by Bobbie Saga
Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith refused to say Wednesday whether she personally believes in the concept of "conscience rights."
It’s a concept whereby commissioners can opt-out of marrying same-sex couples, or doctors can opt-out from prescribing birth control pills to a patient, or family planning counselors can opt-out of referring women for appropriate family planning – all in the guise of freedom of conscience and guided by a person’s values or beliefs.
It seems an unbelievable concept, this twist of Canadian Charter rights that cloaks discrimination. Yet the specter of religious fanatics and their nefarious influence are pushing for such policies, most notably within Alberta’s far right of the political spectrum. And it’s become a familiar aspect of Alberta’s provincial election with home-schooling parents pushing for their "god given right" to pick and choose what’s taught to their children in a publicly funded education system, or the chant to limit access to justice by way of abolishing the Human Rights Commission (HRC).
These intolerant polices should scare anyone who believes in a respectful society whereby everyone's rights are taken seriously and are balanced with competing views and guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not by one's personal values and beliefs. The whole concept smacks of state-sanctioned bigotry and justification for zealots imposing their views and values on the rest of society. Plus, it does so in tandem with another Wildrose policy that taints the purpose and value of HRCs and would limit access to justice for only those well-heeled enough to afford it. Indeed, in the November/December 2010 issue of Canadian Human Rights Reporter, it was noted that, "none of the last five full external reviews of human rights processes in Canada have seen any merit in abandoning human rights tribunal systems in favour of high courts!"
How is this "conscience rights" policy any different from the Jim Crow laws in the US that allowed systemic discrimination and widespread de jure racial segregation in all public facilities with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans? This separation led to unequal economic treatment in bank lending practices, in employment, in education, in housing with all leading to social disadvantages for one segment of the population.
It seems, however, Ms. Smith does not wish to publicly acknowledge the toned-down word -- that is, the government "should" implement conscience rights. The party's 2010 policy handbook says a Wildrose government "will implement legislation protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals." But the 2012 Wildrose platform has that one different word on the subject, which hopefully should put tarnish on a carefully polished campaign.
Conscience rights are hotly disputed in other jurisdictions, as they tend to involve medical professionals refusing to perform or counsel for procedures they have moral objections to. These procedures include abortion, sterilization or other forms of birth control. There have also been civil commissioners opting out of marrying same-sex couples. Just last year, Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal upheld the principle that those sworn to carry out public duties cannot unilaterally pick and choose parts of their job they will perform. That case involved a marriage commissioner refusing to perform same-sex marriages because of his religious beliefs.
What’s disturbing is that since this story broke in the mainstream press, there are comments popping up on media boards and blogs suggesting those who question or oppose such policies should have more respect for politicians holding religious values. Ignorance is bliss, I gather.
Most reasonable people, I suggest, don’t have a problem with politicians of faith. Rather, they have a problem with those seeming to believe that their religion gives them greater moral authority than those who don’t share their particular set of values and beliefs. It should not – and does not – under Canada’s Charter. I would further suggest that most reasonable people would draw the line at politicians using their belief system to justify casting out those who don’t share their bigoted beliefs. Democratic policies are supposed to be inclusive and government is supposed to govern for all people.
Are we now so far distanced from the past that we have forgotten the mistakes of the past? I would hope not. But asked repeatedly about her stance, Ms. Smith dodged reporters' questions, stating only, "I'll tell you where I stand… I am fundamentally a populist… I fundamentally believe that Albertans should decide the direction of the province."
That is not good enough, Ms. Smith. It is blatant deflection on an exceedingly important question, a question of state-sanctioned discriminatory policy you have previously gone on record endorsing. It’s a simple question, so answer it and allow the people to decide if this is what is truly wanted for the future of Alberta.
