For the next 10 days or so, I’m going to promote the Libertarian Party of Canada 2008 Convention (as president) in parallel with my leadership policies as one of the leadership contestants.
Anybody who is able to attend both days of the convention in Edmonton on May 17, 18 as a guest/observer, is welcome to register ($65 fee). Eligible voting members (signed up Feb. 16) can still register to vote or vote by proxy as we dropped the April deadline, although proxies will be subject to a lot of scrutiny if they arrive without notice.
Details on registering and other information is here: The agenda should be posted soon, but there are some hints below.
Part of the first day, May 17, 11 AM to 5 PM is our Freedom Fair, and is open to the public for a low admission fee, $10. I really appreciate the work the other organizers are doing and their choice of guest speakers is really very interesting, and I think it represents a diversity of views, some of which I might even agree with.
Also includes information on another leadership contestant, anti-interventionist (like myself) Dennis Young, from Calgary, a veteran of the Bosnian conflict. Comment section includes some neocon smear attacks on the LPC and Ron Paul. Neocons love their taxes, their wars and seatbelt regulations because it’s all about obedience and believing propaganda. Those who don’t go along are called “kooks”.
“…This documentary reveals Canada’s darkest secret – the deliberate extermination of indigenous (Native American) peoples and the theft of their land under the guise of religion. This never before told history as seen through the eyes of this former minister (Kevin Annett) who blew the whistle on his own church, after he learned of thousands of murders in its Indian Residential Schools…”
The documentary is very convincing and substantial. One subject discussed is the biowarfare effort involving tuberculosis and small pox. And eugenics. The motives for the government policies of removing native children from their parents and other atrocities appear to be very clear: violating natural rights – stealing land and resource rights which appears to be what governments and their enablers (churches, businesses, voters, etc.) are good at.
May 3rd, 2008
Libertarian Party of Canada May 17 Convention & Freedom Fair
Libertarian Party of Canada Convention and Freedom Fair – Edmonton – May 17 – 11 AM – 5PM – Guest Speakers
Libertarian Party of Canada 2008 Convention, Freedom Fair and Liberty Lectures
Questions: …
Notify us in advance if you plan to register as an eligible voting member or guest. For details and registration fee, see http://www.libertarian.ca/english/news/convention_2008.html
Location: Holiday Inn Express, 10010 – 104 Street, Edmonton, Alberta
Date: Saturday May 17 and 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
8:00 AM – 9:45 AM Convention Registration — Meet & Greet Reception
for registered members and guests. Holiday Inn Express, 10010 – 104 Street, Edmonton, Alberta
9:45 AM – 10:30 AM Opening remarks by LPC Leader Jean-Serge Brisson
Registration issues
Approval of agenda and rules
Reports by LPC Officers
Q&A
Party business adjourns
10:30 AM – 11:00 AM Break
11:00 AM – 5:00 PM Freedom Fair and Liberty Lectures
Open to the public. $10 ($5 with student card)
11:00 AM – 11:45 AM “Issues in the Libertarian Movement” Panel
Speaker: Dr. Michael Wagner – author, homeschooler
Topic: The Case for a Socially Conservative Culture in the Libertarian Movement
Michael Wagner is the author of Standing on Guard for Thee: The Past, Present, and Future of Canada’s Christian Right. Michael is a freelance writer and homeschooling father with a BA (Honours) and MA in Political Science from the University of Calgary, and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Alberta. He lives in Edmonton with his wife and nine children.
Speaker: Paul Geddes
Topic: Have Libertarians Abandoned Free Trade?
Paul Geddes is a leading libertarian activist and regular political candidate in British Columbia. He has been an instructor of economics at Columbia College for twenty five years. He is married with two daughters.
11:45 AM Break for lunch
1:15 PM – 2:00 PM National Security Panel
Liberty vs. Security
Speaker #1 – Lorne Gunter – National Post
Speaker #2 – Dr. Moin Yahya – University of Alberta
Speaker: Lorne Gunter
Topic: Liberty vs. Security
Lorne Gunter is a columnist and editorial board member at the National Post and a columnist with the Edmonton Journal. He has been a commentator on political and social issues since 1995 and has published nearly 2,000 pieces in that time. He also maintains a blog at www.nationalpost.com
An occasional panelist on the CBC’s The National, Lorne is also a frequent guest on Adler Online on the Corus Radio Network. He has published essays and opinion pieces in various newspapers and magazines, including Readers’ Digest, National Review, the Weekly Standard, TechCentralStation and others.
In addition to his journalism, Lorne is the past-president of Civitas – a society for conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists – and a former member of the advisory board of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
Speaker: Moin A. Yahya
Topic: Liberty vs. Security
Moin A. Yahya is an assistant professor of law at the University of Alberta, where he is also the associate dean for graduate studies and the acting associate dean for research. He has a B.A. (Hons) in Economics and a M.A. in economics from the University of Alberta; a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Toronto. He has a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, where he graduated Summa Cum Laude and was the articles editor of the law review. He researches Corporate, Antitrust, Criminal, and Intellectual Property Law. Yahya is a libertarian and a director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
2:15 PM – 3:00 PM
Speaker #1 – Peter Jaworski – Western Standard
Speaker #2 – Scott Hennig – Canadian Taxpayers Federation
3:15 PM – 4:00 PM Environment Panel
Speaker #1 – Global warming politics – Prof. Jan Narveson
Speaker #2 – Global warming politics – Lorne Gunter
Speaker: Prof. Jan Narveson
Topic: Global Warming Politics
Philosopher Jan Narveson is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. His publications include The Libertarian Idea and Respecting Persons in Theory and in Practice. In 1989 he was elected to membership in the Royal Society of Canada and in 2004 he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/people/narveson.html http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~jnarveso/biographical.html
4:15 PM – 5:00 PM Justice Panel
Speaker #1 – Dr. Grant Brown – philosopher, author
Speaker #2 – Marc Emery – Cannabis Culture
Speaker: Dr. Grant Brown
Topic: Deadbeat Judges: How Courts Disenfranchise Fathers
Grant A. Brown has a B.A. and an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Waterloo. The title of his D.Phil. thesis at Oxford University is “Functional Libertarianism.” He taught at the University of Lethbridge from 1990 until 1999. He obtained his LL.B. from the University of Alberta in 2002, and since then has practiced law in Alberta. He recently quit the practice of law and is writing a book on his experiences as a family-law lawyer called Deadbeat Judges: How Courts Disenfranchise Fathers.
Speaker: Marc Emery
Topic: Marijuana Legalization: a Personal Statement from Canada’s “Prince of Pot”
Marc Emery is a successful entrepreneur based in Vancouver, British Columbia. He’s also an outspoken libertarian, an activist for the legalization of cannabis and the bane of law enforcement in Canada and the U.S. Emery, also known as the Prince of Pot, has earned millions over the years in his many pot-related ventures, including his website, www.emeryseeds.com, which sold 350 varieties of marijuana seeds before being shut down by the US DEA; his magazine, Cannabis Culture; his online Pot TV network and the BC Marijuana Party Bookstore in downtown Vancouver. Emery has been featured by CNN, ABC, Rolling Stone, Time, The Wall Street Journal, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun and the Toronto Star. He currently faces extradition to the US on charges related to selling marijuana seeds.
