Friday, 30 September, 2011
Even the Wildrose Alliance will fail you in the end
Time was, the Wildrose Alliance in Alberta represented the kind of fresh-faced idealistic conservatism that would take on any issue and hold any party's feet to the fire.
Now, as Kevin Libin points out for the National Post, they're just the same old brand as every other "conservative" party to take up the mantle:
Then again, the fact that the Don Hartman North East Sportsplex sits amidst one of Calgary’s densest concentrations of new and first generation Asian Canadians must have been part of the consideration as well. That, communication strategists likely concluded, would make a fine backdrop for Ms. Smith to reaffirm her commitment to protecting the enforcement of Alberta’s Human Rights Act—including its provisions on so-called hate speech—albeit with some new ideas about how to go about doing that.
Her insistence that the Wildrose party would “ban speech that advocates acts of violence or promotes hatred of any individual or group” represented a significant break with a resolution voted on by her party just last year. An overwhelming majority of members at Wildrose’s annual meeting vowed to “amend the Alberta Human Rights Act to unequivocally protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press” after witnessing too many cases of politically incorrect journalists and preachers getting snagged in the act’s broad net, and legally steamrolled by an unchecked Human Rights Commission (HRC) determined to snuff out the phenomenon of hurt feelings. But Ms. Smith is just the latest in a pageant of politicians that have pushed back against their parties in getting tough on HRCs. When even the most avowed conservative party leader looks at the prospect of stripping down human rights rules to categorically protect all kinds of speech, even the unpleasant sort, they all, it seems, ultimately get an irresistible chill in their feet.
Sigh...
Friday links
A few things.
1) The latest in the war on drugs.
2) The Insite ruling is in, and Insite has won.
3) Robyn Smith in The Tyee on BC's woeful Freedom of Information process.
4) Meanwhile, the latest in BC's RCMP contract "negotiations."
5) The incredible story of Marty Tankleff.
6) Tate Watkins at Reason's Hit & Run on the dangers of social media reporting in Mexico.
8) Jacob Sullum in the New York Daily News on the NYPD's downright illegal pot policies.
9) The National Post editorial board on Brad Storseth's private member's bill to abolish Section 13. H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.
Wednesday, 28 September, 2011
Tory MP Brian Storseth wants to kill Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act once and for all.
Remember Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act? It's the part of the Human Rights Act which empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate "hate speech" complaints and bring them forward to a body called the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which in turn is empowered to fine defendants and deter them from saying or writing things that the Tribunal deems too indicative of "detestation, calumny and vilification."
There's been a long, hard campaign against Section 13(1) for years, not only by bloggers and newspapers, but also by a variety of - mainly conservative - activists and politicians. Former Liberal MP Keith Martin was an exception to this rule - he put forward a Private Member's Motion which would have repealed Section 13(1) altogether. His motion went nowhere, unfortunately, but Section 13(1) at this point is pretty much unenforceable because of legal hold-ups.
At any rate, the repeal of Section 13 could be back on parliament's agenda very soon thanks to Tory MP Brian Storseth. Charles Lewis reports for the National Post:
A Tory MP plans to introduce legislation as early as Friday calling for the repeal of a section in the federal human rights code banning hate speech over the Internet.Despite being a backbencher, Brian Storseth is convinced the bill will succeed because nearly every Tory MP opposes Section 13, and he believes the Harper government wants to see it repealed.
“Section 13 suppresses the basic right to freedom of speech in our society that is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights & Freedoms,” said Mr. Storseth, who represents the Alberta riding of Westlock-St. Paul.
H/t to Blazing Cat Fur. Joseph Brean gives us a little more background about what's going on.
This is great news for those of us who have hated Section 13 for years, and I sincerely hope that Brian Storseth gets this repeal passed once and for all. Indeed, if the Tories want to use their majority to ram this thing through parliament, I, for once, will not object.
In the meantime, Rick Dykstra seems down with reform.
Why the BC RCMP might be a thing of the past
Andrew Macleod reports for The Hook:
An ultimatum from the federal government may spell the end of the RCMP, said British Columbia's Solicitor General Shirley Bond."I'd be enormously disappointed as a Canadian to see the end of a national police force in Canada," Bond told an audience at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention where she was to give an update on RCMP contract negotiations. "I don't know what their endgame is."
The federal government has told the province to sign a 20-year contract by the end of November or it will begin pulling services in 2014, she said.
Talks have stalled since March, said Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender, who is on the provincial negotiating team.
"We have a rising degree of frustration even about not being able to talk about these issues that matter, said Bond. "I don't want this to get acrimonious . .. We've got to get them back to the table to discuss this."
Bond told reporters her ministry received a letter in July from the federal minister of public safety, Vic Toews, saying that if B.C. doesn't sign the federal proposal, they will begin withdrawing services in 2014.
A provincial police force for British Columbia isn't a new idea, but I have my doubts that it's likely to happen. For its part, the federal government maintains that it's ready to talk:
"Our government is willing to renew contract policing agreements with the provinces," said Julie Carmichael, a spokesperson in public safety minister Vic Toews office, in an email.
"However, it is up to provinces to decide whether or not to come on board. The same fundamental terms and conditions will apply to all provinces," she said.
The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which is meeting now, has also been considering the issue.
Wednesday links
A few things.
2) BC RCMP put on their rose-colored glasses.
4) Judicial activism in the United States: doesn't happen.
5) BC's Freedom of Information process sucks more than any other province's in Canada.
6) Radley Balko in the Huffington Post on why Americans still support the death penalty.
7) Lillian Marx at Cracked on five common crime fighting techniques that don't work.
8) The DEA raid that wasn't.
Tuesday, 27 September, 2011
Why fiscal conservatives shouldn't be happy with Stephen Harper
As the Conservatives move to invoke closure on the debate over their recently-tabled omnibus crime legislation, one of their previous tough-on-crime efforts has massively increased the Canadian Correctional Service's budget:
The 2010 Truth in Sentencing Act – which ended two-for-one sentencing practices in which judges give a convicted individual two days credit for each day spent in awaiting trial – has led to more inmates and increased costs, the agency responsible for federal prisons acknowledges.“As a result of legislative changes, the number of inmates in [Correctional Service of Canada’s] custody has grown and is expected to significantly increase over the next few years,” the CSC states in a recently released report that was highlighted Tuesday by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
The Correctional Service of Canada’s $3-billion budget for the current fiscal year is $514.2-million higher than the year before, an increase of more than 20 per cent. The main reason is $458-million in new spending tied to the Truth in Sentencing Act. Should that figure hold over five years, the cumulative cost would be $2.3-billion.
That is $300-million higher than the estimate put forward by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews on April 28, 2010, that the legislation would cost taxpayers about $2-billion over five years.
But it is significantly lower than an estimate by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who put the figure at $1-billion a year.
Mr. Page is currently working on an estimate of the government’s latest crime bill.
Another Conservative crime bill, the 2008 Tackling Violent Crime Act, is responsible for a further $19.6-million in Corrections spending.
Libertarian conservatives should be concerned with the Tories' tough-on-crime focus, but they aren't the only ones who should be alarmed. Indeed, fiscal conservatives can't be too happy at the prospect of blowing billions on expanded prison requirements for the sake of Tory rhetoric either. Nor should they be.
An update on Bill C-51: why we shouldn't relax just yet
Michael Geist re-iterates his case in The Tyee for why we shouldn't get too relaxed over the government's recent roll-back on Bill C-51:
Moreover, the recent focus on warrantless online wiretapping may have galvanized public opinion, but it misstates the real concerns with the lawful access plans. Advocates rail against warrantless online wiretapping, which Toews effortlessly swats away by assuring everyone that the government has no plans to introduce such measures.If the prior lawful access bills are any indication, Toews is right. Lawful access won't include warrantless online wiretapping, at least not in the conventional sense. But to give the government a pass on those grounds is to overlook the real dangers that will be in the bill. If the Conservatives move forward with their complete lawful access package, it would feature a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.
The failure of crony capitalism
Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie talks with Barron's columnist Gene Epstein about crony capitalism:
When one media group gets to comment on another media group at the request of parliament
Sun News gets to talk about why it doesn't like the CBC in front of parliament. Hunh:
Tory MPs on the Commons access to information, privacy and ethics committee successfully pushed for a study of the use of taxpayers' funds in the CBC's court battle with the information commissioner. The Crown Corporation is fighting to keep records involving its creative, journalistic and programming activities completely exempt from the Access to Information Act.Some of the witnesses requested by the Tories include Sun Television/Sun Media pundits Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley, and the president of their parent company Quebecor, Pierre Karl Peladeau. Quebecor's television networks compete directly with the CBC for viewers in Quebec.
Quebecor spokesman Luc Lavoie said Tuesday said Peladeau would attend, but that it wasn't appropriate for journalists to appear before a committee to explain their motives and methods. Peladeau has argued for a review of the CBC's funding and role. He has also been critical of its approach to access to information.
Gee, I'd love to go in front of parliament to talk about people I don't like who compete for my financial security.
Alas, no such luck.
Tuesday links
A few things.
1) CSIS worked with the Libyan government to interrogate a Canadian citizen.
2) Glenn Greenwald with your counter-intuitive point of the day.
3) The war on cameras continues.
4) The FBI is investigating the conduct of L.A. prison deputies.
5) Katherine Mangu-Ward at Reason's Hit & Run on why it's important to be skeptical of government health regulations.
6) Your idiot idea of the day.
7) Apparently the NYPD is prepared for aerial assaults.
8) The Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann debating a former head of the DEA.
10) The drug-fueled violence continues in Mexico.
11) Michael Coren and Ezra Levant talk about this stupid thing.
Monday, 26 September, 2011
Execution of justice: Troy Davis and Lawrence Russell Williams..
Update: Boy do I feel stupid. The white supremacist who was killed in Texas was named Lawrence Russell Brewer, not James Byrd. James Byrd was the black man that Brewer killed: something I acknowledge in this post without realizing my mistake in conflating the two men. My apologies. Reading comprehension fail on my part - blame it the time constraints.
In the meantime, read this piece by Stanley Crouch in the New York Daily News.
***
My post was written just a couple of days before Davis' clemency plea was denied and, after a last minute stay of execution was denied as well, Davis was executed by lethal injection the next day.
Troy Davis wasn't the only person to be killed by the state that night. In Texas, white supremacist James Byrd Lawrence Russell Brewer, who was convicted thirteen years ago for the dragging ( as in, behind a vehicle ) death of James Byrd ( who was black ), was also executed by lethal injection just hours before Davis' death. Byrd Brewer was unrepentant for his crimes, and there was no dispute that he was the one who committed them.
A few days before Davis' death, Erik Kain offered up these thoughts:
In the end, I am not concerned so much with whether or not Davis is guilty or innocent. I am concerned with the uncertainty of his guilt. “I’m not for blood. I’m for justice,” said the mother of the slain police officer. But we extract one or the other, not both. In a case where the blood may be that of an innocent, how can we call it justice?Death is tragic. The death of Mark MacPhail is a tragedy that will never be undone. Not by blood, not by prison bars, not by time, not by proof that Davis is guilty or proof that he is innocent. But if we have even a glimmer of doubt about his guilt, there will be no justice in his death. If we have even a hint of uncertainty over whether this man did the deeds he was accused of, but which most of his accusers have since recanted, we should stay his execution.