Tales, truth in politics, and other noteworthy stuff
Showing posts with label charter rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter rights. Show all posts
Friday, 6 April 2012
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Canadians want an independent investigation into robocalls, Angus Reid survey suggests
by Bobbie Saga
Only a third of respondents, or 32 per cent, think the Green Party and 33 per cent the New Democratic Party are "very likely" or "moderately likely" to rely on this tactic. In Quebec, 32 per cent of respondents think the Bloc Québécois is likely to use robocalls with misleading information.
Another question put to respondents is that of holding by-elections in affected ridings. At least three-in-five Canadians who voted for any of the four opposition parties currently want to hold by-elections in the ridings that were subjected to misleading robocalls. Only 31 per cent of Tory voters concur.
Most Canadians are calling for an independent investigation into robocalls, with a majority believing they are not isolated incidents limited to the riding of Guelph, a new Angus Reid poll shows.
The online survey, released today, reveals that most Canadians think Robocalls were used broadly in the last federal election, with four-in-five respondents calling for an independent investigation.
The survey shows respondents are divided on what impact robocalls may have had on the last federal ballot, with slightly less than half, or 44 per cent, agreeing that misleading messages definitely changed the outcome of the May 2011 federal election. Only 36 per cent of those polled disagreed that robocalls changed the outcome.
But half of those polled, or 50 per cent – including 61 per cent of Quebecers – believe every riding subjected to misleading robocalls should have a by-election as soon as possible. Moreover, four-in-five, or 81 per cent, want an independent investigation to find out exactly who was behind any misleading calls.
A breakdown of the poll, conducted from March 1 to 3, shows most opposition voters believe that robocalls definitely changed the outcome of the last federal ballot, a view shared by just 17 per cent of Conservative voters.
The survey also suggests almost two thirds of Canadians, or 64 per cent of those polled, think the Guelph occurrence is "probably" or "definitely" one of many that took place and where robocalls were a method used widely in the last federal campaign.
As well, 80 per cent of Canadians who voted for the Green Party, 78 per cent for the New Democratic Party, and 77 per cent for both the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois believe the robocalls extend beyond Guelph. Only 47 per cent of Conservative Party voters stated they believed the calls are an isolated incident.
Respondents were also asked which of the five major federal parties are likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls with pre-recorded messages.
Only a third of respondents, or 32 per cent, think the Green Party and 33 per cent the New Democratic Party are "very likely" or "moderately likely" to rely on this tactic. In Quebec, 32 per cent of respondents think the Bloc Québécois is likely to use robocalls with misleading information.
A majority of Canadians, however, believe the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are most likely to provide false and misleading information to voters through telephone calls. The Liberal Party chalked up 55 per cent on this question, while the Conservative Party came in at 63 per cent. Indeed, two-in-five Canadians, or 39 per cent, think the Tories are "very likely" to rely on this tactic.
Another question put to respondents is that of holding by-elections in affected ridings. At least three-in-five Canadians who voted for any of the four opposition parties currently want to hold by-elections in the ridings that were subjected to misleading robocalls. Only 31 per cent of Tory voters concur.
The survey also shows half of respondents say they have followed stories related to robocalls made during the last federal election campaign "very closely" or "moderately closely."
Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted the online survey among 1,001 randomly selected Canadian adults. The margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Calls for action increases amid Conservative denials, deflections and blame games
Action Alert:
Avaaz.org has posted the following to encourage Canadians to ask the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Commissioner of the RCMP for an expanded investigation into election fraud:
"As concerned citizens we urge you to expand your investigation to seek court orders for all the correspondence, directions, and orders placed between customers and Racknine and RMG for calling services on election day and the 5 days leading up to May 2, 2011 to help restore Canada’s democracy."
Over 58,000 people have put their names forward on Avaaz.org . Click here to Sign the petition please!
Avaaz.org has posted the following to encourage Canadians to ask the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Commissioner of the RCMP for an expanded investigation into election fraud:
"As concerned citizens we urge you to expand your investigation to seek court orders for all the correspondence, directions, and orders placed between customers and Racknine and RMG for calling services on election day and the 5 days leading up to May 2, 2011 to help restore Canada’s democracy."