15 minute speeches from each candidate / 15 minutes of moderated Q&A. Also scheduled: R. Bussières, T. Audain
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Libertarian Party of Canada Business
Open also to registered guests as observers.
9:00 AM – 10:00 AM Opening remarks by officers and all registered members as to their views and suggestions for strategy and priorities.
Q&A about party structure.
10:00 AM – 10:15 AM Break
10:15 AM – 12:00 Proposed Amendments to Constitution, Statement of Principles, Bylaws
12:00 – 1:15 PM Lunch
1:15 PM – 2:15 PM Proposed Amendments to Statement of Objectives
2:15 PM – 2:30 PM Break
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM Nominations and elections for party offices
· Party Leader (15 min limit each candidate)
· Deputy Leader (15 min limit each candidate)
· Board of Directors – 8 positions (5 min limit)
· Ethics Committee – 9 positions (5 min limit)
Concluding remarks by newly-elected Party Leader
5:00 PM – 5:15 PM Meeting of new Directors
May 10th, 2008
To Libertarian Party of Canada Members about Leadership Contest
First of all, please come out to the Freedom Fair and Convention. The Freedom Fair on May 17 in Edmonton – go to www.libertarian.ca for details – is open to the public for $10 and is a great opportunity meet other libertarians. 11 AM – 5 PM. Guests and eligible members can register for all events for $65.
Bio: I have been a director since May, 2005 and president of the Libertarian Party of Canada since February, 2006. I have a regular job in the software industry as a quality assurance software analyst. I have a BSc. in Mathematics from the University of Toronto. I’m married and live in Toronto, and have run provincially and federally in Scarborough–Rouge River. I have written press statements for the Ontario Libertarian Party and the LPC and an environmental platform for the OLP, and a platform for the LPC.
My talents are more with writing. I can afford to pay for myself, as much as I have been able to afford being president part-time. As leader I would be prepared to make regular appearances, even weekly, but especially to focus on press releases. But it’s true that I would not be able to afford air travel and I don’t believe it is productive to make long trips and take up time and resources traveling.
In fact, I disagree very much with the idea of “leaders” as being symbolic of the party and I think this is a lot of authoritarian baggage that the Canadian electorate is fooled into. I think a libertarian party should be a coalition of individual activists who represent their pro-liberty causes and that’s what my leadership campaign will be representing. My leadership campaign (this week – whatever time I have for it) will be about the direction of the party and how we can grow and start pushing for reforms of attitudes and institutions in our society – withdrawing consent – levelling authoritarian institutions – appealing to the public to make these reforms. The party – and especially the main body of members – should be speaking out regularly on issues. I would like the public to pay attention to the Libertarian Party because it represents some of their real concerns and issues they don’t even understand yet or aren’t aware of.
The Libertarian Party of Canada should be a vehicle for ordinary people to help push back the power of the State.
I was libertarian-inclined since I was a teenager. I was supportive of the Conservative Party and followed the conservative movement. I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in the 90’s and was inspired by that, and some of her other books. I was very religious but found I had to drop some of those beliefs as they were weighing down my life. I became agnostic. After Sept. 11, 2001, I was still a Bush supporter for a while and read National Review. But more and more I started detecting a lot of lies and secrecy from the U.S. government. I started hearing militaristic rhetoric and reading pro-draft articles.
Fortunately, Jonah Goldberg started mentioning libertarianism in his columns and I switched over to a website called Antiwar.com where Justin Raimondo wrote up a storm of fascinating and politically incorrect material, challenging neo-conservative tenets. I read Lewrockwell.com and Joseph Schlomberg and I didn’t have to be conflicted about bombing peoples’ homes anymore. I knew I was against that and would never support invading other peoples’ countries. And I could learn more about the history of propaganda and the secret history of modern imperialism. So I became free of all that and could think more clearly and in an open-minded way about history also. Of course I read a lot of Rothbard’s articles and books and am basically inclined to his way of thinking about many things (and his ideas overlap with other writers).
Life seems to be all about breaking free. And the concept of an external authority that’s propped up by other people and elevated above us in order to rule over us needs to be removed.
I think the party should pick the most qualified in general, and people should run themselves as leader if they believe they are more qualified. For our party, I think it’s also important to reform the constitution and the Statement of Principles in order to grow. We need to allow for maximum tolerance in the party for libertarians of different views and priorities – and total decentralization. That means our members should be active making public statements that represent their beliefs and priorities and that are consistent with libertarianism, but that may conflict with statements that other groups or individuals in the party make. In every case, it helps promote the party without the forced unity that Canadian politics suffers from so much. I think it’s shameful how MP’s are subservient to their party leader in Canada. I think there has been a lot of tolerance from the current LP leadership, but we need to institutionalize tolerance. People do not need to agree with each other. I see the same conflicts in the U.S. LP about how LP members are embarrassed by other members’ beliefs. Stop worrying so much about what others think and start arguing for your own beliefs and causes. That’s how we need to promote a *libertarian party*. And that’s what I mean by coalition of individuals.
-Alan Mercer
May 10th, 2008
Congratulations to New Libertarian Party of Canada Leader!
I want to congratulate the new Libertarian Party of Canada leader, Dennis Young of Calgary, Alberta, on his win at the convention in Edmonton. I’ve included some links below that give details on the results of the leadership battle between us.
Congratulations also to the new Deputy Leader, Savannah Linklater, and the new Board of Directors, which includes a lot of new volunteers. Thank you to the other convention organizers and volunteers who did such a great job.
The convention was very eventful and we had help from a professional parliamentarian, Dan Lynch, who presided on Sunday. I was pleased that all the guest speakers I heard had a libertarian message to deliver. It appears that attitudes have shifted due to Ron Paul’s influence, so there tends to be a clearer consensus now on critical policies such as the war and civil liberties. I think the party is gearing up for an activist media approach and that’s another area of consensus too where there is broad agreement about strategy. Marc Emery made his influence felt at the convention. I believe Afghanistan, the drug war and free speech will be issues in the sights of the new leader, who is a veteran of the Bosnian conflict. All of these are critical issues for the Canadian freedom movement.
There was intense discussion about party direction on Saturday night and on Sunday afternoon between the two main leadership contestants, myself and Dennis. None of it really had to do with policies at all as we’re both fairly “radical” to be honest with you. The proposals I introduced to amend the Statement of Principles did not succeed although they had some support. The constitution has locked them in place and requires a 7/8 vote of delegates to change. I guess I should discuss that separately.
Otherwise, I think people felt the convention was productive and they enjoyed it. It was definitely a full event. I think it became very emotional for different reasons. It really felt more real to hang out with people you actually agree with on so much and meet them in person. I think the leadership debates, Q&A’s, and business sessions became fairly intense as delegates definitely took an interest in what was discussed. And I like to think they got their money’s worth from the event. I wish I did have a transcript of the whole event, but I believe the LPC is planning to release footage of the guest speakers in any case.
I’ll be helping with transition but I decided to leave managing the party to new people because it just got to be too much. The workload needs to be spread among a group of people and I think the new group is very capable of helping the Libertarian Party of Canada make progress in becoming an effective activist organization.
“Provinces are lashing back at proposed federal regulations that would extend the patent life of a number of popular medications and postpone the introduction of generic copies…”
“Essentially, Judge Pitfield decided that applying federal drug laws to Insite users while they are at the facility interferes with their constitutional right to life, liberty or security.”