Meanwhile, Chris at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, in the wake of Davis' and Byrd's Brewer's respective executions, had this to say:
I oppose the death penalty in all cases, so for me, despite the differences in the cases, the executions of both of these men were morally unacceptable. However, even if you are a proponent of the death penalty, I cannot understand why you would not be outraged at the execution of the man who was convicted on eye witness testimony alone, much of which has since been recanted, without a shred of physical evidence, and clear evidence of police misconduct, even if you are not outraged at the execution of the white supremacist scumbag in Texas. Perhaps the Georgia and Federal courts followed the letter of the law in reviewing Davis’ case and denying him clemency, but even that is no reason not to be outraged. A man who had simply not been proven guilty by any standard other than those of a state that uses trials merely to give the appearance of fairness to pre-determined sentences should not be executed, even if you think the death penalty is a legitimate exercise of state power.
These opinions pretty much sum up my own on the Troy Davis case and the use of the death penalty. But I did find this piece by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review very interesting. While supportive of the death penalty, he points out that the use of the "uncertainty" argument by death penalty opponents ultimately misses the point:
When I say that, many death-penalty opponents angrily respond that I’m missing the point. You can never be certain! Troy Davis proves that!
But he proves no such thing. At best, his case proves that you can’t be certain about Davis. You most certainly can be certain about other murderers. If the horrible happens and we learn that Davis really was not guilty, that will be a heart-wrenching revelation. It will cast a negative light on the death penalty, on the Georgia criminal-justice system, and on America.
But you know what it won’t do? It won’t render Lawrence Russell Brewer one iota less guilty or less deserving of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment are extremely selective about the cases they make into public crusades. Strategically, that’s smart; you don’t want to lead your argument with “unsympathetic persons.” But logically, it’s problematic. There is no transitive property that renders one heinous murderer less deserving of punishment simply because some other person was exonerated of murder.
I believe that Troy Davis' death was unnecessary. But that has nothing to do with whether or not he was guilty - or innocent. In Texas and Georgia, the government has the power to kill its own citizens. When the state executes a citizen, the death is labeled a "homicide" for good reason: it's sanctioned murder. Troy Davis or James Byrd Lawrence Russell Brewer, it was wrong. And it should stop.
Monday links
A few things.
1) A double-dip ahead?
2) I'm sure his parents are proud.
3) Politics at its best.
4) Obama has a bad day.
5) A Virginia man named Thomas Haynesworth, jailed in the '80's on multiple rape charges, has been exonerated by DNA evidence. Good.
6) Radley Balko on life vs. death.
7) Pit bull wreaks havoc in a barber shop.
8) The drug-fueled violence in Mexico continues. Meanwhile, cartels are now extorting teachers.
9) Jacob Sullum on the increased cost of pleading not guilty.
10) Erik Kain on the potential for a Eurozone market collapse.
11) The Economist on false confessions.
Sunday, 25 September, 2011
ACORN in Canada
Occasional correspondent Andrew Phillips has written a very interesting piece on his site about the potential role that the American organization ACORN is playing in domestic politics:
On September 11, 2009 Seth Richardson wrote in the Colorado Springs Gazette that if you wanted a child prostitute you should call Wade Rathke and ACORN. FOX News on September 14, 2009 ran an article detailing the same efforts in Brooklyn, New York you can also watch the video here at CNN Politics . By October 5, 2009 Vicki McClure Davidson writing at the Frugal Café Blog Zone would report that a warrant would be issued against Wade Rathke for embezzling upwards of 5 million dollars from the Louisiana Chapter. However Mark Hemingway writing at over at the Washington Examiner points out that the Obama Justice Department shutdown an FBI investigation in ACORN where it appears there was a great deal of evidence showing corruption that was national in scope. A situation that still is ongoing asJudicial Watch points out in April of this year .
A little while ago I came across this page for Mr. Wade Rathke the organizer responsible for the creation of ACORN. In it you can see that he was working in October 2010 with the BCGEU (British Columbia Government & Service Employees' Union) in his words, "strategizing with me on Friday morning about living wage campaigns in their cities and raising the minimum wage" in British Columbia. Here in Ottawa another public sector union NUPGE (National Union of Public and General Employees) and its largest Component, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU/NUPGE) and ACORN also were engaged in attempts raise the minimum wage. What also must be viewed in a dim light can be read here and ACORN's endorsement of the CLC (Canadian Labor Congress) proposals. That it mentions it has had dealings with theprovincial NDP is also cause for concern. Along with meeting with senior members of the Ontario Provincial government.
ACORN has now set down roots in several other countries Canada as I have shown being one of them even as it supposedly shuttered it operations in the Untied States. As to ACORN it is alive and well in the United States and is already working at getting Obama re-elected in 2012 considering how the Obama Department of Justice stopped the FBI investigation in its activities this should be cause for alarm to everyone in the United States. Recently ACORN cam back into the news in the United States by having setup shop again and is actively pursuing the re-election of Barack Obama for President in 2012. Worse his supposed "Jobs" Bill as Matthew Vadim points out at Canada Free Press could make it eligible for 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money.
In both Ontario and British Columbia the minimum wage was raised and anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that this is a job killer. With our youth unemployment double the nation average 15.1% as opposed to 7.3% ACORN has effectively, using public sector unions, and in Ontario at least two political parties the Liberals and the NDP it has made it harder for anyone not a public sector worker to find a job. While at the same time ensuring the continued growth of the public sector to "help" the unemployed. Government raises the minimum wage and then walks away and washes its hands of the devastating economic consequences of its actions to both employers and those seeking employment. Suffering no repercussions from it's interference in the free market of people selling their service - their labour - to a prospective employer. What makes it even more vile is this statement from B.C. Federation of Labour President Jim Sinclair back in 2007 that the salaries for MLA's should be tied to the minimum wage. Thus assuring you that your taxes will keep going up - at least in BC - and your kid can't find a job. It would also be interesting to know if this is also happening here in Ontario. One last thing to consider is are public sector union wages tied to any increase in the minimum wage in Canada? What makes the OPSEU connection above so odious is the McGuinty government cut a secret deal to give them wage increase after the Oct 6, 2011 election. So they get a pay hike while your kid , and quite possibly you, can't find a job as more money is sucked out of the private sector to fed the bloated public sector.
