't use the CRTC to suppress the freedom of Canadians.

Let the War Resisters Stay in Canada

thecommonills.blogspot.com: Iraq Snapshot - 8th July 2008

"Starting with war resistance. "It's seems to be a, you know, it's sort of an uphill battle still," Joshua Key explained of the struggle US war resisters face in Canada attempting to win safe harbor status."

Joshua Key co-wrote The Deserter's Tale about his experiences in Iraq, including his witnessing of war crimes and his decision to leave.

Website that supports this cause: Courage to Resist - Support the troops who refuse to fight!

July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates in 14 U.S. cities - "July 10, 2008 Update: Corey Glass and Joshua Key granted reprieves, however; Robin Long has been jailed in Nelson BC and currently faces deportation within days."

On a related topic, draftresistance.org encourages resistances to the registration laws of the U.S. which may lead to the reinstatement of the draft.

... We are specifically encouraging resistance to the registration laws of the United States, seeing registration as the necessary step toward conscription (the draft). We are what the Selective Service calls 'anti-war intellectuals.' We see the direct link between registration, the draft, and aggressive war. Remember, non- registration is the strategy to beat the draft. If enough of us refuse, there is nothing they can do! -- Scott A Kohlhaas

My response to a question asked at sasklibertytrain.blogspot.com, "Should Canada deport war deserters back to the US or let them stay?":

Libertarian ideology implies that it is wrong to force someone to stay in a job that they want to leave. That is slavery. On top of that, they have "stop-loss". The propaganda is there and the endorsement by the general public to get young people to join the military because older people know better - that they may end up terribly injured, killed or, killing innocent people. Everyone else - we can leave our jobs. If we couldn't, it wouldn't be freedom. Canadians should take them in and protect them out of compassion and out of respect for human life. It also repeats the message that we are questioning an immoral unjustified war of aggression against Iraq, and against whoever's next...

U.S. Libertarians

George Dance: Barr hits 6% in a national poll - Analysis of presidential candidate Bob Barr's poll results.   Mentions the LP of Canada's most successful candidate, Neil Reynolds.

Governments asked to fix the food crisis they caused

Scoop Independent News, 6th July 2008   Canadian NGOs Petition Prime Minister to Urge Food Crisis Action at the G-8 Meetings

"The coalition is urging the G-8 to finally implement some long-term initiatives needed to stem the tide of the food crisis..."

1. Redistribution of more taxpayers' resources to foreign countries. This has been done before and makes things worse.

2. Fix the International food organizations - keep repeating the failed method of central planning and bureacracy. The world doesn't have enough of it?

3. The "last two decades of forcing developing countries to open their food markets to imports have drowned millions of small-holder farmers in waves of often-subsidized cheap food imports." So the same people who created the subsidies are going to find a solution other than removing the subsidies?

4. Interfering with prices? Please don't ever advise that. There is no need for anyone to believe that interfering with prices will do anything but cause worse disasters. Read up on economics, for example "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. I know that some of you believe very strongly in price controls, rent controls and government intervention, but these destructive policies propped up by your prejudices and the propaganda you learned at university have always made things worse for people. Why don't you learn?

5. "Avoid threats to food security posed by biofuel development", you know, the biofuel developments that these governments subsidized for years, which caused their food crisis.

Ignorant NGO's aside, governments caused the problem and now they will provide the solution? Really? The term "food security" sounds sinister to me, as in giving up our liberty for food "security". That's always the formula we hear now, isn't it? From both the left and the right. The apologists for the blood-soaked communists have painted themselves green and talk about global warming security - they need to tax us. And they need us to pay for the food crisis too. And the blood-soaked so-called "free market" right wing have the same sing-song formula. Taxpayers need to "sacrifice" for war and give up their "civil liberties" for the good of the right's imperial projects, yes because they're so "free market". What a con job that's been.