Over 58,000 people have put their names forward on Avaaz.org . Click here to Sign the petition please!
Monday, 5 March 2012
Council of Canadians willing to take legal action to defend democratic rights
Reference: The Council of Canadians
Ottawa - The Council of Canadians announced today that it is canvassing its members and other Canadians to determine the extent to which the "robo-calls" and other dirty tricks during the May 2011 federal election may have undermined basic democratic principles in ridings across the country.
"We are deeply concerned about the recent media reports that many voters were misled, harassed or otherwise subjected to dirty tricks that may have impaired their ability to freely cast their ballots. While we applaud the fact that all parties are urging Elections Canada to investigate these serious allegations, we believe the victims here are the electors. We intend to find out from them the full extent of the nefarious campaigns," said Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians.
Members of the Council of Canadians are committed to preserving Canadian democracy. Being able to participate freely in elections is at the very heart of that democracy. To ensure the widest possible input, the Council is partnering with other social justice groups, including Leadnow and others, and thus the survey questionnaire will be made available to a significant number of Canadians in each of the affected ridings.
"The Council is committed to ensuring that victims of electoral dirty tricks understand their right to defend their democratic franchise, including by making an application to the Court to have the election in their riding declared null and void under the Canada Elections Act" said Steven Shrybman, a public interest lawyer who is legal counsel to the Council of Canadians in this matter.
"All Canadians should be concerned if the rights of any of them to freely participate in an election have been impaired. We invite Canadians who were affected by any of these dirty tricks to contact us immediately," concluded Mr. Neil.
The Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest social justice organization, with 75,000 supporters from coast to coast.
For more information:
Dylan Penner, media officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685,
dpenner@canadians.org
Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs, Facebook
Action Alert:
Mounting evidence of fraudulent robo-calls, impersonations of Elections Canada staff and other deliberate attempts to deceive voters in the 2011 federal election have struck at the very heart of our democracy and shaken Canadians to the core. Click below to learn more.
If you or someone you know has been the victim of misleading or harassing actions around the 2011 federal election, we want to hear from you now.
Ottawa - The Council of Canadians announced today that it is canvassing its members and other Canadians to determine the extent to which the "robo-calls" and other dirty tricks during the May 2011 federal election may have undermined basic democratic principles in ridings across the country.
"We are deeply concerned about the recent media reports that many voters were misled, harassed or otherwise subjected to dirty tricks that may have impaired their ability to freely cast their ballots. While we applaud the fact that all parties are urging Elections Canada to investigate these serious allegations, we believe the victims here are the electors. We intend to find out from them the full extent of the nefarious campaigns," said Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians.
Members of the Council of Canadians are committed to preserving Canadian democracy. Being able to participate freely in elections is at the very heart of that democracy. To ensure the widest possible input, the Council is partnering with other social justice groups, including Leadnow and others, and thus the survey questionnaire will be made available to a significant number of Canadians in each of the affected ridings.
"The Council is committed to ensuring that victims of electoral dirty tricks understand their right to defend their democratic franchise, including by making an application to the Court to have the election in their riding declared null and void under the Canada Elections Act" said Steven Shrybman, a public interest lawyer who is legal counsel to the Council of Canadians in this matter.
"All Canadians should be concerned if the rights of any of them to freely participate in an election have been impaired. We invite Canadians who were affected by any of these dirty tricks to contact us immediately," concluded Mr. Neil.
The Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest social justice organization, with 75,000 supporters from coast to coast.
-30-
For more information:
Dylan Penner, media officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685,
dpenner@canadians.org
Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs, Facebook
Action Alert:
Mounting evidence of fraudulent robo-calls, impersonations of Elections Canada staff and other deliberate attempts to deceive voters in the 2011 federal election have struck at the very heart of our democracy and shaken Canadians to the core. Click below to learn more.