Certainly an investigation should be called into its activities and any relationship it might have forged with public sector unions in Canada and any political parties. If the unions did not act with due diligence in finding out its activities in the US they are merely being used by ACORN. However if they did know they are now in collusion with an organization that has being involved in prostitution in the United States, vote rigging, illegal voter registration, and who knows what else. Ultimately there is every good reason to be worried about it engaging in the same activities here as well. People will generally laugh at conspiracy theory types with good reason. However I point out that the murder of Caesar was a conspiracy as was the murder of Abraham Lincoln; both well known and documented. What we have here maybe not be a conspiracy but it certainly smacks of collusion and the word cahoots comes to mind as well.
Some readers might dispute the minimum wage issue, and that's certainly fair enough. But the idea that an organization like ACORN might be playing a role in our political actions is certainly something worth thinking about.
Today's easy listening
Today, instead of music, I present you with Louis CK badgering Donald Rumsfeld over whether or not he's a baby-eating lizard on the Opie and Anthony Show.
The Rumsfeld interview is about an hour in, but the whole show is pretty entertaining. I believe the show aired this February.
Sunday links
A few things.
1) John Lanchester and Ted R. Bromund on the Greek financial crisis.
2) Ron Perlman and Louis CK on the Opie and Anthony Show. Yes.
3) Mark Steyn on the slipperiest -ism.
4) More drug-fueled violence in Mexico.
5) Roger Kimball in The New Criterion on the life and work of G.K. Chesterton.
6) Erik Kain at The League on pragmatic problems with libertarian/anarchist theory.
7) KOMO News in Seattle is suing the Seattle Police Department for dash-cam video footage which the PD refuses to hand over.
8) Retiring Justice Ian Binnie provides an insider look into the workings of the Canadian Supreme Court.
Saturday, 24 September, 2011
Lecture of the day
Today it's Noam Chomsky ( yes, him again ) with Global Hegemony: the Facts, the Images, given at the University of Oregon campus this April:
H/t to Smyke.
An update on Bill C-51
Bill C-51's lawful access legislation has been considerably delayed, but, as Michael Geist points out, it isn't dead:
Lawful access, the government's planned legislation on Internet surveillance, has generated considerable attention over the past few days as the government decided against including it in its first omnibus crime bill. That decision generated media coverage, claims that the government backed down in the face of a 70,000 signature online petition, and a debate in the House of Commons in which Public Safety Minister Vic Toews stated that warrantless online wiretapping is not planned. While I recognize these developments feel like a cause for celebration, I fear there is a major problem developing as too much of this discussion doesn't actually involve the real lawful access.
First, the omission of lawful access from Bill C-10 does not mean lawful access is dead or defeated. It is only delayed as Justice officials have indicated that the government is "committed to reintroducing" the lawful access measures. In fact, yesterday Toews confirmed again "the legislation will come." The exclusion from the omnibus crime bill is definitely a step in the right direction - it should allow for the committee hearings that have never happened despite several attempts to pass lawful access - but lawful access will still be introduced and presumably passed at some point in the future.
H/t to drummer at Free Dominion.
Tories' mandatory minimum pot laws will overwhelm BC's prisons
According to this CBC report, Dean Purdy, the BCGSEU spokesman for the province's prison guards, is warning that the mandatory minimum pot laws included in the Tories' new omnibus legislation will overwhelm BC's prisons:
Dean Purdy, the B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union spokesperson for the province's prison guards, says B.C. jails are already 150 to 200 per cent over capacity, forcing some inmates to be bunked in tents.Purdy says any new crackdown on bud growers will make a bad situation far worse for the provincial government, which will be responsible for the cost of housing any additional inmates sentenced to less than two years."The provinces are on their own hook for increased costs. So overcrowding is going to be a continued problem based on the Harper government's tough on crime legislation," said Purdy.
This is a very bad idea.
Saturday links
A few things.
1) Peter Mackay's lobster festival problem.
2) The NYC police commissioner has told his officers to stop entrapping people to boost their arrest numbers. Hard to believe it took this long for it to happen.
3) Joseph Menn in the Financial Times on the history and power of Anonymous. H/t to Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing.
4) Fruity cocktails have been legalized in California.
Friday, 23 September, 2011
An update on Bill C-51
Bill C-51, which would have given police and Internet Service Providers much greater powers to monitor and share Internet users' personal information, and which seemed set to be included in the government's omnibus crime legislation, is apparently no more.
OpenMedia explains:
Under the intense pressure of a 70,000+ signature petition, the government has omitted “Lawful Access” (Online Spying) bills from the larger omnibus crime legislation announced today.
Here's the backgrounder for the Tories' Safe Streets and Communities Act. I will admit to not having read the Act itself, but on the face of it this is good news, even though OpenMedia's declaration of victory over lawful access legislation might be a bit premature, as Grace Scott reports at The Hook:
The Internet surveillance bill could still go before Parliament, but now as a separate entity from the omnibus bill -- which will be passed in the next 100 days. A spokesperson from the Department of Justice Canada responded by email to questions about future plans for the Lawful Access legislation, saying, "Our Government is committed to reintroducing these measures and further details will be announced in due course." No response was given as to why the Lawful Access legislation had been omitted from the crime act.
I'll take a temporary reprieve over nothing. Score one for the good guys, I guess.
Other bits of insanity in the Tories' omnibus crime bill, unfortunately, still remain.
An update on Kelly Thomas and the Fullerton Six
A few updates in the Kelly Thomas beating story.
Two officers have been charged in connection with Kelly Thomas' death. Officer Manuel Ramos has been charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, while officer Jay Cicinelli has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.