They should respect peoples' natural rights to their resources first - private property rights - before they dump on foreigners. But we can't expect governments to even respect domestic property rights, so how are they going to respect the natural rights of foreigners? They spend most of their time bombing foreigners anyway - actually I think both the left and right bomb foreigners - Bush, Clinton, Bush, who's next - I bet Obama will be bombing foreigners if he becomes president, because they're all the same. The left and right have the same sort of control propaganda - and they always end up at the G8 holding hands, feeling "secure" together.

Here's my solution: Do not interfere any more in peoples' lives and choices and in their ability to trade and own property - not with your fake "free trade" agreements and not with any more "foreign aid" tax-theft "solutions". Shut down your foreign secret meetings with your "security" and your posturing self-importance. You have no respect for peoples' freedoms anywhere on this planet you think you run, so shut your G8 down.

Have you noticed how large Canada's executive branch is this summer? It extends all the way to Japan and Afghanistan!

Canada should extract itself from the G8. Shut down the G8 before it makes things worse for everyone. What's the Canadian government good for? Has it no intention dismantling this bureacratic tax-enslaved nation oppressed by financial surveillance, eroded civil liberties, property rights infringements, worsening infringements on free speech, not to mention the continued criminalization of victimless activities?

What are these people good for - both the Liberals and Conservatives - what are they good for? Making our lives tougher, burdening us with costly regulation after regulation, intruding into the sphere of our private lives, onto our land, into our cars, into our homes. That's all they're good for. And many Canadians go along. They want intrusive governments and they want to impose these burdens on their neighbours for their "security". Same applies to the UK and the US. What a shame and disgrace. Our lives are not our own.

So the rest of us won't be going along with the program.

Banning Fireworks

The July 1 Canada Day celebrations brought up the subject of fireworks. Whatever freedoms we have left, you can guarantee there are control freaks systematically trashing them. Currently in Toronto, fireworks are only banned in public parks without a permit (bad enough). But there are city councillors advocating permits for the use of fireworks because of incidents of irresponsible behavior. Why not hold those people responsible for their actions instead of punishing everyone? See the comments here where councillor Adam Vaughan denies that he advocated a ban on fireworks. But the pdf on his site clearly quotes him:

"“If things don’t change, the City of Toronto may have no choice but to ban fireworks”, said Councillor Vaughan."

It's a healthy sign to see a politician on the run over a freedom issue. That's healthy - except for the denial, which is the same tactic used for the Security and Prosperity Partnership or SPP (North American Union, no I "can't say that", it's not a "North American Union" - yet - just like there is no fireworks ban in Toronto - yet).

Quote:

"The Fire Marshal asks people to attend professional fireworks' displays and discourages local family fireworks. Do you think family fireworks should be banned?"

A CFRB Radio online listener poll where the busy-body and thoughtless respondents - probably higher among CFRB listeners than the general population - are at 51% and those who plead "don't ban them" are at 49%. Not such a terrible defeat at all. There is reason for hope! This sort of thing is going on all across North America as more and more people are waking up to the terrifying reality that their neighbours are actually lighting matches without authorization.

Canadian Human Rights Act

It was good that MP Keith Martin attempted some resistance to the anti-free speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act. On January 30, 2008 he tabled motion M-446: "That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act."

Section 13 reads:

"Hate messages
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

"Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

"Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter."

You would be surprised if you started to list all the speech restrictions in Canada besides this. Most of the Canadian "Human Rights" Act makes a mockery of the concept of freedom and violates genuine rights - just like most legislation passed by governments. The result of all these different areas of legislation (speech, employment, environment, health, terrorism, education, communications, lifestyle, etc.) is to monitor our lives. We are so used to this now that I can't even say this without sounding ridiculous to some. But the point of this website and the libertarian message is to help people wake up. I also know there are many who understand what I'm saying, especially considering the rapid growth of the Ron Paul freedom movement.