If you or someone you know has been the victim of misleading or harassing actions around the 2011 federal election, we want to hear from you now.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Criticism of Bill C-30 driven by media misunderstanding, claims Vic Toews
Updated:
Minister of Public Safety embarks on a campaign of misinformation, critics charge
by Bobbie Saga
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews continues to defend the Tories’ lawful access legislation – and himself – saying many in the media misunderstand the highly controversial Bill C-30.
Toews made the attempt to clarify his position in an Op-ed column for Postmedia News Friday that followed a public backlash beginning with the Tories’ reintroduction of the legislation that many Canadians, at best, deem too intrusive.
But in the process of an explanation, Toews – yet again – resorts to a disingenuous attack, this time taking direct aim at the media.
In his editorial, Toews continues to reiterate the bill’s intent is to protect children, even though the only reference to children is in the title, and that it is required to combat serious crime, even though critics say law enforcement agencies have yet to provide evidence to substantiate the need for sweeping new police powers.
"Let me be clear: Bill C-30 creates no new powers to access the content of e-mails, web-browsing history or phone calls beyond that which already exists in Canadian law," Toews wrote.
"Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers."
Toews first leveled an attack against Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia Feb. 13 with his now infamous statement, inferring Canadians could, "stand with us of with the child pornographers." But by the following day, and with public outrage mounting over the comment, Toews denied having said it, leading the media to replay the tape of him saying it.
Then on Feb. 14, the day C-30 or the Protecting Children From Online Predators Act was reintroduced in Parliament, it was confirmed the legislation does indeed give authorities new and unprecedented access to personal information – names, addresses, phone numbers and online ID numbers – and without appropriate court oversight.
In an interview airing Feb.17 on CBC Radio's The House, Toews also said his understanding of the bill is police can only request information from ISPs when conducting, "a specific criminal investigation."
But according to privacy and legal experts, as well as the opposition parties, provisions of C-30 do allow authorities the ability to ask for Internet subscribers' information without a warrant under "exceptional circumstances" (Section 17), and there is a section allowing authorities, with a warrant, to make copies of records made by ISPs (Section 34).
Within days of its introduction, and with growing opposition from within their own base that included calls for Toews' resignation, the Tories announced the bill would go directly to committee for revisions, a rare move by any government.
Campaign of misinformation
There is, however, more skepticism than certainty that Bill C-30 going to the committee process will result in reasoned debate, or changes to the legislation. That is because Conservative MPs have control of the process and will determine all aspects of it and its outcome.
And although most vocal media critics of the legislation have yet to respond to Toews continued assertions, or his statement the media misunderstand Bill C-30, some opponents are clearly not backing off in their bid to have the bill go through substantive alterations. Nor has the very vocal public outcry abaited to have Bill C-30 killed altogether, or fixed.
Dr. Michael Geist, an expert on the subject of lawful access, and outspoken critic of both the current and previously tabled legislation, says he has "been asked repeatedly what should be done to fix Bill C-30" since its reintroduction.
He says the bill requires considerable study, adding "12 amendments of undertakings" are needed "to begin to address the massive public concern with the legislation." Geist posted How to Fix Canada's Online Surveillance Bill: A 12 Step To-Do List on his blog yesterday.
"Given recent events, many understandably believe the bill is beyond repair and should be scrapped," he says.
"However, assuming the government sticks with it and send[s] the bill to committee with a mandate to consider a wide range of reforms and submissions, I’d start with the non-comprehensive to-do list:
OpenMedia is an independent, non-partisan organization representing more than 40 advocacy and other groups, plus many individual Canadians countering the government with a petition that, to date, has accumulated over 115,000 signatures. It has also championed a public education Stop Online Spying campaign since last May.
"The government is on the defence," Gogolek wrote.
