Canadian Bill C-234 to Require ISP licensing

Matthew Skala writes "In Monday's House of Commons proceedings, Canadian Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer (NDP member for Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore) introduced Bill C-234, an anti-child-pornography Bill. It requires all Internet Service Providers to get licenses from the Government, specifically including non-profits and individuals. Licensed ISPs then must block Web sites named by the Government as containing child pornography, and must "report information [of the Government's choice] to the Commission for the purposes of this Act" - a requirement that neatly slips in spy-on-your-users requirements under the radar of the ongoing Industry Canada consultation on "Lawful Access" (wiretapping/CanCarnivore)."

Comments

Re:Unconstitutional... Offensive, incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment means I can put an aircraft carrier in my back yard, and shoot leaves off my trees with a Thompson if I want to. I cover the literal translation of later 1700's English later. I am not pleased with you making stupid jokes about armless t-shirts. Dennis Miller did that on Leno and I was none too please, you used his delivery verbatim and its not funny.

Communists, Totalitarians, Fascists, and for some reason socialists all like to strip people of arms because it makes them easier to control, and sell them a line of shit for which there is no recourse against the government.

One of Hitler's first order of business what to disarm the Jews. Here I quote Reichsfuhrer Waffen Shutz Stauffel Heinrich Himmler:

Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons By Order of SS Reichsfurer Himmler - Munich, November 10th, 1938.
The SS Reichsfuhrer and German Police Chief has issued the following order:
Persons who, according to the Nurnberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapons. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.

Nazis again (posted in occupied France):

Ordinance Concerning the Possession of Arms and Radio Transmitters in the Occupied Territories.
1) All firearms and all sorts of munitions, hand grenades, explosives and other war materials must be surrendered immediately. Delivery must take place within 24 hours to the closets Kommandantur unless other arrangements have been made. Mayors will be held strictly responsible for the execution of this order. The troop commanders may allow exceptions.
2) Anyone found in possession of firearms, munitions, hand grenades and other war materials will be sentenced to death or forced labor or in lesser cases prison.
3) Anyone in possession of a radio or radio transmitter must surrender it to the closest German military authority.
4) All those who would disobey this order or would commit any act of violence in the occupied lands against the German army or against any of its troops will be condemned to death.
-The Commander in Chief of the Army

After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. Adolf Hitler's use of firearms registration lists to confiscate guns and the execution of their owners teaches a forceful lesson -- one that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearm owners.

An English Professor says in no way is the Second Amendment ambiguous. It means, stockpile and load up. Its your right.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

July 17, 1991

I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.

I was referred to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School District-the person she and others go to when they need a definitive answer on English grammar.

I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me, then asked him to parse the following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but that the meaning could be extracted anyway.

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate-say, registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the Second Amendment in full:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that he hadn't recognized it.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred years. He said, "No."

I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"

Brocki: "No, I can't see that."

Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"

Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this. He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms.