Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Government Going Big Brother?

Eh-Wire writes "If this article by Canadian privacy expert Michael Geist is any indication of what the Canadian Government has in mind for the Canadian Internet surfing public, then it looks like the Canadian public should be concerned. This does not look good!"

479 comments

  1. Solution by sibsybcys · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The Slashdot Solution To Big Brother (SSBB): Move To China Use Linux Only Participate In Polls That Include "Breasts"

    --

    73! -KB3MGR
  2. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take off, hoser!

  3. There go my plans by cft_128 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, there go my plans to move to Canada.

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    1. Re:There go my plans by dauthur · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup. And there goes the safe-haven for my draft-dodging plans too. Dammit.

    2. Re:There go my plans by uberdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was an ill considered plan in the first place, if you don't mind my saying so. It can get quite drafty over here.

    3. Re:There go my plans by peculiarmethod · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      those were gone already.. Canada made agreements with the US to deport draft dodgers a few years back.

      "Canada has signed an agreement with the US to halt what has been called asylum shopping - refugees who have been denied or think they will be denied asylum in one country, then crossing the border to apply in the other.

      Deciding to slam the door on refugees who travel through the US has earned Canada rare criticism from the UNHCR as well as human rights groups.

      They say that America's policies are nothing to emulate. They are critical of the US for creating a system that permits inspectors to make the on-the-spot decision to immediately deport people if they are not satisfied that the applicants have a credible fear of persecution. "


      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/307874 3. stm

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    4. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, please don't let a little thing like this stop you.

    5. Re:There go my plans by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      What's that article got to do with draft-dodging?

    6. Re:There go my plans by zonker · · Score: 0

      there goes all the canadian's joking about how the us is teh suck because we have draconian laws...

      so i suppose i should say welcome to the club, eh?

    7. Re:There go my plans by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely nothing at all. The article that was referenced has to do with refugees, and the problem of so-called refugees who shop between the countries for the best success. This is beneficial to neither country, which is why the agreement was decided upon.

      Whichever country wants to idealistically toss rocks is happy to have whoever we turn away.

      (Bogus refugees, it should be noted, circumvent the normal immigration process, jumping in front of a lot of dedicated, process-following immigrants. It is a serious problem).

    8. Re:There go my plans by Lev13than · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Canada has signed an agreement with the US to halt what has been called asylum shopping - refugees who have been denied or think they will be denied asylum in one country, then crossing the border to apply in the other."

      That has absolutely nothing to do with draft dodgers. What it does is stop overseas refugees from entering the United States and then crossing the border into Canada to claim refugee status, or vice versa. In that case the refugee claimant would be sent back to the first country, where they are still eligible to make a claim. The goal is to streamline the refugee process, not send back draft dodgers.

      During the Vietnam war, Canada essentially decided that disagreements between a state and its citizens over compulsory military service was not Canada's problem. Since no Canadian law was broken, deportation was not an option. In the end, over 40,000 Americans sought sanctuary in Canada. A pardon was eventually granted by Carter for everyone except deserters. A good video collection on draft dodgers is hosted by the CBC.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    9. Re:There go my plans by canwaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Canada's Smart Border Initiative with the United States states that American draft dodgers must be turned away at the border crossings. It fails to mention if you got into Canada another way.

      Let us remember that the Canadian-US border is the world's largest unprotected border, and it's VERY easy to simply walk across it without any party able to stop it before it is crossed. And once your in Canada, you're subject to Canadian laws INCLUDING the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Good luck to the US trying to get the Supreme Court of Canada to justify military service with the Charter.

    10. Re:There go my plans by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty sure there is no safe place to go in the world anymore to escape the rising tide of fascist police states.

      If you've been following the news the last few days on the secret CIA Rendition program, the U.S. has bestowed upon itself the right to pretty much snatch anyone, anywhere on the globe, blindfold you, cut your clothes of with razors, stick a tranquilizer up your ass, put you in a private jet and fly you to various places to be tortured. One of which is Uzbekistan which apparently favors torturing you by putting parts of your body in boiling water.

      If sometime later they deduce they made a mistake and you are in fact not a terrorist they just drop you in the middle of nowhere in Albania and say oops. One guy was disappeared for 5 months and had to find his family in Lebanon after they left Gemany thinking he had abandoned them.

      When they pick you up they pretty much tell you that you are completely out of range of any judicial system or due process. They tell you they will take you places where you can be tortured or killed, and no one will ever know what happened to you.

      How do you spell Hypocrisy to rant about Saddam's arbitrary arrests and torture, and making that a justification for the invasion. At least Saddam mostly stuck to torturing people in Iraq. The U.S. will snatch and torture anyone, anywhere in the world, often flaunting the most basic sovereignty of the nations where they are operating.

      I think at this point since we can't escape it, its rapidly becoming time to fight it, hard.

      I should add Rendition started during the reign of Bush the First or Clinton, Bush the Second has just been going to town with it. It does show that neither of the screwed up parties that run America have the most basic understand of what "Freedom and Democracy" actually means. First off it means you shouldn't be snatched off the street and tortured in to a confession when you may not be guilt of anything. In America we have this little thing called a constitution, due process, and civil rights but our corrupt government seems to have forgotten. They seem to need an attitude adjustment.

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:There go my plans by Eh-Wire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you know that the Canadian Government does NOT allow immigration to Canada by those either physically or menatally disabled? This place ain't all it's cracked up to be mainly due to a succession of incompetent and corrupt government. Politicians in general, and this is not unique to Canada tend to attract a certain element of the poplulation that loses sight of it's objectives shortly after taking office.

    12. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Largest unprotected border, how about the borders within the EU Shengen treaty countries. They technicly exist and you notice them because the road changes a bit, but effectivly they might aswell not exist.

    13. Re:There go my plans by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You post sounds so extreme that people will either look this over and think "crack-pot" or they will be so numbed by the knowledge that this is actually true that they will skim right over it as the people have been desensitized for decades to the loss of rights and the abstraction of suffering that this post will not want to be acknowledged by their conscious.

      The truth is - that this is just the surface of the problems we have. But lets you and I look at the root cause of this problem, as I am sure that most otehrs on this happy little site will mod us into oblivion.

      The current manifestation that we see of the fascist state is long in the making. It is the karmic consequence of the actions of the US after WWII. We can trace the infiltration back to the beginnings of Opertaion Paperclip.

      If you arent aware of this widely known and well documented effort by the US here are some primary highlights;

      After WWII the cold war quickly took hold. (in fact it had begun even before WWII ended) The Nazi's and the Japanese held some pretty horrific experiments. These experiments were done on human subjects and yeilded an incredible amount of data on human psychology, biology, behavior and many other areas. In fact the modern 'Good Clinical Practice' (for documenting drug trials and testing) was fundamentally started by the Nazi research arms.

      The research done by the Axis was horrific yes, but it was research that was highly valuable - just a disgusting way to go about getting it. This research was desperately sought after by the Russians and the US. (the research was across the spectrum from tech r&d to biopharma and human psych and behavioral studies)

      The US and Russis began competing heavily to get ad keep Nazi researchers. Typically the US would grant asylum to researchers to come over with all their research. The US was rumored to give the Nazi assimilants new identities - many times they were brought over as Jewish refugees. These people came to the US and were absorbed into the SOS - which evolved into the CIA.

      The CIA has spent decades being built up around the data and framework derived from the Nazi and US intelligence research during the war. CIA intelligence activities not only continued, but intensified after WWII.

      As time went on the lines between political, civil and clandestine organizations and roles and influence blurred. A perfect example of this blurring and blending of archetypes of thought is in the long and varied carreer of George Herbert Walker Bush. A political child, he had a military service record in WWII, had his father use family connections to set him up with oil business in texas and used the companies as CIA raid points into Cuba. (when he was elected to Vice President he had a SEC filings for the CIA tool companies destroyed). He served as Ambassador to the UN Head of CIA and VP and President.

      His policy when in the CIA was one of disinformation and secrecy. The point here is that we have seen since project paperclip, an ongoing growth of Nazi intelligence practices in their influence ofall areas in the government of the US - thie should be a whole book, rather than just a posting here so Ill leave it to the reader to do more looking into this, while I will attach some links at the end to get one on their way.

      The US population has been under a lot of propaganda in the past 50 years - all of which has been to provide a population who is abstracted from real emotional issues and is slowly turned into a militaristic populous who acquiesce to the actions of a more fascist governement as the individual is taught to believe that they have no personal power. This is reinforced through showing that in the face of protest, the actions of our Rulers is unquestionable and absolute. You are given the appearance of freedom to speak, but your voice no longer has any meaning. You opinion is debased to the point of pollution.

      Barring any further diving into even deeper shitholes of despair and slavery where we see that t

    14. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget That Prescott Sheldon Bush, GHW Bush's father, was also a known Nazi sympathizer and war profiteer FDR was inches away from trying for treason at the time of his death, whose face was saved solely by the fact that his son did join the military. I wasn't aware of Project paperclip. Thanks for the info to add to my ever growing list of shady history worth knowing in one's search for the truth so rarely seen today. It's really hard to be optomistic when more than half of today's youth not only understand our first amendment but actually believe that the government should control what gets printed! And that was according to CNN of all news sources. It is also disheartening to think that Fox news is by a healthy margin the highest rated news station on television (Rupert Murdoch physically sickens me), GE owns MSNBC (and missiles), and seemingly every day Clear Channel gains another radio station or venue with which to push government propaganda on one channel and Ashlee Simpson on the other. Even in spite of Powell's resignation from the FCC, the line between government and mass media has become all but nonexistent. In this age, information has never been easier to obtain (if the little slashdot RSS feed in my browser is any indicator), but rather than be used for such a use, corporations have managed to turn such mediums as television, radio, and the internet into tools with which to spread propaganda and half-truths (a real shame CNN.com is still easier to remember than undergroundactionalliance.org). It was so easy for Fox and Clear Channel to scare the American public into fearing terrorist attacks (from Iraq, no less), yet instilling fear of a draft is next to impossible because "that's liberal crap. The other day on Fox Bush said there's not gonna be a draft, so there's not gonna be a draft! Or a war in Iran! Or a police state!" My friends and I have spent the last five years or so trying my best to spread some grains of truth about our president and our country through any mediums we could access, but it just really feels like nobody wants to hear it. And now that Canada's headed the same way, where'r we gonna go?

    15. Re:There go my plans by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a lot more information out there. In my previous post I didnt have time to post all I wanted, I really need to do a write up - but I think you may be interested in the following information. If you arent already aware of bushbodycount then you should take alook at it. The preffered methods of dealing with people in the Bush circle is through plane crashes:

      Then look below to see the Bush Family Tree - take a look at just the names that I pulled from the family tree that many should recognize. Funny how you had no idea how really well connected that family is. ....