“Baird said the Canadian government actions include regulating big polluters, a hydrogen initiative in B.C., encouragement of carbon capture and storage efforts, an electricity grid between Ontario and Manitoba and support for tidal power generation in the Maritimes.
“Harper was hoping to convince European leaders that his plan for fighting greenhouse gases is a good one, despite criticism from environmentalists.
“Unlike most of Europe, Canada and the U.S. oppose any new climate change pact that would exclude major polluters, such as China or India.”
Nothing in this article indicates that Harper advocates the restoration and protection of property rights in Canada and a common law type of approach towards pollution.
Everything in this article indicates that Harper believes in continuing the state central planning of the environment and economy in Canada.
Everything in this article indicates that Harper (and his boss in the U.S.administration) buy in to man-made global warming propaganda and the idea that the production of non-polluting carbon dioxide gas needs to be controlled.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged France Tuesday to fight a European ban on seal products and asked the French to help Ukraine join NATO.
“PMO officials said Harper is pressing France and other EU leaders to cut trade barriers between the EU, a market of 400 million people, and Canada.”
Fighting the seal products ban is fine with me.
Reducing trade barriers sounds fine (if that’s what it really is rather than a push for global government).
But Ukraine’s defence policy is no business of the Canadian government.
The purpose of Canada’s defence policy should be to defend Canada, not Ukraine.
It seems to me that expanding NATO to Ukraine might provoke Russia. Why would Harper want to provoke Russia? I don’t think that is in the best interests of Canadians. Probably it’s in the best interests of weapons manufacturers and other businesses that benefit from war. And no doubt it’s an assignment from Harper’s boss – the U.S. government. Just like carbon capture technology (the “war” against carbon dioxide) will benefit some companies at the expense of Canadians in general, wars against human beings will benefit weapons manufacturers and other special interests at the expense of Canadians in general.
The purpose of NATO is to act as a war-making tool for the West and to provide a cover and backing for as many wars as possible. Collective “security” means “all for one and one for all” and is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world and the complete opposite of “mind your own business”. Since the latter is the most sensible and politically incorrect policy, I am not allowed to mention it, because it rules out resource grabs in Africa that pose as “humanitarian” interventions.
Are Canadians ever going to get a vote on whether we should be part of NATO? Will continuing membership in NATO and the expansion of NATO provoke war with the rest of the world and involve Canadians in other peoples’ conflicts? Yes, I think that’s the idea. Not much “security” and “defence”.
Why do we have to be enemies of Russia and China? And Iran? And Muslims?
Give the whole thing a rest and shut down NATO.
Alternatively, if NATO “expanded” (its main function apparently) to encompass every nation – and merged with a global U.N. force – then that would achieve the ultimate “one world government”. In that case, all war-making would be directed towards dissenters and separatists on a global scale. I suppose that’s the “ideal” for some. Surveillance, ID cards, control of speech, small arms, culture, religion, currency, trade, resources, and suppression of civil liberties. To shore up the power of those who already have power, and to finish off the individual rights of taxpayers and bring the scope of their lives within narrow boundaries determined by the latest lies about terrorist threats and global warming. When NATO reaches this point, the ruling ideology of power – “capitalism”, “communism”, “conservatism”, “environmentalism”, whatever – will have finally “won” the Cold War that NATO was created for. Hey, hmmm.. that can’t be right.
It sounds unlikely, but I suppose it’s possible to imagine each national leader selling out their nation’s sovereignty in order to cash in on that kind of global enterprise. After all, that’s what the leaders of Canada and Mexico do with the Security and Prosperity Partnership – they sell out Canadian sovereignty, civil liberties and independence to U.S. sovereignty. This is one of the major flaws in the idea of the modern nation state. Our leaders know they’re temporary and have no vested interest in representing the best interests of Canadians – protecting property rights and allowing us to keep what we earn. They would rather prance around the world advocating on behalf of other governments and commercial interests, and negotiating the means of our oppression.
This is where we need to be creative and consider solutions such as replacing the idea of government by representatives with the idea of direct democracy where people can argue for and defend their rights directly. I would like to see a forum or “virtual parliament” where ordinary citizens can debate and decide important questions such as NATO membership.
“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, the fact that he is blaming the most law-abiding segment of Canadian society for the violence on the streets of Toronto – absolutely ridiculous,” said Larry Whitmore, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association which oversees the Scarborough club, of Mayor David Miller.
“…If approved by council, Toronto’s chief planner would prepare a zoning bylaw to restrict uses in all zones that would make it illegal to discharge guns anywhere but in establishments operated by the police service or the military.
“…As well, the plan recommends there be a policy prohibiting shooting ranges, gun clubs and the promotion of firearm use in city facilities.”
Canadian Olympic pistol shooter Avianna Chao and others will be forced to go elsewhere for practice. She refers to the principle of personal responsibility for our actions: “We’re talking about responsibility and whether you’re a responsible person or not. Because all of these other things – cars, alcohol, kitchen knives – can do harm. It’s about responsibility.”
It much be such an alien concept to our political masters and the control freaks who dominate acceptable opinion: Holding people responsible for their actions and not punishing those who are living productive lives when they train for sports or self-defence.
I wonder if Chao’s views reflect majority opinion. I’m hopeful that it’s only a fascist minority that actually disagrees. I bet that a large number would actually agree with her if they had a chance to think.
Almost nobody owns handguns anyway because of current restrictions, so those directly affected by this are a small number of easy targets – a minority – but their victimization by this bylaw will represent the destruction of everyone’s rights and a victory for the slow and gradual approach to the destruction of gun rights by Canadian political elites. And yes, it’s happening under a Conservative federal government – of course.
The whole idea is to pick on law-abiding citizens – these are the easy targets and the ones who actually pay taxes and are inclined to follow the law. So those who respect the rights of others are those targeted by government. Easier to chase after the peaceful prey then hunt down fellow predators. That’s the way the system works.
The ability to train and fire weapons will be left in the hands of the police and military who stand by to search homes, vehicles and bank accounts whenever there is a good excuse – those who are supposed to serve the public but whose basic function is to carry out the will of the State – so similar to the street gangs they are supposedly concerned about.
I mean, that must be the actual reason for these bans on the legal use of firearms. They can’t stand the idea that every Canadian should have the same rights as State entities and that political institutions should not have unlimited rights to tax and oppress. Canadians should have the same rights as police and military and have the ability to resist crime or police state invasions if that ever comes about as it has in many countries.
In any case, we should have the legal right as individuals to decline paying taxes for “services” that we disagree with – and the right to directly challenge all oppressive regulations and injustices that we have to deal with – but for some reason we don’t have much of that. Have you noticed?
But we have a lot of land management laws and “smart growth” central planning and other invasions of property rights attached to various excuses – the war on drugs, anti-smoking, environmentalism, drinking and driving – all sorts of excuses and fake causes that expose individuals to possible and inevitable State abuse and predation.
Notice what kind of disgusting criminal attitudes are actually behind this: it says they are also planning to suppress free speech – the “promotion of firearm use” in city facilities – facilities paid for by our tax dollars. How far does that go?