Also, four other officers involved in the beating will remain on paid leave pending an internal probe and FBI civil rights investigation.
Meanwhile, here's Reason.tv with Cops Vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas & the Power of New Media:
The Conservatives' tough on crime bill: when growing pot is a worse offense than molesting a child
Ethan Baron notes a small piece of insanity in the Tories' proposed omnibus crime legislation:
Under the Tories' omnibus crime legislation tabled Tuesday, a person growing 201 pot plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.
Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1 1/2 years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
H/t to Jacob Sullum, who adds:
Canada still has a long way to go before it equals the absurdly harsh drug sentences we enjoy here in the U.S. The new mandatory minimum penalties include six months for growing six to 200 marijuana plants and one year for more than 200; the maximum penalty for cultivation of any amount is 14 years. Under U.S. law, by contrast, growing fewer than 50 plants can get you up to five years, while 50-99 plants can get you 10; 100 plants will get you a five-year mandatory minimum (10 times the Canadian penalty) with a maximum of 40 years, and 1,000 or more will get you a 10-year mandatory minimum with a maximum of life. Canadians are such pussies.
Friday links
A few things.
1) If you owned a business that got smashed up during the G20 riots, well, you're hooped.
2) A fine day for the University of Lethbridge.
3) John Lanchester in the London Review of Books on why Belgium's economy is doing so damn well.
4) The latest from Binks.
5) Rob Silver in the Globe and Mail online on how the Liberal Party of Canada could approach the war on drugs. H/t Aaron Wherry.
8) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on how not defaming somebody is no defense from a defamation lawsuit.
10) The latest in the war on drugs.
11) Peter Mackay goes fishing.
Tuesday, 20 September, 2011
Tuesday links
A few things.
1) Greek suicides are up because of the financial crisis.
2) Jacob Sullum and Radley Balko on the war on cameras.
3) The Harper Administration is paying a firm $90,000 a day to identify wasteful government spending.
4) Nick Gillespie talking with Penn Jillette.
5) The latest in the ATF's Fast and Furious scandal.
6) Radley Balko on fraud and internet poker.
7) Felipe Calderon and "market alternatives."
Monday, 19 September, 2011
Lecture of the day
Continuing my socialist streak, here's Noam Chomsky explaining Anarchism. Part one:
H/t to Smyke.
Monday links
A few things.
1) Noam Chomsky on the difference between US libertarians and libertarians everwhere else.
2) Test your free speech commitments.
3) Daniel Hannan reviews Mark Steyn's After America.
5) Jacob Sullum on the IRS squeeze on medical marijuana suppliers and federalism as applied to US drug laws.
6) Another casualty in the war on canines.
8) If my calculations are correct, this works out to around $158,000 per direct job.
Review: "Nineteenth Street NW," by Rex Ghosh. "A tale of terror in the financial markets."
Nineteenth Street NW, by Rex Ghosh ( website here ), is a self-described "tale of terror in the financial markets" following the involvement of two women, Sophia Gemaye and Celine O'Rourke, in the near collapse of the world financial market.Gemaye, who comes from an un-named third world country ruled by a brutal regime, has thrown in her lot with a group of freedom fighters ( or terrorists, depending on your definition ) railing bitterly against what they see as a worldwide collusion with their country's dictatorship due to its large amount of mineral resources. She has doubts, though, about the IRA-style violent tactics espoused by others fighting for "the cause," and devises a plan to throw the world financial markets into turmoil - sending a message about turning a blind eye to mineral-rich dictators by damaging the world's flow of money.
Celine O'Rourke, who works for a fictional organization called the International Monetary and Financial Organization, or IMFO ( basically the FBI meets the IMF or the World Bank ), has become somewhat jaded due to her involvement in Indonesia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis and because of the back-stabbing nature of IMFO politics. When Sophia Gemaye infiltrates the IMFO in order to gain vital information for her efforts - attacking emerging market currencies through a massive offshore hedge-fund account - O'Rourke becomes suspicious, and the two of them end up getting dragged into a rapidly-devolving mess of murder and economic chaos.
I liked this book. Over-all I would say there are a few flaws with Nineteenth Street NW - the prose could be a little tighter in some places, for instance - but few that can't be explained by author Rex Ghosh's newcomer status as an author. By far the most annoying habit that I detected was Ghosh's habit of pointing out male mannerisms or habits as seen through the eyes of his female protagonists, but again, this isn't anything too major.
The point of the book itself, namely the fragile state of our economy and the relative ease with which national currencies and economies can be thrown into disorder, is well taken and well made - particularly in the wake of the 2008-09 financial crisis.
My recommendation would be to read this book. There are a few flaws, but the larger point and story of the novel is well worth checking out.
Sunday, 18 September, 2011
Lecture of the day
Continuing my socialist streak, here's Noam Chomsky discussing Leninism:
Part two here. H/t to Smyke.
Sunday links
A few things.
1) An old friend from Queen's University enjoys some writing about Western.
2) A small step toward more openness and transparency in Illinois.
3) You gotta watch those Russian billionaires. Never know what they'll do.
4) Erik Kain at Forbes.com on "The Conscience of an Anarchist," by Gary Chartier.
5) The German Pirate Party enters the German legislature.
A history of violence
Two cops with a history of violence.
First we have this guy, who was also involved in the shooting of David "Deacon" Turner in Kern County, California.
Then we have this guy, who was involved in the beating death of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, California.
An update on Bill C-51
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tries gamely to explain the intricacies of Bill C-51 to a concerned correspondent: This is somewhat re-assuring, but, as we've explored before, the possibility that hyperlinks might be criminalized is far less of an emergency than the fact that Internet Service Providers and the police will have far more wide-ranging powers to monitor our activity online. This should not be encouraged by any means, and it seems to be something that the federal NDP have picked up on ( also, Elizabeth May ) to their credit.