      This is only the deaths directly relating to plane crashes... for the full list check out the site - but since it seems to be down for maintenance - please look to the google cache of the site:

      http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:MmEcc-eEUZs J: bushbodycount.com/+&hl=en

      The Site is down - so from google cache:

      Paul Wellstone

      He was a vocal opponent of the Bush administration and the only real progressive in the Senate. Polls showed that his popularity surged when he voted to oppose the war on Iraq. His victory in the Senate race was a foregone conclusion.

      Senator Wellstone, his wife Sheila, daughter Marcia, three of his staff and both pilots were killed when his small plane went down in Evelyth, Minnesota, on October 25, 2002.

      Governor Mel Carnahan

      In the midst of a heated race for the Senate against John Ashcroft, the Governor died in a plane crash on October 16, 2000. His death affected Democrats in two ways - it would hurt their chances of seizing control of the US Senate, and it would strongly impact the Presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Said St. Louis University political scientist Ken Warren, "There will be a sympathy vote, but that won't be enough to allow him to win. "I don't think the race will be very close. It's over." As we know now, Ashcroft lost to a dead man. Carnahan was elected by a landslide.

      Dan Rocco

      He died on April 1, 2002, in a plane crash in Gainesville, Georgia. He was an executive vice president at ChoicePoint, the firm that gained infamy with their faulty "felons" list supplied to Katherine Harris during the 2000 election in Florida. As a result of this list, thousands of voters (mostly African-American voters) were wrongly identified as felons and purged from the rolls.

      Jake Horton

      He was the senior ice-president of Gulf Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, a cohort of Enron in the energy industry, and a major contributer to the Bush agenda. According to reporter Gregory Palast, Horton knew of the company's appalling accounting practices, and "... had no doubt about its illegal campaign contributions to Florida politicans - he'd made the payments himself. In April of 1989 Horton decided to come clean with state officials, and reserved the company jet to go confront company officials. Ten minutes after takeoff the jet exploded.

      Amiram Nir

      He was a former Israeli agent who was in Jerusalem with George Bush during Iran Contra. He went under the assumed name of Pat Weber. Nir was scheduled to testify to the Senate subcommittee and it was feared he would reveal the truth. He perished when his aircraft was shot down with missiles from the helicopter of a man called Gene Tatum, 25-year CIA deep cover agent.

      Senator John Tower

      He was appointed by the Reagan/Bush Administration to chair the bipartisan committee to investigate the Iran/Contra scandals. He directed the Tower Report and had all the Iran Contra documents that told the real story. He was killed in an airplane crash later in Georgia in 1991. Also killed was his daughter, Marian.

      Mohammed Zia al-huk

      Dictator of Pakistan, and knew all about Iran/Contra, the training, funding, and arming of narco-terrorists like Osama bin Laden. In August 1988, the same day George Bush got the Republican nomination, his plane crashed into the ground with all engines running. The

    16. Re:There go my plans by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      Ya I was considering moving to Vancouver if I could find a job but that won't be the case if it requires me to submit all internet traffic. I would of expected better from the Canadian Government. Recently I have noticed that its becoming increasingly similar to the US. Not a good thing.

    17. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems that they are taking over European practices...
      In Switzerland, ISP's are required to provide data and infrastructure for "Lawful Interception" since April 2003. It is intresting, that these legal requirements ask only for interception of email traffic on ISP servers where a mail server of a customer remains untouched. Considering the amount of clients using web based email services too, this regulations show, once again, that decisions of gouvernements concerning internet, freedom and security are often hard to understand...

    18. Re:There go my plans by Naosuke · · Score: 1

      It's the largest unprotected border. The Shengen treaty countries have multiple borders. Or if you prefer to think of it this way, it's the largest unprotected border between two countries.

    19. Re:There go my plans by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      This was featured on UK's Channel4 as part of their Torture season. It was called "Torture: The Dirty Business". You can probably find a torrent of it on uknova or something. It's incredibly disturbing though; don't watch if you have a weak stomach.

      More on the Channel4 website here

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    20. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh.. you went to the Mike Moore School of Journalism. In your family tree post, why didn't you post in the complete listing that showed how many times removed they were? As an example, John Kerry is 16th cousin 3 times removed. AS for the list, search on "Friends of Bill" (although I suspect this is where you got the idea) and ponder the mysterious demises surrounding that politician. Here's your foil hat..

    21. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dutchies, check www.bewaarplicht.nl and www.bezwaarplicht.nl, also note that provider xs4all is going to court to get reimbursed for the immense costs they made on spying equipment (for spying by the law enforcers) they are legally obliged to install.

    22. Re:There go my plans by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I see that it only applies to american citizens on american soil. Sad really...as it starts off saying all men have rights..

    23. Re:There go my plans by chrish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably due to the fact that you need to be rich to run for office. You don't get rich by being nice and looking out for other people's interests.

      Democratic Republic and Constitutional Monarchy don't actually give normal folks any control over government, it's still the rich ruling for the rich.

      No, I don't have any other alternatives handy.

      --
      - chrish
    24. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      || Pretty sure there is no safe place to go in the world anymore to escape the rising tide of fascist police states. ||

      Exactly right! I've been predicting this almost since the Inet went public. Well, I'd been saying that it would evolve exactly how publishing has since its beginnings. It was probably to be another year or so before I started predicting Plantation Earth.

      || I think at this point since we can't escape it, it[']s rapidly becoming time to fight it, hard. ||

      I just can't believe it hasn't already happened! But the sad fact is, the uprising will probably begin from a position of no strength whatsoever.

      My guess, more than a century of global civil war.

    25. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems that ./ is one of the few places were one can find americans that have a decent view.

      I fully agree with the following:
      "Pretty sure there is no safe place to go in the world anymore to escape the rising tide of fascist police states."

      Greetings from Germany

    26. Re:There go my plans by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you know that the Canadian Government does NOT allow immigration to Canada by those either physically or menatally disabled?

      There are 6 billion people on this planet. Sure it would be nice if Canada could just open her arms and let the world in, and by some bizarre paradox of economics we could still support "free" healthcare and quality education, but that isn't realistic. Boo hoo stories about who Canada won't let in, as if the world has some sacred right to the peaceful society and generous services that we've eaked out here, really are built on a foundation of bullshit.

    27. Re:There go my plans by crotherm · · Score: 1


      This reminds me of a favorite scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail....

      ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
      WOMAN: King of the who?
      ARTHUR: The Britons.
      WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
      ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
      WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
      DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
      WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
      DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
      ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
      WOMAN: No one live there.
      ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
      WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
      ARTHUR: What?
      DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the
      week.
      ARTHUR: Yes.
      DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
      ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
      DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
      ARTHUR: Be quiet!
      DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
      ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
      WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
      ARTHUR: I am your king!
      WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
      ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
      WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
      ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
      DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
      ARTHUR: Be quiet!
      DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
      ARTHUR: Shut up!
      DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
      ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
      DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
      ARTHUR: Shut up!
      DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
      HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
      ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
      DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    28. Re:There go my plans by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "If you arent already aware of bushbodycount then you should take alook at it. The preffered methods of dealing with people in the Bush circle is through plane crashes:"

      While I'll conceed this is very interesting. There were TONS of the same type sites with propaganda showing how the body count had stacked up attributed to the Clintons. Vince Foster...drug lords, teens dead on railroad tracks...heck, I think even a State Trooper...

      I'd have to think most all of these are coincidences...either that, or everyone has to kill to become president these days??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re: There go my plans by Ankh · · Score: 1

      It's good to ask questions.

      I wonder if Republicans are more likely to come from wealthy backgrounds, and more likely to have private planes than Democrats?

      Liam

      --
      Live barefoot!
      free engravings/woodcuts
    30. Re:There go my plans by srussell · · Score: 1
      This is only the deaths directly relating to plane crashes...

      While I agree with you politically, and while I wouldn't put it past a proven criminal like Bush to have people wacked, I'd like to point out that there are so many vocal critics of Bush, that the odds of there being one in any given plane crash is extremely high. It is like claiming that feminazis are out to kill all men and pointing to statistics about the number of men who die in plane crashes every year as proof.

    31. Re:There go my plans by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

      not quite - if you look at the dates around these deaths the extend long long before Bush the lesser was in office.

      and of recent note - the crash of Bush Sr.'s plane which had 3 long time aides that we havent been able to get any info on was suspicious as well.

      Just look at it in the terms of the fact that the pilot of the plane was Bush's personal pilot for decades - "a close personal friend" - kind of odd how Bush didnt even hardly react.

      maybe a common event which they have already come to terms with on a regular basis?

    32. Re:There go my plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noriega. Bush the Senior invaded a whole country for the sole purpose of grabbing its president, who used to be his personal charge while he was at the CIA.

      And the thing with totalitarian regimes is that, at some point, it doesn't even matter anymore if every single potential target was assassinated -- the mere fact that their deaths were potential assassinations adds to the cloud of fear.

  4. Um by grub · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Where is our Privacy Commission during this?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Um by hongbits · · Score: 1

      where is my privacy commissioner? i want one too.

    2. Re:Um by Recovery1 · · Score: 3, Informative
      right here http://www.privcom.gc.ca/

      I would give her a shout, as well as your local MP if this concerns you as much as it does me.

    3. Re:Um by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Where is our Privacy Commission during this?

      Moonlighting at ad agencies.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Um by CommandLineGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're out getting stoned on legalized marajuana?

      --
      [Of course it's client-server; it runs on a LAN]
  5. Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There was an article a month or two ago outlining how the FBI was looking into requiring VoIP providers to allow FBI agents to wiretap conversations. At least one of the Canada's initiatives seems similar to this. Now whether the FBI followed threw with this or no, I don't know.

    1. Re:Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonable to allow the FBI the "ability" to wiretap a VoIP call when permitted to do so by a court order, just like any regular phone call over the PSTN. On the other hand, it becomes unreasonable to allow the FBI (or any law enforcement agency) unlimited scope to tap any line they wish to on a whim.

    2. Re:Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO....

      I agree that it *might* be reasonable to tap the VoIP phone call with a court order, however it is not technically reasonable due to the way that VoIP technology works. Implementing such a system inherently changes the technology introducing increased latency as the phone calls now need to go through a central system to allow for the wiretapping, as opposed to a direct point-to-point connection. This exponentially increases the hardware costs for VoIP providers and increases latency, which has always been a struggle to keep the system usable.

      For instance, your land line providers strive to keep latency to 50ms or less, while VoIP is considered "acceptable" at 400ms or less. As you approach 400ms and go beyond, a conversation becomes nearly impossible due to echo and talker overlap. Haphazardly placing this "land line paradigm" on VoIP could stall or prevent adaptation of the technology. Just like the moratorium on Internet Taxes to allow the technology to evolve, a moratorium on this requirement is necessary until the technology is perfected.

      Also, it's fairly obvious you're being tapped if you were to watch where your packets are going and they were to reroute just certain users' VoIP calls unless EVERY call is routed through a central system, in which case all the calls would come to a grinding halt.