Does that mean that library books and magazines on firearms and gun rights in city libraries will have to be eliminated? And teachers and students will not be allowed to debate firearm use in city schools? Does it mean suppression of dissent in public streets and squares? Banning of certain websites on city computers? Will this ban be another possible excuse for a total crackdown on dissenting political expression in Canada? Think of all the novel complexities that come about in attempting to impose bans on freedom of expression in Canada. Think about how BLOODY SHAMEFUL AND EMBARRASSING AND DIFFICULT THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BUREACRATS attempting to impose more speech bans on Canadians. But oh no, they’re not ashamed to dream it up and brag about it anyway – because they know you’re not paying attention.
Remaining liberties in Canada are being destroyed at all levels, but especially it appears at the local level.
Total violation of charter rights and the principle of freedom of expression will now proceed. We need to oppose these types of municipal bylaws while there is still time.
This proposal to destroy more liberties – by fooling people into believing they will be safer from armed criminals – is scheduled to be discussed by the Toronto executive committee on Tuesday June 3 and there will be a public meeting on September 10. By then it will be too late and the bylaw will be ready for approval.
So are you a believer in personal responsibility or just another bully who supports the destruction of our freedoms? Take a side – by all means.
“Bill 37, which seeks to amend Manitoba’s election laws, seriously restricts the capacity of opposition parties to communicate with electors while allowing the government to expand its capacity. By restricting freedom of speech on political grounds it therefore strikes at the very exercise of democracy itself.”
May 31st, 2008
Canadian Freedom Watch – Health Care, Congo vs. Afghanistan
“Last month, Alberta’s Minister of Health announced the creation of the Alberta Health Services Board, which is to replace the existing system of regional health authorities.
“Ambulance workers will be given new powers to decide where patients should be treated in a sweeping reform that delivers control of local emergency medical services to the province.”
Giving paramedics more choice – decentralizing – removing restrictions on them – is good. But this is lumped with centralizing control of EMS services, which is also supposed to be good?? Whatever… I guess we should expect doublethink.
“A recent survey for Health Canada concludes that more than 1,500 Canadians are studying medicine outside of Canada and the United States. Most won’t return home to practise, the data shows. It’s paradoxical, given the perceived physician shortage in this country.”
Shortages are a result of Canada’s peculiarly communist health care system (extreme interference vs. the ideal of allowing a normal free market pricing system vs. European countries where there is more freedom). You can read up on these economic concepts at www.mises.org.
“Canada turned down a United Nations request to take command of the peacekeeping mission in Congo and will instead devote its resources to Afghanistan.
“…The Congo force, known by the acronym MONUC, has nearly 17,000 troops from more than a dozen countries and at a price tag exceeding $1 billion a year is the biggest UN mission ever.
“…The Congo mission is huge but has been relatively ineffectual, the military insider said…”
Rather than give Canadians back their taxes in a troubled economy, the Canadian government is devoting its resources to its own ineffectual duties of standing guard over chaos in Afghanistan, and has decided against helping the U.N. supervise chaos in Congo (”peace-keeping”). Although Western governments may have some good intentions, I don’t believe Western intervention in these countries has done anything but contribute to the chaos – either directly by bombing in the case of Afghanistan or by preventing local people from solving their own problems independently. In any case, I deny that the Canadian government has any right to use our resources in this way.
June 3rd, 2008
Comments for “Canadian Freedom Watch – Health Care, Congo vs. Afghanistan”
Intervention thusfar has certainly not helped with the “chaos theory,” and anyway I agree about the domestic need to consolidate and poperly utilize our resources.
“Farmers will receive C$150 million now and another C$150 million after they register herd data with a new livestock information database, the [Alberta] government said.
“The system will help trace animals during disease outbreaks and could be used for certifying consumer-driven products such as hormone-free, range-fed, grass-fed, humanely raised or naturally raised meats, the government said.”
Albertan tax-payers get robbed in order to pay farmers. And in exchange, the farmers (or some? farmers if they have a choice) get to trade in their freedoms and property rights and help establish a mandated surveillance tracking system for livestock. Great deal all round for tyranny. Communism failed already so keep trying it again and again until you get it right.
“Albertans were furious enough, not as much about the size of the raises the Premier and his Cabinet handed themselves (ministers raised their salaries to $184,000), but about the furtive way it was handled, behind closed Cabinet doors, through a quietly issued order-in-council just a dozen weeks after winning an election.”
“The T.T.C. [Toronto Transit Commission] is looking at implementing a policy of mandatory drug and alcohol testing for its employees following a couple of incidents involving workers being impaired on the job. The Amalgamated Transit Union calls it an invasion of privacy.”
He’s right; it’s invasive. Hold individuals responsible for their actions instead of making our society a prison.
“As a former worker and member of a Riding Board of Directors for the Conservative Party, I feel have to apologize to all Canadians.
“The new secret copyright deal clearly shows that this government does not care about personal privacy or about Canadians’ right to debate and input their own laws. Instead they have cheerily given in to the unjustified demands of Hollywood and huge music companies.
“I will now be donating my time, money and effort to whichever political party speaks loudest against this proposed bill.
…
“As they often do, they are carrying out their planning in secret, in the knowledge that if more people knew of their activities they would not be allowed to get away with it.
“The US (surprise, surprise) has circulated a draft “Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) for the next G8 meeting, in Tokyo in July. The full text of the document has been published on Wikileaks (wikileaks.org).
“If a treaty based on its provisions were adopted, it would enable any border guard, in any treaty country, to check any electronic device for any content that they suspect infringes copyright laws….
“It proposes a governing body for copyright protection that would operate outside organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the UN. In short, it proposes a global police force, answerable to no one, with intrusive powers …
“The first newspaper to break the story was Canada’s The Ottawa Citizen, which in a story by Vito Pilieci on May 24 picked up on the Wikileaks posting….”
More coverage of ACTA and intellectual property issues at this site: IP Justice
“An international civil liberties organization promoting balanced intellectual property laws and free expression”
“So a week after U. S. and European central banks made it crystal clear they are on the inflation warpath, the Bank of Canada is poised to buck the trend and cut interest rates.”
“Mr Bootle, how predictable. Its thought processes like yours which have got us into this mess in the first place.
The term “inflation” has many definitions but the most widely accepted is the increase in both FIAT money and credit. (This of course will lead to higher prices which is the measure most people think of as inflation.) By the “lowering of interest rates” you are advocating the printing of even more pound notes than Mr Brown has already printed in order to debase our currency. That is the true meaning of “lowering interest rates”. However, no-one talks of the currency debasement because its not really a vote winner.
“The analogy between credit and heroin is almost perfect. You are advocating giving the consumer another (credit) fix just so you and your like don’t have to go through “cold turkey”. That is, and never will be, a long term solution…
“Posted by NorrieC on May 12, 2008 1:04 PM”
June 10th, 2008
Glimmer of Hope in the U.K.
BBC: June 12, 2008 UK Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigns to defend British liberties!
‘”In truth, 42 days [detention without trial] is just one – perhaps the most salient example – of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.”
‘He listed the growth of the “database state,” government “snooping” ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.
‘”This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand,” said Mr Davis.’
The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. The word Haltemprice is derived from the motto of a medieval priory, and in Old French it means “Noble Endeavour”.
I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday.
Up until yesterday, I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries or forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. Well we did up until yesterday.
This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta – the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms – Habeus Corpus.