"Fresh from being outed on CBC radio as unfamiliar with his own bill, asked to resign in the National Post, and generally berated via social media, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has been emailing those who signed the Stop Online Spying petition with the same washed up talking points that have been debunked again and again. We’ve decided to go point-by-point through his misleading ‘myth-busting’, and make sure it’s clear how ridiculous this bill — not to mention the force attempting to pass it — truly is."
Gogolek then advised that "If you're upset by Toews' unwillingness to listen to Canadians, consider submitting a letter to your local paper. We have a tool for this here."
Additionally, results of a public-opinion poll released Friday by Angus Reid, suggests half of Canadians surveyed believe the bill is too intrusive, while about the same amount believe C-30 should be scrapped.
The survey concludes Canadians reject components of Bill C-30, and reveals concern over the proposed legislation crosses party lines. Nearly half of Conservatives and the majority of New Democrats and Liberals oppose the bill's passage in its current form. It does not state if Green Party supporters were represented in the survey.
"The idea of surrendering subscriber data and identifiers without a warrant is rejected by almost two thirds of Canadians," Angus Reid declared in its analysis.
It went further, noting, "The most unpopular measure included in Bill C-30 is requiring telecommunications providers to disclose, without a warrant, six types of identifiers from subscriber data (Name, Address, Telephone number, Email address, IP address and Local service provider identifier). Almost two thirds of Canadians (64%) disagree with this idea."
The online survey of 1,011 randomly selected Canadian adults, which took place Thursday and Friday, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Minister of Public Safety embarks on a campaign of misinformation, critics charge
by Bobbie Saga
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews continues to defend the Tories’ lawful access legislation – and himself – saying many in the media misunderstand the highly controversial Bill C-30.
Toews made the attempt to clarify his position in an Op-ed column for Postmedia News Friday that followed a public backlash beginning with the Tories’ reintroduction of the legislation that many Canadians, at best, deem too intrusive.
But in the process of an explanation, Toews – yet again – resorts to a disingenuous attack, this time taking direct aim at the media.
In his editorial, Toews continues to reiterate the bill’s intent is to protect children, even though the only reference to children is in the title, and that it is required to combat serious crime, even though critics say law enforcement agencies have yet to provide evidence to substantiate the need for sweeping new police powers.
"Let me be clear: Bill C-30 creates no new powers to access the content of e-mails, web-browsing history or phone calls beyond that which already exists in Canadian law," Toews wrote.
"Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers."
Toews first leveled an attack against Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia Feb. 13 with his now infamous statement, inferring Canadians could, "stand with us of with the child pornographers." But by the following day, and with public outrage mounting over the comment, Toews denied having said it, leading the media to replay the tape of him saying it.
Then on Feb. 14, the day C-30 or the Protecting Children From Online Predators Act was reintroduced in Parliament, it was confirmed the legislation does indeed give authorities new and unprecedented access to personal information – names, addresses, phone numbers and online ID numbers – and without appropriate court oversight.
In an interview airing Feb.17 on CBC Radio's The House, Toews also said his understanding of the bill is police can only request information from ISPs when conducting, "a specific criminal investigation."
But according to privacy and legal experts, as well as the opposition parties, provisions of C-30 do allow authorities the ability to ask for Internet subscribers' information without a warrant under "exceptional circumstances" (Section 17), and there is a section allowing authorities, with a warrant, to make copies of records made by ISPs (Section 34).
Within days of its introduction, and with growing opposition from within their own base that included calls for Toews' resignation, the Tories announced the bill would go directly to committee for revisions, a rare move by any government.
Campaign of misinformation
There is, however, more skepticism than certainty that Bill C-30 going to the committee process will result in reasoned debate, or changes to the legislation. That is because Conservative MPs have control of the process and will determine all aspects of it and its outcome.
And although most vocal media critics of the legislation have yet to respond to Toews continued assertions, or his statement the media misunderstand Bill C-30, some opponents are clearly not backing off in their bid to have the bill go through substantive alterations. Nor has the very vocal public outcry abaited to have Bill C-30 killed altogether, or fixed.