    3. Re:Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close, but not quite right. The packet switched communications path that carries the VoIP will be recorded in full, filtered and packaged up for the analyst to scan through, searching for targets of interest. In practical terms this means 'everything' going over that comms path will be stored for a period of time - typically not less than 2 days, but more realistically up to around 2 to 4 weeks depending upon the storage capacity of the collector.

      Latency is irrelevant, signal paths do not need to be routed via any three letter agency, and then onward to their intended recipients. Collection systems are more akin to the ellusive 'man in the middle' - that's how it works for the most part. Private carriers tend to tell government where to get off, but get collected somewhere in the stream anyway, government owned telco's get the white box treatment. (or black depending upon tin-foil requirements)

      Collection is 'fully passive', this means that it will 'never' be obvious to either party that monitoring is taking place.

      This message was lovingly hand typed by your friendly neighbourhood spy. This has been the way of the past for many years, and will continue to be well into the future.

      Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will... The truth is in google!

    4. Re:Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I live in Canada and if they are really bored they can tap my VoIP calls if they want. Today I talked to my girlfriend in Europe for a few hours, and I have no idea what we talked about. I mean it would be great if they tapped my line, but only if they give me the summery, as hardly ever pay attention. I mean I can only get away with saying "yah" after everything she says for so long until I get caught. Come on Canada put my tax dollars to work.

    5. Re:Similar to FBI VoIP tapping? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Implementing such a system inherently changes the technology introducing increased latency as the phone calls now need to go through a central system to allow for the wiretapping, as opposed to a direct point-to-point connection. This exponentially increases the hardware costs for VoIP providers and increases latency, which has always been a struggle to keep the system usable.

      Um, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't VoIP still usually end up on a regular line? So they can tap said line.

      Even if all the packets don't take the same route to their destination, they all end up the same place. So tapping one of the endpoints should be trivial.

      Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?

  6. I don't think so. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Michael Geist comes out every once in a while with a "The Sky is Falling!" piece about how government is trying to super-regulate the Internet in Canada or some other country.

    It's sensationalist crap for the purpose of selling impressions on the websites he writes for.

    The hairbrained proposals that some lobbyists are putting forth in Canada are real, but there's little danger of any of them being taken seriously and he knows that.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If only that were true. The government's plans on lawful access as described in the article, as well as the recommendations on copyright, come from politicians and policy makers, not lobbyists. Geist's website now includes a link to a version of the article with background links on these issues.

    2. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What makes it so hard to believe?

      All of the powers the article warns against are already possessed by American corporations (under the DMCA) and by American law enforcement (under the USA Patriot Act and other bills passed).

      They might be ridiculous, they might be infuriating, they might defy all common sense, but you should still take them seriously because they are now reality.

    3. Re:I don't think so. by mrighi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because somebody knows that a ridiculous bill will never become a law (or whatever the equivalent Canadian process is) doesn't mean that it shouldn't be written about. In fact, I would say that pointing them out in the press is part of what prevents them from passing.

      How many outrageous laws are on the books today that slipped by unnoticed? We hear about them all the time.

      Now, I will agree that articles that discuss these ridiculous laws should put the focus on the idiot lawmakers trying to pass them. Any article that tries to scare its readers into thinking the potential regulation has a legitimate shot of passing is being simply sensationalist.

    4. Re:I don't think so. by tmasky · · Score: 1

      It's called balance.

      People are melancholy, at best, about defending freedom and liberties in (what I'd wager would be) most countries.

      Without people who point and sound the horn, then too few will actually bother to look at the issue. However, too much horn-tooting and you become the boy who cried wolf.

    5. Re:I don't think so. by Staplerh · · Score: 1

      Michael Geist comes out every once in a while with a "The Sky is Falling!" piece about how government is trying to super-regulate the Internet in Canada or some other country.

      The Toronto Star?!?! sensationalistic?

      ;)

      --
      "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
      - Bob Dylan
    6. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only that were true.

      If only that weren't the case, I'd be able to buy my weed at 7-11 by now, instead of helping support the underground market. It's fucking rediculous that marijuana legalization continues to be debated while my only option is to purchase from people like this.

    7. Re:I don't think so. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      My feeling as a Canadian who's father is a lawyer is that Canada does have very strict laws concerning privacy but almost never enforces them.

      Things like wiretaps and recording conversations can be done with a government order but in the States they are done without court approval.

      Basically if they think you're bad you're in worse trouble up here, but until they have some evidence you ARE bad you have a lot more freedom.

    8. Re:I don't think so. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      The problem is that majority of voters are not the types to spark up a doob. This is also why there are not stricter tests on elderly drivers who have developed cataracts. Any politician who goes against the demographic of their typical joe voter may be looking for another job next election.

      Granted there is more acceptance of it but there is still a stigma.

    9. Re:I don't think so. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      True but this is Canada not the US. The DMCA and Patriot Act do not directly affect us (meaning Canada not US). Of course pressure from the South notwithstanding.
      Govt is run a bit different here. I seriously doubt the Patriot Act would fly.

      Of course there was the War Measures act that Trudeau threw up during the FLQ crisis but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms put that to bed.

      (Scuse me while I waffle a bit)

    10. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try not to sound like a right-wing blowhard.

      And read "The Sun" for an example of sensationalism.

    11. Re:I don't think so. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your only option is NOT to purchase from people like this, as you put it... it's not your only damned choice... if you are so against supporting the underground then you should not purchase any... it's not like marijuana is essential to your survival... water, I'll accept, anything else... live with the fact it ain't legal, and stop using it...

      Or, if you are so dependent on the drug, or just like it soooo damned much, grow your own. Stop supporting the underground.

      I'm sick and tired of people claiming that it's the government's fault they have to support the black market/criminals to get their substance/product of choice... It's your fault, take responsibility for your actions... I don't smoke pot, but I know many people that do... and I know of a few who have decided to grow their own to stop supporting the underground market... Do something about it instead of whining...

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    12. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's not a very good answer to the problem at hand. The goverment makes it even more unattractive to grow your own weed due to the laws they create around such an action.

      So you either grow your own and get nailed hard if you're busted.

      Or you buy from someone else, risk less of a penalty, but support a group you'd rather not.

      This is completely the government's doing and it bothers me to no end that there's such a supply of people on this board that advocate to the common citizen that THEY should always be the ones to change their lifestyle and work their fucking asses off to "make things right" and that governments and big corporations need not make any changes because what they are doing is not the problem. Fuck that.. Just.. fuck it.

    13. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1
      • Or, if you are so dependent on the drug, or just like it soooo damned much, grow your own. Stop supporting the underground.


      The stupid thing is, the penalties for cultivation are much more severe than for posession. It should be the opposite, for exactly this reason.

      • I'm sick and tired of people claiming that it's the government's fault they have to support the black market/criminals to get their substance/product of choice.


      And I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I don't have the right to do what I want, when I'm the one who will have to deal with the consequences.

      • It's your fault, take responsibility for your actions.


      That's exactly what I'm talking about.
    14. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you... high perhaps... or why... the ellipses...

    15. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 deads. How are you dealing with that so far?

    16. Re:I don't think so. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      That's right! This is *Canada* after all! We *all* know that crackpots only exist in America!

      *whew*

      I'm sure everything will just turn out alright. And if they don't, we can blame the Americans!

      Sarcasm aside, there was just a recent post about how some nut in Utah wanted to pass a silly law. The anti-American folk were out in full color. Somehow though, I don't see a ton of anti-Canadian folk around for this story...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    17. Re:I don't think so. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      it's not like marijuana is essential to your survival...

      Let he with no sin and all that. How much alcohol do you drink, tobacco you smoke, etc? It is all the same shit, get over it.

    18. Re:I don't think so. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Things like wiretaps and recording conversations can be done with a government order but in the States they are done without court approval.

      Really? Got any evidence for this?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    19. Re:I don't think so. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      And I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I don't have the right to do what I want, when I'm the one who will have to deal with the consequences.

      Fair enough, you have a right to do what you want... and you are the one who will deal with the consequences... so then, forgive me, but I don't see any point to your argument... you claim that you don't want to support the underground, but the big old bad government makes you because they make your substance abuse illegal, while Joe Q. Alcoholic has a legal store to go to... so you're all pissed off because the people in power have decided a certain substance is illegal? Or are you pissed off because you're too worried about the consequences of doing the right thing and getting your substance of choice in a non-criminal supporting way?

      Either way, you have the power to stop supporting the underground... or you can keep standing on your soap box complaining about how things are, and how the government has made you a criminal... I enjoy speeding, I've lost my license for speeding... have I harmed anyone? No. Is it my right to drive as fast as I want? Honestly, I don't think so, but I do anyways... Do I think the government artificially set the speed limit on highways really low so they can make a profit? Yes.

      And there is my point... all the laws are there to either protect life, or to make money... if the government had a good way of making money off of Marijuna sales without the health issues and health costs associated with it, it would be legal. But until then, the government will make it illegal, thus you will have to deal with that reality.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    20. Re:I don't think so. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, very little... I can't handle smoking anything... and I don't enjoy drinking...

      Personally I'd love to make all mind altering substances used for recreation illegal. Either that, or making all mind altering substances available, and government controlled. All of it... I say all or nothing... anything in between is just asking for trouble.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    21. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so you're all pissed off because the people in power have decided a certain substance is illegal? Or are you pissed off because you're too worried about the consequences of doing the right thing and getting your substance of choice in a non-criminal supporting way?

      Nope, I'm pissed off because there is NO way to get that certain substance "in a non-criminal supporting way".

      The issue isn't so much that I have to purchase weed from thugs, because I don't. I know the people I buy from, and the people they buy from. They're upstanding citizens for the most part. The problem is that the black market is flourishing, and it is the cause of the problems, not the drug.

      all the laws are there to either protect life, or to make money

      So which category does marijuana prohibition fall under? The bad laws are the *reason* people are losing their lives. They don't protect the children as many people claim. It's far easier for children to buy drugs than it is to find an adult to buy cigarettes, or alcohol. At least that was my experience as a teenager.

      the government will make it illegal, thus you will have to deal with that reality.

      Yep. And I choose civil disobedience in this case.

    22. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's just completely ignore the past and the culture, what people have gotten used to expect from drug laws and what they have and haven't learned to know how to deal with.

      Excellent idea. Aiming for nobel?

    23. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is acclimatizing it's people towards "unlawful arrest". The last part of this is stop pretending they support any form of rights (which are a joke now as it is).

      Tin Foilhat Club
      #0087996

    24. Re:I don't think so. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      So which category does marijuana prohibition fall under?

      I'd assume it is the cost... they can't make enough money to offset the other costs... Most likely health care, and truencies from work, as well as an extra burden on the social assistance network. But Alcohol is probably more responsible than marijuana is... the problem is, alcohol has been legal too long, they can't make it illegal... but I bet if they could, they would...

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    25. Re:I don't think so. by anicca · · Score: 0
      Your argument is fallacious. No matter how many joints I smoke, there is no danger to you. You speeding does present a clear danger to others however. There a many dead every year for speed related accidents but doobies kill nobody. Your comparing apples to watermelons.