The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge.
Now the counter terrorism bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for if not to defend Magna Carta.
But because the impetus behind this is essentially political – not security – the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto.
Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons, this government’s going to do that. And because the generic security arguments relied on will never go away – technology, development and complexity and so on, we’ll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days.
But in truth, 42 days is just one – perhaps the most salient example – of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.
And we will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.
A CCTV camera for every 14 citiziens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with 1000s of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
We have witnessed an assault on jury trials – that balwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair.
And the creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.
The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate – while those who incite violence get off Scot free.
This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it’s incumbent on me to take a stand.
I will be resigning my membership of the House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.
Now I’ll not fight it on the government’s general record – there’s no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won’t fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this great chess game.
I will fight it, I will argue this by-election, against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.
Now, that may mean I’ve made my last speech to the House – it’s possible. And of course that would be a matter of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day – the ever-intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.
And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand.
June 13th, 2008
U.K.’s David Davis: Assault on Freedoms “Must be Stopped”
I was invited to blog at Western Standard’s “Shotgun Blog” which has a lot of libertarian content. This is today’s post.
U.K.’s David Davis: Assault on Freedoms “Must be Stopped”
In the last few days, there were several events that made me feel very positive about the freedom movement.
There was the settling effect of Ron Paul’s Phase II.
There was the amazing Irish NO vote yesterday against the European Union’s Lisbon reform treaty.
And there was another politician taking a stand for freedom this week – in Britain – David Davis. And because it is so rare for politicians to give a damn about liberties, this event reminds me of the powerful film Amazing Grace about the British statesman and anti-slavery hero William Wilberforce.
David Davis, the Conservative Party’s Deputy Leader and Shadow Home Secretary could not stomach the June 11th passing of New Labour’s 42 day detention-without-trial law. Therefore he resigned from parliament, forcing a by-election on that issue along with a mass of British government attacks on civil liberties and privacy rights, which he comprehensively condemned:
“This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta – the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms – habeas corpus – the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason.
“Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge…
“… 42 days is just one – perhaps the most salient example – of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.
“And we will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with 1000s of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
“We have witnessed an assault on jury trials – that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair.
“And the creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.
“The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate – while those who incite violence get off scot free.
“This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it’s incumbent on me to take a stand.”
The UK Libertarian Party’s Leader, Patrick Vessey, expressed his support:
“Should Mr. Davis find that the party of which he is currently a member does not share his grave and quite justified concerns about the continuing erosion of our precious civil liberties, he would be welcome to join the only British political party for which these issues are a matter of core principle, rather than purely the stuff of sound-bites.”
The British Libertarian Alliance gave Davis its unconditional support, calling him a “brave and decent man”. Libertarian Alliance Director, Dr Sean Gabb, expressed his contempt for the Labour government:
“We have been repeatedly told that suspects will only be detained for six weeks without trial in the gravest cases affecting national security. This is a lie. We were promised that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would only be used in cases of national security. Instead, it is used by just about every local authority in the country to spy on ordinary people.
“The effect – and almost certainly the purpose – of this law will be to create a new weapon of administrative detention. It may be used against the occasional terrorist suspect. Much more often, though, dissidents and other ‘trouble-makers’ will be told to shut up or face arrest on suspicion of terrorist offences. They will be held without charge for six weeks, then released without charge. In the meantime, they will have lost their jobs and reputations; their lives will be in ruins. All this – and without the shadow of due process.”
Saturday, June 14 is the Fraser Institute’s Tax Freedom Day. This is the day average Canadians have finished working to pay all forms of tax.
Niels Veldhuis of the Fraser Institute says, “the point of Tax Freedom Day is to give people a comprehensive and easy-to- understand indicator of the total amount of taxes paid to all three levels of government.”
“The taxes used to compute Tax Freedom Day include income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, profit taxes, health, social security and employment taxes, import duties, license fees, taxes on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, natural resource fees, fuel taxes, hospital taxes and a host of other levies.”
“…In 2008, the average Canadian family (with two or more individuals) will earn $90,678 and pay a total of $40,667 in taxes, for a total tax bill amounting to 44.8 per cent of its income.”
In 1961, Tax Freedom Day was 40 days earlier. Wow. However, in June 1917, there was not even a federal personal income tax!
According to Lloyd Duhaime’s “Canadian Legal History”, on July 25, 1917, Sir Thomas White, the finance minister appointed by Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden,
“tabled a resolution which called for income tax: 4% on all income of single men over $2,000. For others, the personal exemption was $3,000. For those Canadians with annual incomes of more than $6,000, the tax rate ranged from 2 to 25 per cent.”
Sir Thomas White’s statement:
“Mr. Chairman, I desire today to lay before this committee proposals for a national measure of income taxation. Hitherto we have relied upon duties of customs and of excise, postal rates and other miscellaneous sources of revenue. Canada has been, and will continue during the lifetime of those present today, to be a country inviting immigration. I have, therefore, thought it desirable that we should not be known to the outside world as a country of heavy individual taxation.
“We are, however, confronted with grave conditions arising out of the war. The time has arrived when we must resort to direct taxation. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Canada, whose patriotism during this war has been so often and so nobly proven, will, in light of present conditions, which call for it, cheerfully accept the burden and the sacrifice of this additional taxation…”
So global warfare, loyalty to King and Empire, and the “bourgeois” Conservative Party were instrumental in fulfilling plank #2 of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, that is, a “heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. In other words, “capitalists” or pseudo-capitalists or whatever you want to call them have been implementing and maintaining the Communist Manifesto for a long time now.
What does it mean that Western “capitalist” governments, some of which are explicitly “conservative”, are still pursuing or holding on to the various planks of the Communist Manifesto through income tax, “smart growth” planning, financial surveillance, nationalization of land through “green belt” legislation, asset foreiture, “free” education and centralized control of banking and interest rates?
Not all of these planks can be implemented without totally destroying our society, and a few might sound like positive goals, but here is Karl Marx’s list so you can check off how “successful” the Canadian and U.S. “capitalist” establishments have been at maintaining his goals:
“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
“2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
“3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
“4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
“5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
“6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
“7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
“8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
“9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
“10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”
“[Momin] Khawaja, an Ottawa software developer, will go on trial [June 23] as the first accused under Canada’s anti-terrorism laws. …arrested by the Mounties four years ago and is alleged to have been part of a 2004 al-Qaida-inspired terrorist bomb plot in London along with six men now in prison in Britain.” He has denied the charges.
‘ A CBC investigation revealed on Monday that 16 Canadian lakes, including prime wilderness fishing areas from B.C. to Newfoundland and Labrador, are slated to be officially but quietly “reclassified” as mining dump sites. …”The reality is these Conservatives are giving those mining companies a huge subsidy by allowing them to use freshwater aquatic systems that are fish-bearing lakes as chief waste disposal sites,” Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer said…’
“…Simpson said it appears the forest resource is being neglected when it should be properly managed. ‘The Crown owns that land. It’s a public forest. It’s British Columbia’s No. 1 asset. We better be investing in it and according to what I see from the government’s own documentation, we’re not doing that.’”
“Ottawa man [David MacLaren] who sued police after being held in custody for 12 hours following his arrest during a G20 protest nearly seven years ago has received a ’significant” settlement’” (amount under a non-publication order) …”I said ‘this is my city, I think I have a right to stand on a sidewalk. I don’t think you guys have the right to arrest me, I’m not going to move, you’re going to have to arrest me.’”
Montreal Gazette, Jun 17 ‘08 Ottawa pitches in $17M for three R&D projects “Beneficiaries include CAE Inc., Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. and McGill University”, according to the Foreign Affairs Minister
“…he has a strong knowledge of border issues, some of it fostered during meetings with Liberal Senator Colin Kenny during visits by the Canadian’s national security and defence committee.”
Canada is addicted to Incarcerex. Amazing animation on the drug war.
The Philosophy of Liberty Animation. Or download from ISIL.
June 20th, 2008
“Responsibility 911” and the Statue of Responsibility
I’ve just heard about a soon to be released book called Responsibility 911. One of the Canadian contributors, Elliott Frankl, is featured in the Georgina Advocate, an Ontario newspaper. He is a distant relative of the famous Victor Frankl, whose writings are also featured.
As of today, it is still not listed at Amazon.com, but I want to respond pre-emptively to the message of this book:
” … At the heart of the book is the idea freedom cannot exist without citizens accepting responsibility for the society in which they live…”
The announcement by author Thomas Schaff from May about Responsibility 911 is available on YouTube. Thomas Schaff is also one of the trustees for the Statue of Responsibility project. Their video presentation is at www.sorfoundation.org. More information is available at the project’s FAQ.
The video presents a consistent message: “Coming together… brotherhood … in the same boat …not just about self-interest … the greater interest…”
Summaries of Responsibility 911 are available online (here and here).
Highlighting some of the chapters: “Everybody Matters” by George W. Bush, “Moral Courage” by Senator John McCain, “Lessons for Leaders” by Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Never Retreat” by Rudy Giuliani, “You Have a Role to Play” by Barack Obama and “Bill of Responsibilities”, by Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Pending articles for the new book include other establishment figures William Bennett and David Gergen.
Reading their “Bill of Responsibilities” will give you a flavour of what Freedom’s Foundation is all about. On the home page, you can watch bi-partisan buddies, Senators Biden and Hatch present the “Freedom Isn’t Free Campaign” video. The Advisory Council for the Statue of Responsibility project also includes the same Senator Hatch.
In my opinion, the number of political figures listed as contributors appears to discredit whatever value the book has as a collection of works on spiritual or self-help topics. Also, the presence of works by self-help authors, and the confusion caused by mixing political and psychological concepts could make this book an appealing and effective piece of propaganda.
The whole idea of the Statue of Responsibility is to “balance” the Statue of Liberty, in effect downplaying and cancelling out the value of seeking liberty, as if liberty and responsibility are opposite values. They define “freedom” as something superior to “liberty” because they say “freedom” also includes “responsibility” (whatever they mean by that). Whatever freedom is (insert Orwellian term here), if you lose it, they say it’s your fault. You didn’t pay the price. You didn’t suffer enough or you didn’t go along with the program and now it’s time to really get started paying for that freedom! So you are going to sit and be lectured by the same people passing the legislation every day that destroys your real freedoms – instead of telling them to stop.
The themes of the book are very clear from the pre-release. In a pure self-help context they might be very positive, but mixed with politics, they convey a totalitarian warning: responsibility (shut up and get in line, it’s your fault, your selfishness and desire for liberty caused all these problems), leadership (we need new leaders like us to rule), accountability and social responsibility (watch out or you’re the next show trial victim like Martha Stewart), transparency (invasion of privacy and private property) and the “role” of the citizen (submission and sacrifice to the State, don’t question the credibility of its institutions).
I can’t help interpreting this as a situation where the ideas of Victor Frankl and self-help authors are going to be twisted by the defenders of a corrupt political system who are given a platform by this book. Liberty means being free to do things with your life that you decide are constructive – and the right to be wrong about your choices – as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. Liberty does not equate to irresponsibility at all. In fact, we need to exercise responsibility in order to promote liberty, preserve established freedoms and hold the power-abusers in government accountable.
Lets keep it going! The link between responsibility, freedom and liberty is an important discussion worthy of our time and effort.
If anybody reading this post knows how to contact actor/comedian, Tim Allen, from Home Improvement fame, please encourage him to call Daniel Bolz (CEO at the Statue Of Responsibility Foundation). Daniel Bolz would like to extend an invitation to Tim Allen. Tim Allen is a walking billboard for how responsibility can turn a life around so it moves in a forward direction.
Mark Rogers, LPC
Stooltime Counseling (on the web).
To even to start to fix this idea up, if you want a suggestion from me (the author of this post), responsibility needs to be disassociated from looking to government. Responsibility really means taking back power over our lives. That’s why responsibility goes hand in hand with liberty. If this statue is just going to serve the interests of the establishment, of big government in making people look to it for more security and scapegoating and obedience and war, then it’s irredeemable. If it’s funded and supported by the people who are part of the problem, it’s lost. It’s not my opinion. It’s reality. Americans are lost – Canadians and others are in bad shape too. The process of infantilization and dependency and irresponsibility has been encouraged by the growth in government and suppression of liberty. The Ron Paul Revolution is part of the solution. If responsibility is associated with agents of the absolute state that created the Patriot Act, then the true meaning of responsibility is reversed.
The Statue Of Responsibility Foundation is utilizing a grassroots movement to build the national monument. This means funding for it will come from the citizens, whether they be individuals or groups. Right now, the Pennies For Freedom project, is focused on school children playing a part in the building of the Statue Of Responsibility, now slated for dedication on 7-4-12 rather than on 7-4-10.
Even though the monument will be built on US soil, it will serve as a beacon for the world to increase global awareness of the need to use the word, responsibility, in the same sentence as liberty and freedom.
Liberty means restraining your government. Why don’t you talk about “responsibility” when your government stops torturing and bombing people and lying? Or maybe that’s what is meant by “responsibility” – “might makes right”? I don’t see how ordinary people have any “responsibility” for anything that happens since they are taxed and controlled and herded and indoctrinated like sheep from cradle to grave by manipulators and monsters in government. They need to gain a sense of “freedom” and “responsibility” they are not allowed to have. If they can see the truth about the world they live in and do nothing about it, they’re not blameless I know, but why do you insist on building up the fascist state that keeps people in ignorance?
You’re absolutely correct to say that liberty means less government (I paraphrased your sentence, but it means the same as, “restraining your government.”) That’s what I like about the Libertarian movement.
One of the purposes behind building the monument is to increase, expand and encourage a national/global dialogue on the meaning of “responsibility”. I see nothing wrong with that, especially since a “sense of entitlement”, at all socio-economic-political levels, has its tenticles everywhere in society.
I can’t reconcile how you have all the statists on board with your organization who were writing for it. Wasn’t it irresponsible of them to take away peoples’ liberties through the Patriot Act? I don’t see what value their support has and I would run the other way if I believed in liberty. They’ve been the ones building the Empire and building up a culture of dependency and socialism.
The book, “Responsibility 911?, does feature different political perspectives from different government leaders on the subject of “responsibility”. However, there’s a difference between what the book features and which government officials endorse the monument. For example, I have written to many government officials about the monument during my tenure with the Foundation, and have only had minor success in getting any of them to write back. The same holds true with the media, celebrities, the NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA. As a member of the Foundation’s Public Relations Steering Committee, I have found it to be frustrating.