Dr. Michael Geist, an expert on the subject of lawful access, and outspoken critic of both the current and previously tabled legislation, says he has "been asked repeatedly what should be done to fix Bill C-30" since its reintroduction.
He says the bill requires considerable study, adding "12 amendments of undertakings" are needed "to begin to address the massive public concern with the legislation." Geist posted How to Fix Canada's Online Surveillance Bill: A 12 Step To-Do List on his blog yesterday.
"Given recent events, many understandably believe the bill is beyond repair and should be scrapped," he says.
"However, assuming the government sticks with it and send[s] the bill to committee with a mandate to consider a wide range of reforms and submissions, I’d start with the non-comprehensive to-do list:
- Evidence, Evidence, Evidence;
- No Mandatory Warrantless Access to Subscriber Information;
- Reporting Warrantless Disclosure of Subscriber Information;
- Remove the Disclosure Gag Order;
- "Voluntary" Warrantless Data Preservation and Production;
- Government Installation of Surveillance Equipment;
- Reconsider the Internet Provider Regulatory Framework;
- Improve Lawful Access Oversight;
- Limit the Law to Serious Crimes;
- Come Clean on Costs;
- The Missing Regulations;
- Deal with the Failure of Privacy Laws to Keep Pace."
OpenMedia is an independent, non-partisan organization representing more than 40 advocacy and other groups, plus many individual Canadians countering the government with a petition that, to date, has accumulated over 115,000 signatures. It has also championed a public education Stop Online Spying campaign since last May.
"The government is on the defence," Gogolek wrote.
"Fresh from being outed on CBC radio as unfamiliar with his own bill, asked to resign in the National Post, and generally berated via social media, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has been emailing those who signed the Stop Online Spying petition with the same washed up talking points that have been debunked again and again. We’ve decided to go point-by-point through his misleading ‘myth-busting’, and make sure it’s clear how ridiculous this bill — not to mention the force attempting to pass it — truly is."
Gogolek then advised that "If you're upset by Toews' unwillingness to listen to Canadians, consider submitting a letter to your local paper. We have a tool for this here."
Additionally, results of a public-opinion poll released Friday by Angus Reid, suggests half of Canadians surveyed believe the bill is too intrusive, while about the same amount believe C-30 should be scrapped.
The survey concludes Canadians reject components of Bill C-30, and reveals concern over the proposed legislation crosses party lines. Nearly half of Conservatives and the majority of New Democrats and Liberals oppose the bill's passage in its current form. It does not state if Green Party supporters were represented in the survey.
"The idea of surrendering subscriber data and identifiers without a warrant is rejected by almost two thirds of Canadians," Angus Reid declared in its analysis.
It went further, noting, "The most unpopular measure included in Bill C-30 is requiring telecommunications providers to disclose, without a warrant, six types of identifiers from subscriber data (Name, Address, Telephone number, Email address, IP address and Local service provider identifier). Almost two thirds of Canadians (64%) disagree with this idea."
The online survey of 1,011 randomly selected Canadian adults, which took place Thursday and Friday, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Bill C-30 a slippery slope and the demise of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms
February 18, 2012
Open Letter
To: Dave Wilks, MP Kootenay/Columbia
From: Bobbie Saga
This letter is to state my unequivocal opposition to the egregious lawful access legislation, now known as Bill C-30 or Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act, tabled in Parliament February 14.
First, I wish to point out that a recent United Nations report on the subject of lawful access is highly critical of such forms of legislation that, in short, invites abuse of power and chills free speech. Essentially, the UN denounced legislation passed since 9/11 in other jurisdictions, taking issue with "criminalization of personal data;" that is, the use of innocent sources of mundane personal information as databases for crime control. It specifically took issue with the excuse currently being touted by law enforcement agencies and governments as being required for the protection of children, as well as it being used as a guise for combating terrorism. The report is a condemnation of unconstitutional measures that are not only unjustified, but are also often abused, such as the UK model, and/or used to further the goals of authoritarian regimes like China. It makes for rather interesting reading.