      "And there is my point... all the laws are there to either protect life, or to make money... if the government had a good way of making money off of Marijuna sales without the health issues and health costs associated with it, it would be legal."

      That has NOTHING to do with why cannabis is still illegal. If it was about health then both alcohol and tobacco would be illegal as well. In the US there is a prison industry that needs lots of fresh meat thus prohibiting something MILLIONS of people do keeps a steady supply. Why, if pot were legal we would not have JP Walters touring around whipping up fear and hysteria. There would be -800,000 arrests per year that would free up the cops to chase REAL CRIME. Billions have been spent with the only results being more cops, more jails and way way more dope.

      IF you believe that the laws are top protect life I suggest you take a better look. They exist to maintain elitist rule and protect the property of the wealthy. Public safety is just the nonsense the politicians mouth when it suits their (bought and paid for) agendas. One does not protect people by poisoning the environment.

      Don't worry, if the survielance system works in Canada, it will make its way south...you just won't know about it because the text of the laws will likely be sealed by the (anti-)Patriot Act.
      --
      A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    26. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I'd assume it is the cost... they can't make enough money to offset the other costs.

      I'm not sure if that was intended to be funny, or just an ignorant assumption.

      Most likely health care, and truencies from work, as well as an extra burden on the social assistance network

      First there needs to be some correlation between those things and marijuana use.

      But Alcohol is probably more responsible than marijuana is

      What?? I have no idea what you mean by that. Have you ever seen anyone get violent after smoking too many joints? I've seen it plenty of times with booze.

      the problem is, alcohol has been legal too long, they can't make it illegal... but I bet if they could, they would.

      You need a lesson in history I think. They tried that once already you know..

    27. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude... he's not a right wing blowhard. The Star is Sensationalistic. It's embarassing when I agree with them, because I feel violated by the association. They're a sensationlist news rag. Don't be hurt by this just because you like what they say.

    28. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      Any politician who goes against the demographic of their typical joe voter may be looking for another job next election.

      I'd agree with that, except in this case (the first article I linked to) the delegates voted to adopt marijuana legalization as party policy but the party ignored them. The delegates are there to make those decisions, and the party has a duty to listen to them IMHO.

    29. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about US, we're in Canada. Apples and oranges. If you haven't noticed, the Canadian government has been saying "no" to US more and more since those crazy Americans invented the DMCA and the Patriot Act, and started invading countries halfway across the globe.

      Here in Canada, we've seen the direction Americans are taking and we just say "sorry but no thanks."

    30. Re:I don't think so. by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1
      Somehow though, I don't see a ton of anti-Canadian folk around for this story...
      I would guess that's because silly laws seem to be the norm in the US whereas we try our best here in Canada to avoid them.
    31. Re:I don't think so. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      if the government had a good way of making money off of Marijuna sales without the health issues and health costs associated with it, it would be legal.

      Gee, if only there was some other major drug consumed in the form of a cigarette that we could use as an example... oh, wait...

      There are so many things that are illegal, in which the illegalization of that thing causes more problems than the thing itself (eg, the black market creates crime surrounding that substance). As far as I'm concerned, all of these things would be better served by legalizing them, and taxing them a lot. Having them legalized would make them safer to produce* and purchase**, and the tax money would go partly to hospitals to pay for the health issues caused, and partly to mass propaganda campaigns to explain why these substances are so bad.

      (* an illegal drug produced in some guy's basement is dangerous; legalizing it and producing it in a lab with safety regulations would produce a much safer final product, less impurities, etc).

      (** a drug deal that goes bad can get you shot; you're in much less danger buying stuff over the counter from a pharmacy...).

      Seriously, alcohol prohibition didn't work, why does anybody think drug prohibition does? All these "illegal drugs" and their users should be treated like a public health epidemic, not a bunch of criminals.

      Prohibition is wasteful at every step. First it costs money for police to enforce the prohibition (so police officers are distracted from more important crimes like murder or assault), then otherwise harmless people's lives are ruined with criminal records, then jails are clogged with these people. It's just a huge waste of everybody's time and money, and doesn't even solve the original problem in the first place! If somebody is addicted to an illegal drug, throwing them in prison doesn't cure their addiction. These addicts should be helped, not condemned.

    32. Re:I don't think so. by stridebird · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can imagine (man). Trying to get stoners to vote! They are a self-excluding population, in voting terms. What with having to get the date right, the polling station right, have an address, be registered, choose a candidate...and then deal with all the weird people (man) at the polling station acting weird? Nah, better jus' spark another one and mebbe vote (or something man) next time around.

    33. Re:I don't think so. by Fox_1 · · Score: 1
      The guy is - I hesitate to use appropiate terms here - anyways suffice to say he doesn't exactly represent the issues fully. The article has a lot of popular American themes in it - privacy, security, free competition, - and while they are valid in the context of the American society, how the're used here doesn't align very well with the realities of Canada. We do things different here - functions of size (geographic large, population 10%of the US) and history, I'm sure there are other factors too - 6.8%and greater beer (mmm Maudite) and a lower drinking age (18/19) or not.

      However our telecommunications industry is managed differently then the US and has a different historical and current relationship with the government. Even these proposed Laws/rules/guidelines what-haveU aren't really contradicting that existing relationship and privacy laws as defined by the Canadian Judicial System. Of course we have a parliamentary system here which deliberatly puts a comittee spin on policy - our PM is not an equivalent to the US president, our gov't is structually different and these years with a minority government actually means we should have quite effective governmence because the smaller parties hold the swing votes preventing anything really crazy from happening in the Commons. The point is until a bill gets passed in commons everything else is just fluff and debate about issues, and when a bill finally gets passed it rarely resembles what the gov't initially put forth.

      Look to Tactics in Debating and Negotiation and Cross reference that with the Ideas of Straw Men and Red Herrings and you should understand that a more extreme action or idea is proposed so that you can retreat to a more desirable moderate position, while letting your oppenent think they have gained ground. This guy is attacking straw men and chasing red herrings. I am sure he's aware of it too, however it gets press and maybe even makes him appear more desirable to whatever American intrests he's affiliated with.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    34. Re:I don't think so. by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      sensationalist or not ? Either way, the man needs to be heard and we the people need to defend against any such attempts to strangle the population and our rights and freedoms. We must remain ever vigilant, particularly in this post 9/11 super-paranoid North American stronghold ... Here in Canada, the new land of over-taxation WITHOUT representation, our corrupt government is WAY frickin' out of control, and in fact bald-facedly looting the country ... maybe time for a little UN intervention right about here ? would Bushie ( leader of all that's right and good in the world ) permit such intervention ?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    35. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm...as a worker bee in a 40,000 desktop organization in Toronto, I can attest that at least some of this is coming true. Multimillion dollar sums are being spent routinely to upgrade switches/ethernet cards/software/etc. to be able to trace/control packets in order to nail what the current regime in place considers offensive (which may include simply complaining about work or one of the supervisors). Big Brother is definitely alive and well in Canada. Many in the organization refuse to use email systems at work now, simply because they know it is being constantly monitored, and several (past) employees were disciplined simply due to the content of emails, which they may or may not have had any control over.

    36. Re:I don't think so. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      You'd like to think so wouldn't you. Makes you feel warm and comfy to be able to say "wow, that country sucks, mine is great" doesn't it?

      The truth, however, is typically much less black and white. Remember, many of the *proposed* laws in the US that you hear about are just that: proposed. They don't pass automatically. Not to mention the fact that the wold seems terribly interested in our "dirty laundry" to the point that all they seem to get in the news is "bad" news.

      So take off the old rose-colored glasses and stop drinking the slashdoot kool-aid.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    37. Re:I don't think so. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I think you need to get over yourself and stop trying to dictate how OTHERS live their lives. How the fuck does it affect you if he gets stoned or not?

      It IS the gov'ts fault for many of the black market operations. Prohibition in the US is what gave rise to the mob. Really good job there...now we have a much stronger organized crime than we did before.

    38. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that.

      Some choice ehh, I can either purchase on the black market and take my risks there which are many, or I can avoid contributing to the black market by growing my own.

      However, should I be caught growing my own, I would lose everything I have worked for: My house, savings, car and children, all gone.

      So, support the black market and only risk a fine for posession (while contributing to and supporting all the bad things that go along with that market), or remove myself from that market and risk losing everything.

      Drug prohibition is the problem, not drugs.

    39. Re:I don't think so. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      So which category does marijuana prohibition fall under?
      It falls under the "woman judge is afraid to be raped by niggers, so she manages to have pot outlawed". The fucking bitch has even her own statue in Ottawa.
    40. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I don't have the right to do what I want, when I'm the one who will have to deal with the consequences."

      No your not, that is the point, I am the one paying for it when you can't handle your addiction, or when you breed a bunch of kids so you can get more money on welfare after you lose your job.

      no man is an island.

      you are free to move to some 3 world country that will let you do what you want, but dont expect anyone to help you when your down.

      Rights are no use without corresponding responsibilities.

    41. Re:I don't think so. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Of course there was the War Measures act that Trudeau threw up during the FLQ crisis but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms put that to bed.
      Actually, no. The War Measures Act was passed during World-War One, and was revoked around 1986 by Brian Mulroney. And if the Charter invalidated the War Measures Act, the latter could be conveniently amended with an invocation of the Nothwitstanding Clause (a law can override the Charter for 5 years - it was put there at the request of English Canada which does not want to provide any services to french people and is currently used, for example, to ALLOW public funding of religious schools (in violation of the Charter) in Québec).
    42. Re:I don't think so. by why-is-it · · Score: 1
      Yep. And I choose civil disobedience in this case.

      Unless you openly purchasing and selling pot in a deliberate attempt to be arrested, charged and convicted under what you consider to be an unjust law, you are not choosing civil disobedience.

      Based on what you have posted, I don't get the impression that you are "choosing civil disobedience". More likely you are trying to rationalize your behaviour, and you made a poor choice of words.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    43. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta agree with you in this case. All or none, but stop being hypocritical (not you, but the people who say "Drugs are evil" and then go get smashed at a pub).

      Don't see that happening anytime soon, though.

    44. Re:I don't think so. by |<amikaze · · Score: 1

      GP: But Alcohol is probably more responsible than marijuana is

      P: What?? I have no idea what you mean by that. Have you ever seen anyone get violent after smoking too many joints? I've seen it plenty of times with booze.

      I think the GP meant that Alcohol is more responsible for societal problems than marijuana is.

      GP: the problem is, alcohol has been legal too long, they can't make it illegal... but I bet if they could, they would.

      P: You need a lesson in history I think. They tried that once already you know..

      And when they did it in the past, it was a huge failure. Either way, alcohol is a huge cash cow in Canada (as far as I understand). In Saskatchewan, for example, most liquor sales are handled through government-run liquor board stores. Provincially it would be suicide for a party to close all of these stores.

    45. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      No your not, that is the point, I am the one paying for it when you can't handle your addiction, or when you breed a bunch of kids so you can get more money on welfare after you lose your job.