We are entombed by this system of controls, but many haven't woken up to that reality yet. It's literally impossible for us to consider ourselves free politically and economically in any meaningful sense - except that they don't come knocking on our doors in the middle of the night and hang us from our ankles with our heads in buckets of ice water. See similar historical example here. And even that could change if Canada became involved in a full-scale war. Oh, yes, I am very "thankful" for the freedoms that I have, that the government "permits" me to say what I do and not stick me in a hole for it, just like I'm "thankful" to criminals for not terrorizing me. Thank you so much, government, for not being a totalitarian dictatorship! So go pat yourselves on the backs while governments ban everything, regulate everything and deduct from every pay cheque and transaction.

More and more people are going to understand that this authoritarian system has to be abolished. We should be pushing our society towards freedom. Do we even read this oppressive legislation and imagine applying it to our own personal decisions? Anything that you don't want applied to yourself, don't apply it to others! The choice of how we use our lives and property is up to us as long as we do not inflict harm on others. We can make good and bad decisions and pay the consequences socially and in the market, but the law should not punish us for decisions that we have a right to make. When people are being held back by discrimination and feel threatened by opinions, freedom is the real answer - not more laws. Freedom will give everyone more opportunities. Freedom means stop asking the government to invade others' lives in order to force them to behave a certain way with their own property.

Libertarian Party's Jean-Serge Brisson vs. Bilingual Signs

Ottawa Sun, 1st July 2008 "Embrun biz owner looking for fight." Former leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada, Jean-Serge Brisson, is challenging is challenging a new local bylaw that mandates bilingual signs in Russell Township, Ontario.

Canada's Economic Freedom Score compared to the U.S.

Canada's economic freedom score is close to that of the US. Ratings by the Heritage Foundation: 80.56 for the U.S. and 80.18 for Canada. What I take from that is the two countries are more or less equally unfree. When they abolish the income tax in both countries and stop regulating interest rates with their central banks, we can start talking about "economic freedom".

National Post, 3rd July 2008   "Evidence shows terror suspect meeting with bomb-plot convict."   Ottawa trial of Momin Khawaja who faces seven terrorism charges in connection with a foiled 2004 bomb plot in Britain.

More:

National Post, 3rd July 2008   "U.K. plot not discussed, Khawaja trial told."   Khawaja is alleged to have built a remote-control device that would send a radio signal to the detonators. Mohammed Babar, the Crown's key witness, claimed he did not talk to Khawaja about the plot. Babar pleaded guilty in 2004 to providing support to the plotters.

National Post, 30th June 2008   "Lifted ban shows alleged ties between Khawaja, U.K. transit bombers."   The British have an ongoing trial for the transit bombers, allegedly connected to the other group. The British and the Canadian judge attempted a publication ban of this information, but the media fought back and won. We are used to this now, but the whole approach of controlling speech and controlling what juries hear is wrong. The threat of force to control information violates the principle of liberty! "Freedom of speech" only when it suits them, when they think it's reasonable. The Canadian trial is judge-only. Why no jury?

I've updated the petitions page about this case.

A Canadian's comments on Canada gives me a new perspective: "The first thing the English did when they decided they needed a railroad across Northern North America so they could get troops quickly to Hong Kong if necessary is murder the leader of a group of settlers who wanted their own country outside of European control (Louis Riel)...."  Covers other ground such as security certificates.

Vancouver's safe-injection site: Ottawa appealing May 27 B.C. Supreme Court decision that federal drug laws were unconstitutional: "laws that prevent people suffering from the disease of addiction from accessing such a service infringe on their right to life, liberty and security of the person."

Vince Miller RIP

Eric Garris:

"He was one of the founders of the Libertarian Party of Canada and was an editor of the early magazine Libertarian Option. In 1980, Vince founded the Libertarian International, to join libertarian organizations from around the world. In 1989, Libertarian International expanded by merging with the Society for Individual Liberty to create the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL)."

Tribute from Sieg Pedde, another founder of the Libertarian Party of Canada,   more here.

Libertarian Party of Canada member George Dance

Matthew Johnston, Western Standard

Anthony Gregory

Thomas Knapp

Classically Liberal