With all due respect, it is well documented that in Canada law enforcement agencies already have significant powers of investigation. Thus, it would be prudent for them to actually substantiate a legitimate case for spying on all Canadians without warrants because to date, they have not done so. Plus, neither law enforcement agencies nor the federal government have given the public any indication of how they might safeguard law-abiding Canadians from abuse that is sure to occur with such sweeping new powers. Alone, the UK model highlights the dangers inherent with this type of legislation. Like the UK model, the current tabled legislation does include a review mechanism, but up-front procedures and harsh penalties for violations by authorities do not exist in C-30. Individuals having colour of right can use any justification, including mistakes, to defend what may in fact be abuse. Thus, an unfunded, after-the-fact audit by the privacy commissioner’s office is hardly comforting in the face of legislation that essentially trumps significant privacy rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, it is a slippery slope upon which other Charter rights could be eroded, such as freedom of association.
As well, I hold disdain for any government representative who would be so arrogant as to attempt to spin the facts concerning this legislation, or engages in disingenuous doublespeak, or makes statements that are the opposite of the truth.
In September, and following much criticism to the then pending legislation, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated on record the government had no plans to allow interception of private communications without a warrant. Then on Monday, Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia alleged during question period the government is "preparing to read Canadians' emails and track their movements through cellphone signals, in both cases without a warrant." Toews responded by stating, again on record, that Scarpaleggia "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."
The wording of the tabled legislation is clear enough to read and proves Toews misled Canadians back in September. Now, however, there is a blatant attempt by Toews and others to spin a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. Canadians can read, and many can interpret legislation right down to the legal difference between the words may and shall.
As such, I am outraged by Straw Man Toews going over the top by utilizing an utterly transparent tactic. His response to the opposition critic merely sets up a false dichotomy of the worst form. Toews words from September may now ring hollow, at best. But his response to Scarpaleggia is nothing short of reprehensible. Canadians might disagree with this legislation for legitimate reasons other than being aligned with child pornographers. It’s insulting.
Additionally, today’s news of Toews claiming he did not read C-30 is, to say the least, the most disturbing display of backpedaling I have ever witnessed. Give me a break! Here, is Toews telling the truth, or are Canadians witnessing a government in serious damage control with Toews coming forward as the sacrificial lamb? Or is he being thrown under the bus in the face of heavy opposition to a complete and utter fiasco that is growing by the day? Please state on record which member(s) of the Conservative caucus is/are responsible for this legislation. And please state on record which members of the Conservative caucus read and/or understood every word of the legislation prior to it being tabled.
Moreover, I love the title change of this dangerous piece of legislation –– whereby the only reference to children is in the title. I take extreme exception to a bill granting sweeping new powers to both the government and law enforcement that is NOT limited to the investigation of criminal offences, or for that matter, any offence whatsoever. What hypocrisy from a government that nixed both the long-form census and the gun registry under the guise of standing up for the rights of Canadians! This legislation is no more about child pornography than I am about staying silent. Indeed, the whole "going after the molesters" rhetoric is nothing but emotional drivel and fear mongering to allow monitoring of the general population without appropriate legal oversight. It is about invading the privacy and violating the privacy rights of every Canadian.
Neither governments nor law enforcement agencies are above the law. And in Canada, the law of this land is embedded in our constitution. Shame on the Conservatives.
Open Letter
To: Dave Wilks, MP Kootenay/Columbia
From: Bobbie Saga
This letter is to state my unequivocal opposition to the egregious lawful access legislation, now known as Bill C-30 or Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act, tabled in Parliament February 14.