Clause 5 proposed to update this definition to state that communicating means communicating by any means and includes making available. While it is true that providing a hyperlink would fall under this definition in certain circumstances—as it would under the current definition of communicating in subsection 319(7)—providing a hyperlink alone is not enough to commit either of these two hate propaganda offences. As the previous paragraph shows, many other elements must be proven before a person can be found guilty. The amendment merely described the manner in which a prohibited statement could have been made. It would not have determined whether a statement was of a prohibited nature, or whether a communicator had the necessary guilty mind to commit the offence. The necessity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a guilty mind for these crimes is an important safeguard that protects freedom of expression. For example, in the case of R. v. Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the crime of “wilfully” promoting hatred against an identifiable group means “intentionally” promoting hatred. This excludes the reckless or negligent promotion of hatred from the scope of this crime. These stringent requirements already exist in the Criminal Code and would not have been changed by the amendments proposed in former Bill C-51.
Saturday, 17 September, 2011
An update on Kelly Thomas and the Fullerton Six
While I'm at it, a quick update in the Kelly Thomas story, courtesy of Mark Cabaniss at Cal Watchdog:
Unfortunately, in public pronouncements about the case, the Orange County DA’s office has sometimes given the impression that the office is on the side of the police, even though the police are the criminal suspects. This is unusual. Usually the DA is on the side of the people, and against the alleged criminals. Usual prosecutorial practice is to charge as many people as possible, with the most serious charges possible, in order to create the most leverage for the DA to get people to plead guilty and settle the case without a trial.
For example, in a case with multiple defendants, the DA might make a deal for one or more defendants to agree to testify against the other defendant(s) in exchange for reduced charges, or even outright immunity. And in every case the DA charges the most serious charges warranted by the facts, so that he can get the defendant to plead guilty to a less serious charge, in exchange for getting rid of the more serious charge. But in this case, the Kelly Thomas case, the DA has set a pattern of pre-emptive surrender, conceding points to the (possible) criminal defense even before any charges are filed, indeed, even before the investigation is complete.
Lecture of the day
At the risk of putting my libertarian bona fides in danger, here's Noam Chomsky with a speech on the class war. Audio only:
H/t to Smyke.
Ezra Levant in Nanaimo, Sept. 23rd
I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Ezra Levant will be speaking at the Vancouver Island Convention Centre in Nanaimo on September 23rd at a BC Conservative Party fundraiser. Details are here. Tickets are $50, or $100 for the full event, which will include a speech by BC Tory leader John Cummins.
Update: Welcome, Blazing Cat Fur readers.
Georgia and the Troy Davis execution
Thanks to Erik Kain at Forbes.com, I ran across this piece by John Rudolph at the Huffington Post on the upcoming execution of Troy Davis in Georgia for a crime that Davis might not have even committed:Erik Kain has more, and pretty much sums up my thoughts on the death penalty issue as well:
Davis, 42, was convicted of murdering Mark MacPhail, an off-duty Savannah police officer shot to death while coming to the aid of a homeless man being assaulted in a parking lot in the early morning of Aug.19, 1989. The murder weapon was never recovered and no physical evidence was found linking Davis to the crime, and he has always maintained that another man at the scene was responsible for the shooting.Since the original trial in 1991, seven of nine prosecution witnesses that linked Davis to the shooting have either recanted or materially altered the stories they told the jury, but Davis' attempts to secure a retrial have been persistently rebuffed by state and federal courts.
In an extraordinary hearing in June 2010 ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court, Davis' attorneys were finally allowed to present evidence of his innocence to a federal judge. In statement after statement, witnesses from the original trial avowed that they had been coerced by police to implicate Davis in the shooting or had lied in order to secure lenience for their own troubles with the law.
Wrongful convictions are terrible in their own right, but the wrongful execution of even one innocent life should be enough to make us second-guess ourselves, our system. If we truly care about human life as a society and if we are concerned with placing too much power in the hands of the state, then the death penalty should be the first on our list of things to abolish.
Exactly.
Meanwhile, Emily Hauser.
Update: Xanthippa points out this Amnesty International page for Troy Davis, where you can make your opinions about his execution known.
Saturday links
I've been somewhat offline for the past couple of days, but I'm back on track now.
A few things.
1) Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on "rogue" traders.
4) Mark Steyn on loose definitions.
5) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on social disorder in Holland and letting grandma do your laundry.
6) London dicks act like, well, dicks.
7) More violence in the Mexican war on drugs.
Tuesday, 13 September, 2011
An update on Mark and Connie Fournier
It seems that the legal troubles of my friends Mark and Connie Fournier have made it to the pages of the Ottawa Citizen, courtesy of Andrew Duffy:
An Ontario Superior Court judge has tossed out a defamation suit launched by an Ottawa blogger, Dr. Dawg, who claimed that an Internet chat room post damaged his reputation by calling him a Taliban supporter.
Justice Peter Annis's decision adds to the emerging body of law that governs the Internet's unruly marketplace of ideas. It gives political bloggers new licence to slug it out online — and even employ the occasional low blow when the debate turns nasty.
"If this decision stands, it makes a Wild West saloon out of the blogosphere: it becomes a place where normal defamation law seems to be suspended," said Ottawa's John Baglow, a.k.a. Dr. Dawg.
The retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada vowed to appeal the decision. Annis ruled that Baglow was not defamed last year by a post that said he is "one of the Taliban's more vocal supporters."
Monday, 12 September, 2011
Monday links
A few things at night.
1) Peter Jaworski at The Volunteer notes the one-year anniversary of Marc Emery's incarceration.
2) Binks' latest.
3) The dangers of Spongebob Squarepants.
4) Cops rob a strip club.
5) Radley Balko at The Agitator on SWAT teams practicing their techniques with non-violent offenders.
6) Jacob Sullum at Reason Magazine on Obama's marijuana flip-flop.
7) Another casualty in the war on canines.
Sunday, 11 September, 2011
Sunday links
An extra-long edition today.