      Do you have any statistics to back that up? Because Narcotics Anonymous does not accept money from outside of its membership. The leading cause of people going on welfare is divorce. And I have no idea why think pot usage will lead to me losing my job. How many people reading this have ever called in sick with a 40oz flu? I've never ever missed work because I smoked too many joints the night before. Ever.

      You are the victim of a somewhat popular misconception. The statistics tell a very different story.

    46. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      This is probably a better link to the study.

    47. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1
      Wikipedia:
      • Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence.


      If it matters though, I have been arrested for smoking pot, though I've never been to jail, never paid a fine for it, and I do not have a criminal record.
    48. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I think the GP meant that Alcohol is more responsible for societal problems than marijuana is.

      Could be, I wasn't sure.

      In Saskatchewan, for example, most liquor sales are handled through government-run liquor board stores. Provincially it would be suicide for a party to close all of these stores.

      Interestingly enough, according to this morning's paper, our government (Manitoba) is so worried about cheap beer eroding their tax revenue that they are now passing legislation to raise the minimum price that the monopoly is allowed to charge for beer.

      These fucking hypocrites are the biggest drug pushers around.

    49. Re:I don't think so. by why-is-it · · Score: 1
      Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence.

      Ok, now read a bit further until you get to the point where it talks about how civil disobedience involves a public, deliberate display of breaking the unjust law.

      From the same entry:

      Protesters do so with the expectation that they will be arrested, or even attacked or beaten by the authorities.

      I still fail to see how you qualify...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    50. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I still fail to see how you qualify.

      I guess it's fortunate for me that I don't really care what you see or don't see.

    51. Re:I don't think so. by bulliver · · Score: 1

      It actually looks like this is pretty innocuous. Here's a couple choice quotes from the Department of Justice's Lawful Access FAQ, which as you mentioned, is linked in Geist's annotated version of the article:

      Lawful access is a specialized tool used to investigate serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, child pornography, and murder...Lawful access can only be used with legal authority, i.e. a warrant or an authorization to intercept private communications, issued by a judge under specific circumstances. For example, authorizations to intercept private communications can only be used to target particular communications and can only be carried out for a specific period of time. In order to obtain a warrant to search for and seize data, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. For the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), both the Solicitor General and a Federal Court judge must approve each warrant application...Lawful access is provided for in legislation such as the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act, the Competition Act and other acts. This legislation is subject to privacy laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...While technology has evolved considerably since then, Canada's lawful access laws have not kept pace. Increasingly complex technologies are challenging conventional lawful access methods.

      So it looks to me like they are just bringing 'wiretap' laws into the computer age.

      --
      Support the mob or mysteriously disappear.
    52. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1
      Prohibition in the US is what gave rise to the mob. Really good job there...now we have a much stronger organized crime than we did before.

      Yep. Same thing is happening right now.

      • But the profits come at a deadly price. At least 150 people have died during the eight-year turf war between the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine. While Canadians were aware of the biker war, few cared until the death of 11-year-old Daniel Desrochers. He died when a bomb exploded outside a biker hangout.


      These low lifes killed a very dear friend of mine in 1997, by shooting him point blank in the face with a shotgun because he attempted to get the license plate number of their vehicle after they stole under $100 from the store he worked at as a butcher.

      The things these people did to that poor family after he died, and his brother went on a crusade to crack down on gangs in this country went from showing up at his mothers work (a downtown department store) and displaying various weapons, to tapping on their windows in the middle of the night to yell threats at them.

      If ever there was a group of terrorists that needed dealing with, its these guys.
    53. Re:I don't think so. by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Lived in the US for 4 years now. Trust me, there are many more crack-pots here than in Canada. Per-capita. Believe it. The macro-insanity seen at the country level is, I suspect, a direct result of the micro-insanity at the individual level. Don't get me wrong. I've met "The world bank is an insiduous organization designed to track people via secret IDs in money" types in Canada too. But never so many that "don't trust government" yet believe every word their government says. Many more who think that government is hopelessly inept, yet for some reason, also believe that the military is somehow exempt from that same belief.

      Also, the reason the US's dirty laundry is closely examined is that it is often more open, but it also can affect legions people in other countries. Got Oil?
      Canada's major quirks are taxing CDRWs and things like that. No comparison really.

      -b

    54. Re:I don't think so. by why-is-it · · Score: 1
      I guess it's fortunate for me that I don't really care what you see or don't see.

      Absolutely, because I try to avoid hypocracy.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    55. Re:I don't think so. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, because I try to avoid hypocracy.

      What hypocracy? Please tell me how this does not count? There are several rally every year, and many of us have been arrested, as I said, I got arrested once (in Edmonton). Marc is the only one who ever faces charges as far as I know. Here is video footage of Marc being arrested in Regina, and then talking about what happened to him.

    56. Re:I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hairbrained proposals that some lobbyists are putting forth in Canada are real, but there's little danger of any of them being taken seriously and he knows that.

      Well, he stated that he's critical of Sarmite Bulte's proposal, and she's my duly elected Member of Parliment, not just "some lobbyist". I for one welcome the information about what she's up to: it gives me a chance to hear her side of the story, assess her reasoning, and see if I can talk her out of it if I disagree. And if she's proves to be completely unreasonable, it gives me reasons to try to talk my friends and neighbours out of voting for her next election.

      --
      AC

  7. Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by Staplerh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmm, hopefully our privacy commissioner will step up to the plate on this issue. A few weeks ago, Slashdot was trumpeting the privacy commissioner as a good thing for Canada - now I see a few other posters desparaging Canada. This is good, but hopefully if people raise enough awareness (the Star article will help), and word gets out things can change.

    Our government bowed to public pressure with respects to the American ballistic missile defence programme, and they'd bow to any sort of pressure towards the ISPs with regards to this. Of course, it can't hurt to let the privacy commissioner know that people care about this issue.

    Privacy Commissioner: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by MrAndrews · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Privacy Commissioner will probably get this killed quite quickly (if it ever progresses past its current state, which is unlikely).

      [Basically, IC and PCH futz around for a few years developing grandiose plans related to hot topics of the day, and then someone mentions that half of the Strategis website is available only in English, and they run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to cover it up, completely forgetting everything they've worked on previously.]

      The Privacy Commissioner will get to check over any proposals before they make it to a proper committee, and that's when the scary stuff'll be aired, Lloyd Robertson will make you scared to go to bed at night, and the government will take two giant steps away from it like they never knew anyone was proposing such rubbish in the first place.

      Which is not to say you can't write in and vent, but you have to allow for the brilliant inefficiencies of Canadian government to take effect before you march on Parliament Hill.

    2. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by BallyHigh · · Score: 1

      ...I believe he's hanging out with our ethics commissioner

    3. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      One thing I have noticed is that the media seems to be out of step by at least 6 months with what is going on in the govt.

      They will find some document written way back when and publish about it but seem not to find the response to the document that basically negates prior document's issue.

    4. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      Privacy Commissioner ? completely ham-stringed and ineffectual ... toady to his buddy the appointer, and appointed leader, Prime Minister Paul " Waffles " Martin ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    5. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      what public pressure about American missle defence ? there was significant private pressure from the Quebec government, but nothing from the CITIZENS of Canada ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    6. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

      Beg your pardon, Alberta citizen, but none of us citizens of Quebec AND Ontario wanted anything to do with the USA missile defense.

      Two sane reasons:
      1- it breaks important cold war treaties, which makes us Bad Guys;
      2- the bloody thing does not even come close to faking expected behavior! (i.e.: shooting missiles down)

      And the third reason, which does not suit everybody:
      3- this is a bad, bad, bad idea. It just yells "throw me one!" to extremists of every horizon, state or not.

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    7. Re:Where is the Privacy Commissioner? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      what public pressure about American missle defence ? there was significant private pressure from the Quebec government, but nothing from the CITIZENS of Canada ...
      You're obviously a western-canada redneck, that is, a very small percentage (5%) of the population (in term of intelligence, it's more like .05% if the total I.Q.) of Canada and thus not representative at all of the population in general.

      Western-Canada rednecks are well known for primitive stupid viewpoints that are directly aligned to those displayed in Texas and other stupid-belt US States, and so therefore can be entirely dismissed as irrelevant entertainment.

      In other words, western-canadian rednecks' sole purpose in life is to make more enlightened eastern canadians laugh at how stupid people can be.

  8. ...so don't break the law by g-to-the-o-to-the-g · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unless you have something to hide from (as in you're doing something illegal over the internet), this is not a problem. Since file trading (including music) is entirely legal in Canada, where is the problem here? Besides, if I want an email (or whatever) to remain private, I click on the "encrypt message" thing in Evolution and it does some GnuPG magic making it very difficult for anyone to read it. Same goes for any type of encryption. To me this sounds like:
    • Not much of a problem
    • Mostly typical Slashdot FUD.
    • Something that will have a very hard time actually going through the parliament here

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

    1. Re:...so don't break the law by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      Right, it won't get through Parliament, but that's not the issue -- invasion of privacy *is* an issue. What do the people get out of this? Nothing, because criminals can use GnuPG as well. Why add yet more government without giving the people additional services?

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    2. Re:...so don't break the law by Autobahn · · Score: 1

      Unless you have something to hide from (as in you're doing something illegal over the internet), this is not a problem.

      Like criticizing the government? Sure, it's not a crime now, but freedoms have a tendency to erode (see: United States and Muslim organizations, Russia and Yukos) at unbelievable speeds.

    3. Re:...so don't break the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the government doesn't have these main stream encryption schemes on file to decrypt messages.

    4. Re:...so don't break the law by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      it is immaterial and irrelevant, whether or not I or others have " something to hide " - it is the PRINCIPLE. Of constant surveillance, of constant threats to our individual and collective privacy, of compiling that massive database of every little factoid about you to be used against you anywhere and everywhere possible, and anywhen. It is the principle of fighting Big Brother's attempts to control, subjugate, and manipulate the human condition, ensuring that freedom and rights continue to reign suprem e above any and all fleeting governments ... outlasting these tyrants and other petty dictators ... is it just me, or does anyone else find it amusing that as the " Third " world, mid-east etc are finally beginning to get some rights and freedoms, that OUR enlightened democratic bodies are trying to suppress us, amd destroy our freedoms ?

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    5. Re:...so don't break the law by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 1

      It's not that people want to hide the things that they're doing, it's just none of the government's damn business what we're doing.

    6. Re:...so don't break the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so full of shit it's a wonder you can even see out your eyes.

      I see that you are yet another one of those "privacy nudists" who thinks it's perfectly okay to have a camera jammed up your ass 24/7 "since you're not committing any crimes anyway."

      So, do you mind the cops putting a camera in your bedroom? Hey you're not breaking any laws so why not? Or how about snapping an RFID tag on your ear? Hey you weren't planning on robbing a bank so you've got nothing to worry about. How about mandatory rectal exams at every roadside checkpoint? If you're not a drug smuggler you shouldn't mind, after all.