First, I wish to point out that a recent United Nations report on the subject of lawful access is highly critical of such forms of legislation that, in short, invites abuse of power and chills free speech. Essentially, the UN denounced legislation passed since 9/11 in other jurisdictions, taking issue with "criminalization of personal data;" that is, the use of innocent sources of mundane personal information as databases for crime control. It specifically took issue with the excuse currently being touted by law enforcement agencies and governments as being required for the protection of children, as well as it being used as a guise for combating terrorism. The report is a condemnation of unconstitutional measures that are not only unjustified, but are also often abused, such as the UK model, and/or used to further the goals of authoritarian regimes like China. It makes for rather interesting reading.
With all due respect, it is well documented that in Canada law enforcement agencies already have significant powers of investigation. Thus, it would be prudent for them to actually substantiate a legitimate case for spying on all Canadians without warrants because to date, they have not done so. Plus, neither law enforcement agencies nor the federal government have given the public any indication of how they might safeguard law-abiding Canadians from abuse that is sure to occur with such sweeping new powers. Alone, the UK model highlights the dangers inherent with this type of legislation. Like the UK model, the current tabled legislation does include a review mechanism, but up-front procedures and harsh penalties for violations by authorities do not exist in C-30. Individuals having colour of right can use any justification, including mistakes, to defend what may in fact be abuse. Thus, an unfunded, after-the-fact audit by the privacy commissioner’s office is hardly comforting in the face of legislation that essentially trumps significant privacy rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At best, it is a slippery slope upon which other Charter rights could be eroded, such as freedom of association.
As well, I hold disdain for any government representative who would be so arrogant as to attempt to spin the facts concerning this legislation, or engages in disingenuous doublespeak, or makes statements that are the opposite of the truth.
In September, and following much criticism to the then pending legislation, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated on record the government had no plans to allow interception of private communications without a warrant. Then on Monday, Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia alleged during question period the government is "preparing to read Canadians' emails and track their movements through cellphone signals, in both cases without a warrant." Toews responded by stating, again on record, that Scarpaleggia "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."
The wording of the tabled legislation is clear enough to read and proves Toews misled Canadians back in September. Now, however, there is a blatant attempt by Toews and others to spin a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. Canadians can read, and many can interpret legislation right down to the legal difference between the words may and shall.
As such, I am outraged by Straw Man Toews going over the top by utilizing an utterly transparent tactic. His response to the opposition critic merely sets up a false dichotomy of the worst form. Toews words from September may now ring hollow, at best. But his response to Scarpaleggia is nothing short of reprehensible. Canadians might disagree with this legislation for legitimate reasons other than being aligned with child pornographers. It’s insulting.
Additionally, today’s news of Toews claiming he did not read C-30 is, to say the least, the most disturbing display of backpedaling I have ever witnessed. Give me a break! Here, is Toews telling the truth, or are Canadians witnessing a government in serious damage control with Toews coming forward as the sacrificial lamb? Or is he being thrown under the bus in the face of heavy opposition to a complete and utter fiasco that is growing by the day? Please state on record which member(s) of the Conservative caucus is/are responsible for this legislation. And please state on record which members of the Conservative caucus read and/or understood every word of the legislation prior to it being tabled.
Moreover, I love the title change of this dangerous piece of legislation –– whereby the only reference to children is in the title. I take extreme exception to a bill granting sweeping new powers to both the government and law enforcement that is NOT limited to the investigation of criminal offences, or for that matter, any offence whatsoever. What hypocrisy from a government that nixed both the long-form census and the gun registry under the guise of standing up for the rights of Canadians! This legislation is no more about child pornography than I am about staying silent. Indeed, the whole "going after the molesters" rhetoric is nothing but emotional drivel and fear mongering to allow monitoring of the general population without appropriate legal oversight. It is about invading the privacy and violating the privacy rights of every Canadian.
Neither governments nor law enforcement agencies are above the law. And in Canada, the law of this land is embedded in our constitution. Shame on the Conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)