3) Congrats to Jesse Ferreras for his Whistler Blackcomb coverage being nominated for a Jack Webster award.
4) Cool.
6) Ken at Popehat on stupid drug war stuff and stupid TSA stuff.
7) Louis CK on the radio. For three hours. Yes.
8) Another one for the cops behaving badly file.
9) Kathy Shaidle giving someone the finger.
Saturday, 10 September, 2011
Tonight's easy listening
Tonight it's Public Enemy with Incident at 66.6 FM. Probably one of my absolute favorite rap instrumentals.
Saturday links
A few things at night.
1) The GOP's war on voting?
2) Peter Welch on getting ready for Hurricane Irene.
3) Tea Party Zombies must die. The game.
4) What I wasted a good portion of my time on last night.
Friday, 9 September, 2011
An update on Allen Kephart
Thanks to Paul Detrick at Reason's Hit & Run, a quick update on the Allen Kephart's death homicide:
After a fatal encounter with Twin Peaks deputies at a Valero gas station in Lake Arrowhead, Calif., Allen Kephart's autopsy says he died of "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease," and his manner of death was a "homicide." The results of the autopsy were revealed in a press release from the Twin Peaks police station, although the full autopsy has not been released.
The two page press release also contained an account of what happened to Kephart that differed greatly from a wrongful death lawsuit filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, August 30, by Alfred and Carol Kephart in the death of their son.
The release says that Kephart failed to stop at a stop sign and did not pull to the side of the road as directed by Deputy Ismael Diaz. Once at the gas station, alleges the release, Diaz was not able to handcuff Kephart because of his 392lbs size and a struggled occurred where both ended up on the ground, after which a Taser was deployed several times.
The lawsuit says the encounter began when Kephart honked at Deputy Diaz after Diaz pulled in front of Kephart at an intersection. It went on to say, Diaz was angered and turned on his police vehicle lights attempting to pull Kephart over.
Once at the gas station, the suit says, Deputy Diaz ordered Kephart out of his car at gunpoint, threw him face first to the ground where he was eventually Tasered repeatedly in the upper back, neck and head.
Friday links
A few things at night.
1) Radley Balko at The Georgetown Law Journal website on his beat and the Internet.
2) Are they cops or not?
3) Mexico's War on Drugs has not stopped the flow of drugs into the United States ( and presumably Canada ).
4) Folsom prison blues, gangsta style.
5) Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run on stupid cigarette regulations and prosecutorial incompetence.
Lecture of the day
Today it's Michael Sandel with Redistributive Taxation and Progressive Taxation - Freedom to Choose.
Watch it on Academic Earth
Thursday, 8 September, 2011
Mr. Fuddlesticks isn't out of the woods yet
Remember the case of Mr. Fuddlesticks vs. the Renton City, Washington, police department? Well, there's more, courtesy of Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run:
In early August,
KOMOKIRO, the CBS affiliate in Seattle, reported that King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce had approved a search warrant demanding information about Mr. Fuddlesticks from Google, which owns YouTube. After a local attorney challenged the warrant on First Amendment grounds, Cayce scheduled a hearing on the matter, imposing a stay in the meantime. Suddenly the Renton police lost interest in the warrant, saying "there has been no relevant information that we have uncovered to date on the cyberstalking case to further a criminal investigation."That does not mean Mr. Fuddlesticks, a cop who created the videos with help from the animation site Xtranormal, is off the hook. Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington says the cartoons, which refer to cops' sexual relationships but never actually mention Renton or name any officers, may amount to "harassment and discrimination," creating a "hostile work environment." For instance, Mr. Fuddlesticks alludes to an internal affairs investigation of Deputy Chief Tim Troxel, who was docked a day's pay for asking an on-duty officer to stake out the home of a girlfriend he suspected of cheating on him.
Meanwhile, Police Chief Kevin Milosevich has disciplined Sgt. Bill Judd and Deputy Police Chief Charles Marsalisi for their role in an Xtranormal video making fun of a new regional jail. Milosevich said Judd created the cartoon (which according to The Seattle Times was not part of Mr. Fuddlesticks' oeuvre), while Marsalisi advised him on how to post it anonymously. Because the video "deliberately distorted and exaggerated the jail's operations" and implied that its personnel (represented by a clown) are "incompetent" and "ignorant," Judd and Marsalisi were demoted to officer and sergeant, respectively.
Thursday links
A few things.
1) That's racist.
3) Binks is back!
5) Adam Winkler in The Atlantic on the secret history of gun rights in America.
An update on Leigh Stubbs
Radley Balko with an appearance on The Alyona Show about the Leigh Stubbs case and "expert" witness Michael West:
Wednesday, 7 September, 2011
An update on Kelly Thomas and the Fullerton Six
An alleged cause of death has emerged in the Kelly Thomas beating case, as if it wasn't obvious before:
H/t Mike Riggs at Hit & Run.An attorney representing a man whose homeless son died after a violent confrontation with California police officers says medical records show the cause of death was blunt head trauma.
Lawyer Garo Mardirossian told The Associated Press late Tuesday that he has received medical records from the hospital where 37-year-old Kelly Thomas died in July that reveal how he died. Also included in the report, according to Mardirossian, is that Thomas was shocked with a stun gun directly where his heart is located.
Wednesday links
A few things.
2) Mark Steyn with a great essay on freedom of speech.
3) If you like meth, go to Hawaii.
4) Nine Inch Nails with 4 from their Ghosts album.
5) The disgusting over-use of isolation in California prisons.
6) Smoking pot is Rick Steves' civil liberty.
Lecture of the day
Thanks to my friend Smyke for sending me this video of Noam Chomsky:
Chomsky goes on a few different tangents ( not that that's a bad thing ) but his main point - that abolishing the state is pretty much pointless unless there's already an existing framework of volunteer, co-operative organizations to take over the necessary business of government, and that removing all government would simply play into the hands of the most powerful in society - is worth mulling over.