      Wanker. Please find another country to live in. Where _I_ come from, I value my privacy--whether I'm a crook or a saint. I'm sick of cowards like yourself who are so willing to have the government take your rights away so you can live with the comfortable illusion of being "safe." People like you do not deserve the freedom you so take for granted.

    7. Re:...so don't break the law by gnixdep · · Score: 1

      first, "I don't have anything to hide" is a bullshit excuse. There is a reason we have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

      Second, when Canada signs on to WIPO, then music sharing, etc... *will* be illegal.

  9. Cradle to the grave socialism by Jerry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They voted for it... now they have it, pressed down, heeped up and running over.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    1. Re:Cradle to the grave socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot with no knowledge of Canada whatsoever.

    2. Re:Cradle to the grave socialism by bhirsch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may be flamebait, but he is basically right. The more government tends to its citizens' various needs, the more power it will exercise over them.

    3. Re:Cradle to the grave socialism by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      In the US the Bush administration is dismantling what is left of the New Deal social security provisions yet through the "Patriot act" it is excercising more and more power over them.

      Canada shares with the US the fact that politicians can be bought and sold like pork belly futures. The CRIA is just trying to buy the key politicians in the Canadian government the way it buys Senators in the US and our dubious security services are trying to extend their control on the back of this, just the same as in the US. In Canada it is just not quite so blatant. Due to the fact we are a Parliamentary democracy not an elective monarchy like the US, it can make the government a little more responsive to the people's wishes. But even here democracy is dying like in the US our voter turnouts are falling rapidly and are now nearly as low as the abysmal level in the US.

      Though in both cases it could be seen as an active refusal to a system that is failing to deliver on the real needs of people - but maybe that's over-optimistic.

    4. Re:Cradle to the grave socialism by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      There are many practical and usually shortterm exceptions. Look at it this way, a government isn't going to both provide you with healthcare and permit you to lie in a ditch with a needle in your vein.

  10. Seems to be a worldwide trend. by wk633 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Russia, ISPs have to aborb the cost of providing monitoring to the FSB.

    In the US, it's called CALEA (among other things).

    1. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it backwards in the US? CALEA absorbing the cost of ISPs? We should have a new acronym TINASRJ: (this is not a soviet russia joke) and you should use it whenever you post anything about Russia.

    2. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Misroi · · Score: 1

      Omg thank you, I was sure you were going to say something like In Russia, The internets monitors you! All hope is not lost!

    3. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, jokes tell YOU!

    4. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, hope loses YOU!

    5. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in soviet russia, cost absorbs you!

    6. Re:Seems to be a worldwide trend. by Vince+Mo'aluka · · Score: 1
      Newsflash: Big government is a worldwide trend.

      Since the beginning of time, all governments have been concerned primarily with increasing their own power and wealth -- it's just that some are more bold than others, some have more resources to plunder than others, and some have a better understanding of just how much they can get away with.

      When you see that your government is planning to expand its powers once again, before you ask yourself how the people will benefit, ask yourself how government will benefit. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but nobody can deny that expansion of government powers benefits government. The question is not if, but who, when, and how much.

      --
      You took his stuff. You pound him.
  11. nice... but no meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where's the proposed bills that would bring this into law? The journalist makes no mention of it.

    Seems to be more along the lines of bitching about VoIP services. The Canadian privacy commission would never allow this to go through.

    1. Re:nice... but no meat by rakerman · · Score: 1
    2. Re:nice... but no meat by Jonny_eh · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, this is the country that passed a bill to ban trans-fats (not in effect yet).

      Canada is VERY capable of stupid laws, hopefully it can't pass anything like this while there's a minority government in power.

    3. Re:nice... but no meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think banning trans-fats is a stupid law.

  12. OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Canada is not the Utopia that Slashbots love to make it out as!!! What's next? Are we going to find out that Europe is the same? My word, what will we ever do? Is this the end of Milhouse?

    1. Re:OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should ask, we're just about to embark on the colonization of a new planet where we'll escape the Big Brother menace. At the moment, we're preparing the B-Ark which will blast off first, loaded with the most essential people, including Slashdotters, who will prepare the planet for the rest... Yeah, that's the ticket... You're more than welcome to join us in the B-Ark. In fact, we insist.

    2. Re:OH NO!!!! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Now that EU has succumbed to software patents, and this happened in Canada, seems like the only free Western country left is NZ =)

    3. Re:OH NO!!!! by merdark · · Score: 1

      Except that nothing 'happened' in Canada. This is all just speculation. Just because some people in government want something, doesn't mean it will happen.

      Hopefully the rest of the gov. will shoot this stuff down hard.

    4. Re:OH NO!!!! by smchris · · Score: 1

      Apparently, NZ is a rather maternalistic country. Someone less lazy than I am tonight can surely find a link about the home raid on the couple who ordered a few foreign "growing marijuana at home" books. It was the books they wanted to confiscate.

      From what I can gather, the Neocons have spoiled Great Britian and are working on Australia. Let's hope Canada can resist the Orwellian/Huxleyian urge. It would be nice if a few scattered technologically advanced regions spoke English and had a tradition of British common law and human rights after the unfolding Dark Ages in the U.S.

    5. Re:OH NO!!!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      Right. And the next thing you know, Der Spiegel will be asking, "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" That will be the day.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:OH NO!!!! by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I'm *sure* this is somehow the fault of the USA. We just haven't thought hard enought yet. Surely there must be something the US has done wrong?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    7. Re:OH NO!!!! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      after the unfolding Dark Ages in the U.S.

      Thanks for the best laught I've had all day. If the US is growing dark, here is where the light is going.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  13. Get out the aluminium foil by DanielMarkham · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time to make a tinfoil tuke.

    1. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time to learn how to spell touque. :)

    2. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by The+Hobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actually toque in English, I live here, I know. It's from the French word tuque.

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    3. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Espèce d'idiot! C'est toque!

    4. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

      I lived and worked there for a year and had four years of French. I should know better! Apologies.

      I checked by Googling tuke -- up popped some images of people with and without hats, so I thought - -gee! That must be it. Looks like I mis-googled.

      And apologies to the other 14 Canadians. I hope I didn't hurt any of their feelings either.

    5. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Fry+a+Lad+Up · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I checked by Googling tuke -- up popped some images of people with and without hats, so I thought - -gee! That must be it. Looks like I mis-googled.

      Maybe Google is just getting dumber as the semi-literate become computer literate. "Garbage in, garbage out."

    6. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Time to learn how to spell touque. :)

      Without an "o"? ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c'est "tuque" en français!

    8. Re:Get out the aluminium foil by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, gizoogle is where it's at, yo!

  14. brother by looneyboy784 · · Score: 3, Funny

    if its anything like my older brother is like we have nothing to worry about. ah yes the memories of total lack of caring.

  15. Meh.... by greypilgrim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if this ever made it to parliament, it definitely would never pass. Something as controversial as this would be suicide for a minority government, and we've already seen that Martin is being extra-careful.

    1. Re:Meh.... by Pyr05x · · Score: 1
      What is obviously 'controversial' to the slashdot crowd may not be for the general public...

      Hopefully the Australian Government doesnt get a sniff this. The current government has the power to do whatever the hell they like for the next 3 years - they know no one remembers anything before the 6 months or so of 'we promise's before an election

    2. Re:Meh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen the Liberals in power for what 15 years or so and I've seen scandal after scandal come and go. Trust me, an Internet privacy issue isn't nearly controversial enough to topple the Liberals. Get the fucking sleep out of your eyes dumbass. It'd take Paul Martin setting off a nuke in Montreal to even get close. Canadians are the most apathetic voters in the world. Period.

    3. Re:Meh.... by canwaf · · Score: 0

      Canada has been busy passing privacy laws, and privacy edicts preventing business with US Corporations because they can not guarantee the security of information stored with them. It would be suicide for any government to go against privacy in any way. In fact if this minority government lasts out the next year, Canada will be without an Anti-terrorism act so Paul Martin can sit pretty as Prime Minister of an elected Majority Government.

    4. Re:Meh.... by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, but I think it's a bit more precarious than that. This minority government isn't going to last very long. The Liberals can only be trusted so long as they're afraid of the next election. When they win next time, and they will, they're going to do a lot more of this stuff.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    5. Re:Meh.... by greypilgrim · · Score: 1

      This is true, and it's something that we as Canadians need to stop. I think it is a good thing that Martin has a minority government, it keeps him in check, and it keeps his party accountable. Canada needs to have a minority government.

    6. Re:Meh.... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Even if this ever made it to parliament, it definitely would never pass. Something as controversial as this would be suicide for a minority government, and we've already seen that Martin is being extra-careful.
      Yeah, right. The buget clearly shows that Martin really licks Harper's (cheap-labour conservatives) ass real clean. But in fact, Martin itself is nothing but a cheap-labour conservative in liberal clothes.
    7. Re:Meh.... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      The Liberals can only be trusted so long as they're afraid of the next election. When they win next time, and they will, they're going to do a lot more of this stuff.
      They won't. Without Québec, no one is able to hold power for long. And the liberals are totally burned in Québec (especially when they use turncoats like Lapierre), and the conservatives stand no chance at all, because the values of that bunch of fucking loonies are totally at odd with the French values of Québec (and the urban values of Ontario - don't forget that most of Ontario's population lives around Moronto), and we got our lesson with Mulroney.

      Expect more minority governments in the future.

  16. From what I've learned from living in Canada. by TheNarrator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I lived in Vancouver, BC for a couple of months a few years ago. I follow politics in the U.S actively and when I was in Canada I read the Globe and Mail everyday. From what I could tell, the government in Canada gets what it wants and the Canadian public rarely engages in succesfull political activism. Quebec is an exception, but as far as I could tell, the whole sucession thing was about language and cultural issues. I can't understand why but the general public in Canada is absolutely docile about all things political. Perhaps it's that the newspapers and the CBC seems to generally ignore, obfuscate and smooth over any internal political controversies.

    1. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by HFShadow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I fall into the "docile about all things political category" but don't mistake that for being the general public. Of my 5 roommates, 4 are politically involved. That's not a bad ratio.

    2. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most people in Canada know that all politicians are crooks, and nothing you do or say will change anything to that, nor the way they're doing things.

      I never bothered to vote. Sounds to me like "you get to pick who you get to choose who you bend over in front of". It's going to suck no matter what.

      Politicians are corrupt and lie like all others. Taxes are too high. Our health/school system sucks... What else?

    3. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, give me a break. Considering the kind of stuff that gets glossed over in the American media (Jeff Gannon, anyone? You may not even know who he is because the media has so thoroughly ignored the issue), I don't think that the CBC should be called out as an agency that ignores, obfuscates or smooths over any political controversies. They've reported openly on the Sponsorship scandal, the Gun Registry fiasco, and every other scandal in recent memory. They lean a little left, but they'll take whatever government to task that happens to be available for criticism.