On the one hand, it would be nice to get the endorsement of some of society’s elite people to endorse the monument. On the other hand, without that support, the monument will get built, based on its own merit.
I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss this matter on your forum. Thanks, Alan.
Here’s an example of what I mean. It is a reprint from one of my other blogs located elsewhere on the internet:
I describe freedom as an oasis of excitement, and responsibility as a desert of boredom. To be free is very exciting. To be responsible can be very boring. Freedom is fun, responsibility is hard work. Can one exist without the other or are the two interdependent?
I believe society is beginning to grapple with that question as evidenced by radio and TV talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly making references about people behaving responsibly or not as he bloviates on a news story. People like O’Reilly take a chance talking about responsibility and accountability as some people meander about in our no-fault society. It is my contention that more people need to get in on the discussion. Where’s the media when you need them to support my contention?
It has been a joy and a frustration to belong on two committees with the Statue Of Responsibility Foundation. The Foundation wants to organize people to privately fund the building of a new national monument that could expand the national dialogue on the theme of people thinking, feeling and acting responsibly. This already sounds boring. It’s no wonder most of the media dismisses the need to cover it.
The joy for me is doing something for which I feel passionate. I have the opportunity to meet a lot of influential people during my tenure with the Foundation. I’m also grateful for being a part of an organized effort that is building a new national monument. What an impact this will have on America and the world! With freedom comes responsibility. With excitement comes the boredom. It almost sounds like a yin-yang kind of thing.
I also feel the joy to know there are plans to provide scholarships to kids after the monument, which will bookend the Statue Of Liberty, is built. Who doesn’t need some financial help to pay for college?
The frustration for me is working to contact influential media sources, and not hearing back from most of them. After all, responsibility is boring. The media likes to project excitement! I suppose it will take a celebrity or other famous person to become the Foundation’s national spokesperson before the Foundation’s efforts to build the monument catches the attention of most of the media. We can look forward to a new book coming out later this year called, “Responsibility 911.” The sales of that book will help financially support the building of the monument.
Here is a listing of people/media I have contacted since August, 2005. Some were kind enough to respond, others were not. I open this up to fellow bloggers. Does anybody have any other ideas to help The Statue Of Responsibility Foundation get the word out so we the people can build the monument by July 4th, 2010? Thanks.
President George Bush.
California First Lady Maria Shriver.
Bill Gates.
Rush Limbaugh.
David Limbaugh.
Sean Hannity.
Glenn Beck.
Neal Boortz.
Bill O’Reilly.
Michelle Malkin-Fox News and Blogger.
Professor Rothman-UNLV History Department.
Vince Swift-The Statue Of Liberty Club.
Oakland University Alumni Magazine.
The Detroit Tigers Organization.
The Detroit Lions Organization.
Al Johnson from Fox 2.
The Bay Voice Newspaper.
The Macomb Daily.
Mort Crim Communications.
Comcast Newsmakers.
The Times Herald (Port Huron).
Senator Debbie Stabenaw.
Congress Woman Candice Miller.
Representative Dan Acciavatti.
Tim Allen.
Jay Leno.
Oprah Winfrey.
Retired Admiral Herbert Meyer.
Paul W. Smith (WJR 760 AM)
NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell.
MLB Commissioner, Allan H. (Bud) Selig.
NBA Commissioner, David Stern.
NHL Commissioner, Gary Beckman.
The Heritage Foundation.
The Drudge Report.
Senator John McCain (blog).
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
Financial Surveillance of Every Canadian Escalates
“…All money services businesses will be required to register with FINTRAC by June 23, 2008. This registration requirement follows recent changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
“This new requirement is part of a larger package of regulatory changes announced in June 2007 by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime (http://www.fin.gc.ca/news07/07-054e.html). The new regulations bring Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime in line with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, a G-8 created body. The amendments also follow recommendations made in the 2004 Auditor General’s Report and in a 2004 Treasury Board–mandated evaluation of the regime.…”
“The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, announced the publication of final regulations that ensure Canada continues to be a global leader in combatting organized crime and terrorist financing.
““Canada’s New Government will be relentless in its efforts to prevent money laundering and terrorist crimes,” Minister Flaherty said. “We are taking an international leadership role to combat money laundering and terrorist financing by devoting substantial new funding to bolster our analytic, investigative and prosecution resources.”
“The new regulations bring Canada’s anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime in line with new Financial Action Task Force standards. They also follow recommendations made in the 2004 Auditor General’s Report and in a 2004 Treasury Board–mandated evaluation of the regime.
“The regulations, which will be published on June 27 in Part II of the Canada Gazette, include:
Enhanced customer due diligence measures, such as new requirements to identify the beneficial owners of corporations and other entities.
Special due diligence measures including identification and monitoring of correspondent banking relationships and politically exposed persons.
A requirement to report attempted suspicious transactions.
Enhanced information sharing among the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), law enforcement and other domestic and international agencies.
The establishment of a registration regime for money service businesses.
“These regulatory amendments implement new provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, which were introduced by Bill C-25 and received Royal Assent in December 2006. They reflect the comments received from financial institutions and intermediaries following the pre-publication of the regulatory amendments on March 10, 2007, in Part I of the Canada Gazette.
“To provide financial institutions and intermediaries with sufficient time to change their systems and train their employees, these regulations will come into effect on two separate dates. Most of the provisions will come into effect on June 23, 2008, while the remainder will be effective on June 30, 2007.
“A second phase of proposed regulatory amendments will be pre-published shortly in Part I of the Canada Gazette for public comment.”
June 27th, 2008
More about FINTRAC, Government Surveillance of Every Canadian’s Life
The following summary of the legislative requirements under the PCMLTFA applies to you if you are a money services business. A money services business means an individual or an entity that is engaged in the business of any of the following activities:
foreign exchange dealing;
remitting or transmitting funds by any means or through any individual, entity or electronic funds transfer network; or
issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments. This does not include redeeming cheques payable to a named individual or entity. In other words, cashing cheques made out to a particular individual or entity is not included.
“Money services businesses include alternative money remittance systems (such as Hawala, Hundi or Chitti), etc.
“For information about legislative requirements in effect before June 23, 2008, see the applicable guidelines published before 2008.
Reporting
o Suspicious Transactions
o Terrorist Property
o Large Cash Transactions
o Electronic Funds Transfers
Record Keeping
Ascertaining Identity
Politically Exposed Foreign Person
Third Party Determination
Compliance Regime
FINTRAC Interpretation Notices
Compliance Questionnaire
Money Services Business Registration
…
“Additional Information for Money Services Businesses
“Electronic Funds Transfers You must report international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more that you send or receive. These include the transmission of instructions at the request of a client through any electronic, magnetic or optical device, telephone instrument or computer. In the case of SWIFT messages, only SWIFT MT 103 messages are included.See Guideline 8 : Submitting Electronic Funds Transfer Reports to FINTRAC
“Reporting
“Record Keeping
“You must keep the following records:
Large cash transaction records
Client information records for entities with which you have an ongoing service agreement
Foreign currency exchange transaction tickets
Client credit files
Internal memoranda about services to clients
Copies of official corporate records (binding provisions)
Records for the sale of travellers’ cheques, money orders or other similar instruments in the amount of $3,000 or more
Records for money orders cashed in the amount of $3,000 or more
Records about individuals who sign an ongoing service agreement on behalf of an entity
Lists of employees authorized to order transactions under ongoing service agreements
Copies of suspicious transaction reports
Records for the remittance or transmission of $1,000 or more and include information with certain transfers
Beneficial ownership records
“See Guideline 6C : Record Keeping and Client Identification for Money Services Businesses
“Ascertaining Identity
“You must take specific measures to identify the following individuals or entities:
Any individual who conducts a large cash transaction
Any individual who conducts a transaction of $3,000 or more for the issuance or redemption of travellers’ cheques, money orders or other similar negotiable instruments
Any entity with which you have an ongoing business relationship
Any individual who conducts a foreign currency exchange transaction of $3,000 or more
Any entity for which you have to keep a client information record (including reasonable measures to obtain beneficial ownership information)
Any individual who conducts a transaction for the remittance or transmission of $1,000 or more by any means or through any individual or entity
Any individual for whom you have to send a suspicious transaction report (reasonable measures and exceptions apply)
“See Guideline 6C : Record Keeping and Client Identification for Money Services Businesses
“Politically Exposed Foreign Person
“You have to take reasonable measures to determine whether you are dealing with a politically exposed foreign person for certain electronic funds transfers of $100,000 or more. You also have to keep records and take additional measures.
“See Guideline 6C : Record Keeping and Client Identification for Money Services Businesses
“Third Party Determination
“Where a large cash transaction record is required, you must take reasonable measures to determine whether the individual is acting on behalf of a third party. When a client information record is created, you must take reasonable measures to determine whether the client is acting on behalf of a third party.
“In cases where a third party is involved, you must obtain specific information about the third party and their relationship with the individual providing the cash or the client.
“See Guideline 6C : Record Keeping and Client Identification for Money Services Businesses
“Compliance Regime
“The following five elements must be included in a compliance regime:
The appointment of a compliance officer
The development and application of written compliance policies and procedures
The assessment and documentation of risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, and measures to mitigate high risks
Implementation and documentation of an ongoing compliance training program
A documented review of the effectiveness of policies and procedures, training program and risk assessment
“See Guideline 4 : Implementation of a Compliance Regime
“FINTRAC Interpretation Notices
“FINTRAC issues FINTRAC interpretation notices (FINs) to provide technical interpretations and positions regarding certain provisions contained in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and associated Regulations.
Criteria for “Engaged in a Money Services Business”
Large Cash Transaction and Electronic Funds Transfer Reporting Requirements: Two or More Transactions in a 24-Hour Period (The ‘24-Hour Rule’)
“For more information on your obligations and on FINTRAC, you can also consult our Frequently Asked Questions .
“Compliance Questionnaire
“Part of FINTRAC’s mandate is to ensure compliance by financial intermediaries and other reporting entities with their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and regulations. To do this,
we can inquire into your business and examine records, including those relating to your compliance regime.
“We have developed a money services business compliance questionnaire, for you to provide information concerning you or your organization’s compliance regime. If you are required to complete this questionnaire, you will be advised in writing by FINTRAC.
View a list of the questions contained in the questionnaire.
“For any questions, please contact us by e-mail at questionnaires@fintrac-canafe.gc.ca .
If you do so, be sure to indicate your company/organization name as well as your reporting entity sector.
“Suspicious Transactions
“You must report where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction or an attempted transaction is related to the commission or attempted commission of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.See Guideline 2 : Suspicious Transactions and Guideline 3 : Submitting Suspicious Transaction Reports to FINTRAC
“Terrorist Property You must report where you know that there is property in your possession or control that is owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist or a terrorist group.See Guideline 5 : Submitting Terrorist Property Reports to FINTRAC
“Large Cash Transactions You must report large cash transactions involving amounts of $10,000 or more received in cash.See Guideline 7 : Submitting Large Cash Transaction Reports to FINTRAC”
Why this isn’t “Freedom”
Basically, it is deputizing – coercively – money service businesses as spies for the Canadian government’s “anti-terrorism” regime. Everybody is treated as a possible “terrorist”. What people do with their money is potentially “money-laundering” from this mindless Orwellian point of view.
Now, I’m going to talk about morality, ideals and the rule of law, so I apologize if fascists in the public and government don’t understand this, as it may seem like gibberish to you.
If the police and security agencies have a legitimate suspicion about someone being a “terrorist” (pretty rare so far in Canada), bring your evidence of reasonable cause to a judge to obtain a warrant. Use the warrant as a means to search the money business and ask questions.
Don’t threaten anyone with their business being shut down. This is a form of coercion, comparable to torture. I realize that government officials threaten this all the time by creating legislation that does this. So this is actually a threat from “Members of Parliament” who don’t know they are destroying what’s good about Canada.
Let the business notify the customer that their privacy has been invaded using “due process”. This is called “freedom of speech”. It’s also the responsibility of the business owner who is promising privacy to his/her customers.
If anyone think these practices represent a “free society” and they’re protecting our “freedoms” with this, they are totally deluded. If they insist on carrying out their foreign wars, I guess we will have to expect more “security measures”, meaning abuse from our government, because the fear of terrorism will continue.
Yes, I am implying a cause and effect connection between foreign intervention and fear of terrorism along with abuse of civil liberties (which was caused by the drug war also).
Also, just in general, take your secret trials, your secret detentions and your secret laws…away from Canadians. Stop abusing Canadians with your secrecy – and I’m talking about both major parties who have been in government in recent years – I’m talking about how the government operates regardless of party. Your practices are abusive and it’s time people woke up to what you’re doing. Yes, maybe we’re better off than the U.S. for now… Better off than Uzbekistan too or North Korea for now. So what? It’s not good enough.
And notice how the G8 policies were adopted for Fintrac by these globalist governments we’ve had in Canada. Where is the accountability? When did Canadians elect the G8?
Let’s really try to change things and make a difference with public pressure. See my comments below about direct democracy. Email me your petition for consideration. Updates are welcome. Debate brings clarity. I have an open mind, but I am biased against petitions that advocate Canadian government interference in another nation’s internal affairs (sometimes just a lead-up to sanctions and war) or that call for government interventions in the market. But I am open to petitions that call for governments, businesses and other organizations to change their practices. I’m mainly interested in Canadian (all three levels of government) and also international/foreign policy issues, especially if they affect Canada.
REFERENDUMS IN CANADA:
THE EFFECT OF POPULIST DECISION-MAKING ON REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY(pdf)Some provincial governments allow for these. I believe we need to push the Canadian Parliament to allow binding referenda, so there should be an overwhelming petition to this effect directed towards parliament. I have a lot to say about direct democracy (using a majoritarian system towards libertarian ends) but basically it is more constructive if we adopted direct democracy 100%, hire temporary executives and let MPs retire. Majorities don’t automatically legitimate legislation at all but I think it is likely a referendum is more legitimate in most cases. The fact is that parliament is surrendering its authority to the courts and to international bodies like the G8, UN, SPP, NAFTA, NATO, …. so the people have less and less representation through their Members of Parliament every day.
On a related subject, the rights of juries need to be enhanced also.
Others’ Petitions – Read and sign the ones you agree with:
Recent Comments