For Libertarians like me, the total abolition of the state isn't really a tangible goal. We'll take our victories where we can, one court case and defeated piece of government legislation at a time, and hopefully the cumulative effect will be a check on government excess. This too might be a pipe dream, but at least it's a place where most of us can stand on some common ground. Police shouldn't beat people up, we should have freedom of speech, press, and association. Little girls with lemonade stands shouldn't be forced to get a permit, and government spends too much on corporate welfare. These are all things that can be debated, but a lot of those on the right and the left will agree with these things to an extent, although their interpretation of how to achieve those goals, and even what those goals might look like, might be radically different.
I'm starting to get off track. I've said before how I'm finding my political affiliations to be increasingly meaningless in the face of fighting for some sort of legal and political sanity in case after endless case. Noam Chomsky's point, that the ultimate goal of abolishing the state altogether is pointless, ties in nicely. Think of it as a sort of libertarian existentialism: it's all meaningless, but you still have to try your best to get through it one day at a time.
My latest
Here's my latest post for The Propagandist about Danish Muhammad cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's appearance on Michael Coren's new Sun TV show.
Also, my review of the documentary Freedom of Whatt?cott has been posted over at my old hang-out, the Lynch Mob.
Check it out, eh?
Monday, 5 September, 2011
Today's easy listening
Today it's Mermaid Bones with their latest album, The End of Days, in full. Click on the link or the picture on the left to listen. I recommend Line of coke and a smile in particular if you feel like a long-form jam. If I had to describe their style in just a few words, I'd say Garbage meets experimental Black Flag.
Update: Also, don't forget to check out their first album.
Worth reading: "Jury Independence Illustrated," by Ricardo Cortes
Ricardo Cortes is the illustrator behind Adam Mansbach's Go The F*ck To Sleep, among other things, and one of his more recent creations is a short, illustrated booklet on the principle of jury nullification called Jury Independence Illustrated. It's a really cool little book, and I'd recommend that you all read it. It's available for free download, and will only take a few minutes to read. More importantly, it highlights a very important part of jury duty: namely, the independence that juries have to rule people innocent of crimes under laws that they consider to be unjust. In this case, as Cortes is careful to hammer home, non-violent drug crimes are a very good example of "criminal activity" that a jury might consider nullifying. In his words:
If you object to how drug use andaddiction are treated as crimes, ratherthan as medical or liberty issues, thenjury duty is one of the most powerfullegal weapons you have against theDrug War.
Monday links
A few things.
1) Catursunday.
2) Thaddeus Russell with the shocking truth about Labour Day.
3) First-graders talk in class, get put in hand-cuffs. I am not making this up.
4) Radley Balko gets some cool email.
5) Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds in the Washington Examiner on the right to record police. H/t to Nick Gillespie at Hit & Run.
6) Steve Chapman in Reason Magazine on telecom over-regulation.
7) Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair with a brief history of Private Eye.
Sunday, 4 September, 2011
Lecture of the day
Today it's Michael Sandel with the morality of murder:
Watch it on Academic Earth
H/t to Smyke for this and other lectures.
Review: "Freedom of What?cott: A Documentary."
A while back, a couple of film-makers called the Moon Brothers asked if they could use something that I had written about controversial anti-abortion, anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott in the trailer for a film that they were making about his many controversies and court battles called "Freedom of What?cott: A Documentary."Of course I said yes, and the quote went into their trailer. I made myself open for a review copy and, lo and behold, one arrived in my mail a few days ago. I watched it last night.
Over-all, the thing that I would say I liked best about the film was its underground feel. The whole movie is pieced together from interviews with various friends, supporters, and critics of Bill Whatcott, including one of the people who filed against him with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, spliced with footage of Bill talking about his own life and background, numerous headlines about his exploits and court cases, radio interviews, and a rather odd narrative style composed of several different people in what looks like the same sound studio. Basically, it's a multi-media barrage of sound and film, all constructed around the story of one man's life. It had a kind of gritty, indie feel to it that I thought added a lot to the film.
The story of the film itself is pretty simple: it's the life and times of Bill Whatcott, anti-abortion and anti-gay social conservative activist extraordinaire. He pisses off a lot of people, doesn't really have a feel for tact or subtlety, and has fought court case after court case because of his protests and his flyers criticizing what he sees as a baby-killing, homosexual agenda.
The film could have easily turned into an attack on Bill Whatcott himself. Indeed, it's hard not to attack Bill Whatcott sometimes. But I thought this documentary did a good job of getting a glimpse into Whatcott himself, his motivations. He really does seem to care about gay people, even though he goes about showing his concern in rather abrasive ways. He really is a nice guy, even though he knows how to push people's buttons. And, in his past, there is quite a tragic history of abuse and neglect, which no doubt accounts for some of Whatcott's lack of social mores.
More than that, this film explores the line between "hate speech" and free speech. I don't believe there is such a line myself - I think you either have free speech or you don't - and I think Freedom of What?cott tends to come down on this side as well, although that could be my personal bias showing through. Either way, it's a thoughtful exploration of a very heated topic, and one that deserves to be listened to.
In the words of Edmonton Journal columnist Scott McKeen, who was interviewed throughout this film:
Who decides then, what is acceptable and what's not? The government? Then they can censure me for criticizing a policy of theirs. And even people like Bill Whatcott, if we silence him, society loses a voice that it can at least consider. And while I don't like Bill's message, we need people who fight against the establishment and wake us up. That doesn't mean they're always right, doesn't mean we're going to agree. But we need to be woken up sometimes, and I'll be pissed at you guys if that's the only quote you use from me because I really don't like Bill Whatcott.
All in all, watch this documentary if you're interested in the fight between "hate speech" and free speech, or if you'd just like to get a glimpse into the life of someone so conflicted, driven, and always controversial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)