      Don't malign Canadian media. Canadians are apathetic about politics because:

      1) We don't care
      2) Most of this stuff is niggly shit that isn't WORTH caring about
      3) We have better things to do than worry about every conspiracy theorist out there that says the government is going to curtail our rights.

      Now screw off and criticise your own media for the shoddy job it does of damn near everything. The Briar is on.

    4. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Frostalicious · · Score: 5, Informative

      I lived in Vancouver, BC for a couple of months a few years ago.

      I've lived in Vancouver for 32 years, and I think you did not get an accurate picture in your couple of months. There is great outrage whenever scandal shows up. The provincial NDP party was recently voted into oblivion due to scandal. No premiere has survived re-election for as long as I can remember. The federal Liberals went from massively dominant to a minority government due to scandal.

      There was the
      bingogate scandal
      fast ferries scandal
      sponsorship scandal
      casinogate scandal
      tainted blood scandal
      strippergate

      The list goes on. If I was to complain about something, it would be about too much scandal.

    5. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, there's plenty of political movements that happen in Canada (gay marriages, legalizing pot...). However, they aren't as big, mainly because the public gets what it wants.

      The main party that's been in power for more than a decade, the Liberals, are famous for waffling. This isn't really their fault. It's because we Canadians waffle so much (we don't want missle defense! but we still want a business realtionship with the US!). The Liberal party usually doesn't commit to anything, untill an opinion poll is released. When the poll was released last week that 80%+ of Canadians were against the missle defense shield, and with mounting pressure in the Parliment to show their hand, the Liberals had to give in (sort of...).

      Especially now that there is a minority government, the public will be mighty pissed at the party that causes a re-election. So the Liberals are being very careful to be as popular as possible right now.

      As long as our please-the-people Liberals are in power, I don't think you'll see too much activism. Now, if the Conservatives or NDP got the power... then you'd hear something.

    6. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can someone please mod up some of these replies?
      This guy doesn't have a clue and he is the only 5..

    7. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also not a very good polling pool. Four out of Five? What's the percentage of error on that for Cananda? +/- 75%

    8. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of my 5 roommates, 4 are politically involved. That's not a bad ratio.

      Telling. People with roommates are poor and or young (usually both or just poor). Poor people love to blame the government for their troubles. Young people think they know better. Hence their 'activity' in politics, which is generally limited to 'blogging'.

    9. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      3) We have better things to do than worry about every conspiracy theorist...

      ... like staying warm and coming up with better ways to move snow?

    10. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by vicparedes · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake our lack of political involvement as a sign of docility. It could very well be that we find our government agreeable most of the time. Of course we take issues with policies we don't agree with, but we do it in the politest possible way.

    11. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      As long as our please-the-people Liberals are in power, I don't think you'll see too much activism. Now, if the Conservatives or NDP got the power... then you'd hear something.

      It has nothing to do with the party in power, and everything to do with the fact that they have a minority government.

    12. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by renehollan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      If Canadians ever engaged in a peaceful protest in numbers comparable to an American protest, they'd be arrested for "inciting to riot".

      People are scared shitless to be held accountable to any of a number of laws they must break to survive.

      Now, the Army is a joke, and if a million Canadians ever assebled in non-peaceful protest, they could likely decimate it: a million people with rocks can likely defeat a few thousand with rifles, and choppers that fall out of the sky. It would be bloddy, to be sure, with tens of thousands dead, but the Army would lose. But, don't expect that to happen. It took one third the army to put down a native Indian uprising protesting development of a golf course expansion in O.K.A. in the mid-90s, and it took them some six weeks to get the job done. Idiots even, quite likely, shot and killed one of their own. But, people remain scared shitless.

      You see, Canada is a democracy with no real restraining constititution: the notwithstanding clause makes it possible for the government to pass a law overriding any judgement against it. All you need is a majority to enslave the minority, so safest is to "shut up, blend in, and go along".

      We Canucks call this "Peace, Order, and Good Government."

      When the Meech Lake Accord failed to be ratified, the Quebec government issued a decree that anyone flying a Canadian flag on Canada Day (the equivalent of the 4th of July) risked getting arrested for inciting to riot. Heck, it would be unamerican to not stand there, on one's own property, flying the flag, and defending the freedom do do so with some second ammendment firepower, if the U.S. government ever tried to pull a stunt like that.

      When Cree chief Mathew Coon Come took the Quebec government to task for flooding one sixth the province (an area about the size of Europe, excluding Russia), for hydro-electric projects, and displacing native Cree, he risked arrest for libel, for speaking the truth!

      No, Canada stays peaceful, by "shutting up" troublemakers. For all the criticism about the U.S. breaking its own constitution in the detainment of terrorism suspects, from north of the border, few question the horrors behind a Canadian "Security Certificate".

      When some missile gets lobbed across the North Pole at the U.S., this Candian hopes the fallout from a U.S. missle defense shield takes out some of the murderous assholes in power in Canada. If Canada can't control it's airspace, it should still be held accountable for what flies through it toward the U.S., one way or another.

      I just don't know what it will take for the average Canadian to "wake up" and see how they've been royally fucked over by big government since socialism really took off in the late 1960s.

      Americans: kiss the ground you walk on, for this is the best place on earth (yeah, even it you hate Bush in the worst way). Perhaps some day my son, who's an American citizen, might serve to defend the principles upon which the nation was founded. Me, I'm just a wanna-be. Guilty as charged.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    13. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      It's because we Canadians waffle so much (we don't want missle defense! but we still want a business realtionship with the US)

      That's a bunch of crap, and I won't waffle on that observation. You are propagating an unwarranted stereotype of your own country.

      Anyways how is your example waffling. I would call it common sense.

    14. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by saskboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's also highly unusual. Fewer than 2% of Canadian adults are actively involved in party politics, which means that that powerful few is who is deciding everyone's leaders, and the next Prime Ministers. A PM doesn't happen unless he's voted into leading a party, and only those 2% do that.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    15. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by kebes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just wanted to add to this comment... I don't know if I'm interpreting the mood of the post properly, but it seems to be disparaging the Liberals for bowing under pressure so easily. As far as I'm concerned, however, a government should not be criticized for doing what the people want! The fact that the Liberals give into public pressure is a sign that democracy is working. That's why I like being Canadian.

    16. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by vwjeff · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's that the newspapers and the CBC seems to generally ignore, obfuscate and smooth over any internal political controversies.

      This is what happens when government funds media.

      (I am not talking about the newspapers but rather the CBC.)

    17. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I am a Canadian citizen.

      I find most political activism emerges from political scandal. Most often are the scandals are completely blown out of proportion which is constructed by the media. Look at the "Sponsorship
      Scandal" is the bigger scandal not in the amount of money spent investigating this matter and the fact that people who lied, manipulated and stole money not going to prison?

      We have too much of a passive attitude towards politics in our country. I'm probably being passive in saying this but here goes: If I can confirm this is true, I would write a letter to my MP, but I find many people in gov't don't "get" the issues. They're either too stupid, dodge the questions completely, don't understand the issues or pass the buck too often.

    18. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was the
      bingogate scandal
      fast ferries scandal
      sponsorship scandal
      casinogate scandal
      tainted blood scandal
      strippergate

      The list goes on. If I was to complain about something, it would be about too much scandal.

      If I was to complain about something, it would be about too much use of the 'gate' suffix. It looks simply ridiculous.

    19. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Impeesa · · Score: 1

      I've been a BC resident for all of my 21 years, so I'm familiar with your list there. Seeing it all in one place, though, really underscores something that's been kind of in the back of my mind for some time:

      Apparently, we really like to make fun of the name "watergate."

    20. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by seminumerical · · Score: 4, Informative
      It took one third the army to put down a native Indian uprising protesting development of a golf course expansion in O.K.A. in the mid-90s, and it took them some six weeks to get the job done. Idiots even, quite likely, They didn't shoot and kill one of their own, as you say.

      The Mohawks in Oka (not O.K.A.) were protesting the building of a golf course on a gravesite, and they killed a Sûreté du Québec policeman, who would be the equivalent of a state trooper. The Canadian Army took several weeks to move in slowly and arrest the perpetrators. Slowly to make sure no women or children were killed (In the end they killed no one and the Mohawks killed no more; not one of their (the army's) own, as you say). They did this slowly also because and Mohawks has support, and weapons, from other Mohawks, across the border in the US of A. Weapons including a 50 caliber machine gun, and idealogically motivated Iroquois from the Warrior Society.

      I recall that there have been many similar situations in U.S. history that ended less well: Wounded Knee and Waco come to mind.

      You misrepresent the "notwithstanding clause" which allows provincial governments, not the federal government to ignore a federal ruling for a limited period of time.

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    21. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      1. It was never deterimined who killed the SQ officer, though there was substantial evidence that it was not from a bullet matching an enemy firearm.

      2. It does not take several weeks to allow non-combatants in a dispute opportunity to leave: there was no siege.

      3. The Mohawks were better trained and more disciplined than the Army, many of them having received training in the U.S.

      4. The Mohawks also had popular support: it was a city government that gave permission for a nine hole golf course to be expanded to an eighteen hole golf course. What few remember was that that original nine-hole course was built when the natives were duped in the 1950s: constrution was halted when they protested then, but they permitted a "road" to continue to be built, as it would benefit them even if the dispute eventually resulted in the halting of construction of the nine hole course. Well, that "road" became the nine hole course. Kind of hard to legislate the "not doing" of something that was done. If anything, they showed extreme restraint by not "going crazy" this second time around.

      Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blocking, the Army should have given 24 to 48 hours for the non-combattants to clear the area, and then engage the enemy with force. They didn't because they couldn't. Bunch of wimps.

      This was far simpler than the situation at Wounded Knee, Wako, or, for that matter, Ruby Ridge: there was no siege with innocents who could not leave.

      The notwithstanding clause can be use by either the Federal or Provincial governments, though, to my knowledge, only Quebec has ever used it.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    22. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by imnojezus · · Score: 1

      Look, we just got over the whole "bombing the Baldwins" thing, and now you gotta bring this up? Kick us while we're down, why don't ya? I knew you Canadians were warmongers. It must be all that maple syrup and bacon fat.

    23. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by ArtDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Canadians ever engaged in a peaceful protest in numbers comparable to an American protest, they'd be arrested for "inciting to riot".

      If ever?

      Quebec City? UBC? Sure, some people were pepper sprayed, and a few were arrested and released, but that's pretty much how these semi-violent protests go, whereever they are.

      You see, Canada is a democracy with no real restraining constititution: the notwithstanding clause makes it possible for the government to pass a law overriding any judgement against it.

      For five years. During which time an election will take place, and the government can be turfed. The clause has never even been used by the federal government.

      All you need is a majority to enslave the minority, so safest is to "shut up, blend in, and go along".

      Right. Ask an African American about enslaving the minority. Or, for that matter, ask a gay American about shutting up, blending in, and going along ("don't ask, don't tell", I believe they call it).

      ...We Canucks call this "Peace, Order, and Good Government."

      Acutally, only those of us who are ignorant of the consitution do. POGG has nothing to do with the Notwithstanding Clause (in fact, it precedes it by 114 years!) or anything else involving the relationship between government and the people. It only involves the relationship between levels of government: it's the catch-all phrase by which residual powers (i.e. those not explicitly enumerated) are assigned to the federal government.

      ...few question the horrors behind a Canadian "Security Certificate".

      That's funny, because the Security Certificate is actually a frequent topic of concern on that evil, commie government propaganda machine that is the CBC.

      ...and see how they've been royally fucked over by big government since socialism really took off in the late 1960s.

      I'm sorry, did you say "big government"? Here on planet Earth, we might use that term to describe a government whose spending plans would add 1.6 TRILLION dollars to its debt over the next ten years...and that's before you count additional military spending or social security reform (which just happen to be its two primary policy concerns).

      The US is a great country, but it's currently on a course towards disaster. Unfortunately, too many of its less sophisticated citizens (i.e. hicks) are too distracted by the scary brown "evildoers" to notice how badly Bush is screwing things up.

    24. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Sure, some people were pepper sprayed, and a few were arrested and released, but that's pretty much how these semi-violent protests go, whereever they are.

      "Pepper? Eet ees what I put on my plate!"
      - Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien

    25. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by dubstar · · Score: 1

      If I was to complain about something, it would be about too much scandal.

      I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read that post. In the nation's capital during the more temperate months you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a protestor of some sort. I think some of those people have actually made a career out of it...

    26. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by topham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh come on, you forgot the "Knight street pub" scandal, and all the rest. (Vanderzalm, etc)

      B.C. politics should be on TV, it should be broadcast world wide. There is Nothing in this world like B.C. politics.

      And trust me, it's far more entertaining from outside the province.

    27. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      The stupid thing is Ottawa Public Servants. I have been to other cities in Canada and not seen the apathy and laziness (and stupidity) as there is in Ottawa.

    28. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by seminumerical · · Score: 1
      1. It was never deterimined who killed the SQ officer

      Legally it doesn't matter who killed the SQ officer during a firefight between a SWAT team and armed murderous civilians. Incidentally both sides were using M16's and both sides (the Quebec police, not the Army that came in to solve the problem after) were illegally using militarized rounds, and unbelievably both sides were using rounds improperly acquired from the same lot number. This is why we will never know which side fired the bullet.

      2. It does not take several weeks to allow non-combatants in a dispute opportunity to leave: there was no siege

      I guess you weren't here. I was. The Mohawks were in many places, largely on their own land, with barricades, heavy machine guns, logistics from boats travelling at night, and even landed a plane to remove the 50 Cal at night.

      3. The Mohawks were better trained and more disciplined than the Army, many of them having received training in the U.S

      I don't think so. The Mohawks have a tradition of joining the Marines, no matter which side of the US/Canada border they come from. That doesn't mean they were in the Fleet, or STA or anything like that. They were obviously not experienced combat soldiers. They were overweight, showed signed of years of binge drinking, and I doubt any of them were ever officers. The Canadian troops they faced on the other hand included a unit from the "Van Dooze" (Royal 22nd regiment) by day and Joint Task Force Two, the Canadian equivalent of US special forces, by night. The JTF 2 terrorised your supposed better trained Mohawk Warriors by sneaking into their guarded camps at night and leaving notes, cutting wires etc. They terrorised the Afghanis more recently, if you recall, before capturing them.

      Your comment about them being wimps is strange. There were many Mohawks women and children involved. You simply make no sense. Wounded Knee lasted 71 days and the Oka crisis lasted 78 days. Seems pretty similar. Why would an intellectual peanut like you think that the Canadian Forces should have gone in blasting US and Canadian civilians (yes many of the Mohawks were US citizens. Do you think the Canadian army, with years of peacekeeping experience in Crete, Bosnia, etc. was going to play Rambo with US citizens?) So when you say that it was a simpler situation than Wounded Knee you are just making things up as you go along.

      We don't have a Bosnia here because the Canadian Forces handled the situation professionally. I've gone into the reservations many times since the crisis. Into both Kanawake (to play golf) and Oka. Do you think I could still do that if Canada's professional armed forces had done as you suggested?

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    29. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering the kind of stuff that gets glossed over in the American media (Jeff Gannon, anyone? You may not even know who he is because the media has so thoroughly ignored the issue)

      The "Jeff Gannon story" isn't being "glossed over", it is being covered. It just doesn't get a lot of front page coverage because there isn't much of a "there" there. It is a little weird, and sordid, but not much to get whipped up over as a serious issue. It is candy for the conspiracy buffs, but not much else.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by blonde+rser · · Score: 1

      When the poll was released last week that 80%+ of Canadians were against the missle defense shield

      What poll are you talking about? I have not seen any poll that has shown more than 55% of Canadians against missile defence. In Quebec I read a report that their numbers were as high as 70% against and Quebec was by and far much more against missile defence than the rest of the country. Can you quote something?

    31. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      bingogate scandal
      fast ferries scandal
      casinogate scandal
      strippergate

      Sweet; gambling, speedboats and strippers. Sounds like a 70's action show!

    32. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      If Canada can't control it's airspace, it should still be held accountable for what flies through it toward the U.S., one way or another.

      I wonder if air could be considered for common carrier status...

    33. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by SerialEx13 · · Score: 1

      B.C. politics should be on TV, it should be broadcast world wide. There is Nothing in this world like B.C. politics.

      Isn't that what the B.C. Legislature channel is for? As for the world, there's a Webcast of the legislature.

    34. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Bill Clennet?

    35. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Maybe its because I'm in Ottawa. Although, I've spoken with others in gov't across the country, and there are similar levels of ineptitude. The federal gov't in Ottawa, does pare as the worst. Unfortunate because as taxpayers, we have to pay for it all. Sigh.

    36. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      The US is a great country, but it's currently on a course towards disaster. Unfortunately, too many of its less sophisticated citizens (i.e. hicks) are too distracted by the scary brown "evildoers" to notice how badly Bush is screwing things up.

      Disaster? I think that's overstating it. Bush won't be around forever. And, it's still a better place than Canada.

      The societal pendulum does swing widely in the U.S. though, and, given it's might, is probably somewhat unnerving for the rest of the word.

      That much, I'll grant.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    37. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by atuk_daud · · Score: 1

      In the US the only way to get things done is to market them massively. With the levels of government you have to go through it requires a realllllllly big effort to make even a minor impact.

      In Canada, on the other hand, you can gain ready access to your local MP (Member of Parliament) to let your opinions be known and when enough constituents do this, the MP (he/she) knows that to go against the tide results in a loss of income and prestige.

      We don't have to worry about the 'Big Boss' (i.e. the president) frowning at us nor our we controlled by the individual power of veto that is resident in the president.

      We can have active local action groups without making a big fuss and like any good family we do try to keep our problems 'in the house' so to speak and attend to our problems in an adult fashion. I only wish the same could be said about our neighbour to the south.

      Canadians are politically active but we do so with a sense of decorum not easily found amoung our neighbours. Perhaps this is because of our longer traditions (not much I grant you but...) or perhaps because we are, by nature, a more sedate group of people.

      And perhaps this is the best reason that this proposal has no chance of survival. Canadians of all political pursuasions relish their privacy. Possibly more than any other group around. And they will quietly let their MP know.

      --
      The truly loyal subject will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures
    38. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When the poll was released last week that 80%+ of Canadians were against the missle defense shield, and with mounting pressure in the Parliment to show their hand, the Liberals had to give in (sort of...).


      do you remember a non-binding referendum about vancouver 2010 winter olympics? why was it made non-binding? I lived there at that time and know that people didn't want the olympics and they showed that by voting. the vote was ignored. so much for 'bowing under pressure' from liberals.
    39. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is candy for the conspiracy buffs, but not much else."

      Ah, the mantra of the docile. Label anything which the Government doesn't want you to think about as a "conspiracy theory" and the whole thing just goes away.

      The humorous thing about this is that it presupposes that conspiracies don't exist. Which is clearly, utter nonsense. I find it hard to believe that politicians don't collude in secret or that politicians don't ever secretly collude with other people. It's a ridiculous presumption.

      With regards to the Gannon story, it's very much an issue. Here we have a man who using a fake name for over a year gets a daily press pass. How can he get away with using a pseudonym? Either the White House knows its a fake name and lets him use it. Why? Or the White House doesn't know and he has therefore lied to the FBI, (Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to the FBI). Either way, it's a matter of public interest I would have thought.

      Of course we know why he uses a fake name; he's a male, homosexual prostitute turned journalist. Now, to listen to the shills on the TV you would think that this is an issue of homosexuality, it isn't. Guckert can fuck as many men as he wants as far as I'm concerned but the fact of the matter is prostitution is illegal and it is that which is being "glossed over". Where's the Moral Majority now? Not to mention the issue of allowing a (unconvicted but self-confessed) felon within metres of the President. Again, very much an issue of public interest.

      The rabbit hole's a lot deeper than this. But the outline above is more than enough for the MSM to be more concerned than they are currently...

      Oh look! Michael Jackson's on TV!

    40. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      see, there's the sad-sacks amongst us ... we have to fight their battles for them as well as our own ... they do not comprehend that it is the little things that matter, the first little right to be infringed, the first little police state like behaviour that must be exposed to the light of freedom and threat to the commonweal. THESE then, are what are truly important. Expose and denounce, instantly, any such attempts to abrogate our rights and freedoms.

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    41. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by topham · · Score: 1

      kinda cool, but that doesn't come with the local news commentary.

      (cool because a webcast is available, no, in truth I wouldn't watch it.)

    42. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by saskboy · · Score: 1

      You know, I think it has more to do with having America as a neighbour. By comparison, Canada's politics is boring, and subdued. However many people are proud of this, even though voter apathy is allowing governments to get away with everything short of murder, and sometimes even that.

      One proposed method, supported by well over 50MPs, although I don't know the exact number, is to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in federal elections, thus giving them a chance to become active politically before they grow into 18 year olds ready to coast on the system in place for them.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    43. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      The societal pendulum does swing widely in the U.S. though, and, given it's might, is probably somewhat unnerving for the rest of the word.

      The societal pendulum swings widely in the US? You've got to be kidding. You've obviously never spent any time in Europe, or if you did, you spent most of it on base with your eyes closed.

      Our "societal pendulum" ranges from "right" to "far right," with a possible extention to "extreme right" under the current administration. Even under FDR, the favorite whipping boy of american reactionaries, we were well to the right of what the rest of the world calls "center."

      It's unnerving to the rest of the world to be invaded by a nuclear fascist power that apparently knows no restraint beyond the limits posed by its own military strength (limits we are now seeing manifest). It's unnerving to see the one-time leader and advocate of freedom and democracy (however hypocritically we were at the time, arming and propping up dictatorships such as Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, etc.) become undemocratic. It is unnerving to see America's blatently profit-driven warmongering on behalf of Exxon, Mobile, and assorted ex-Enron principals such as the Bush and Bin-Laden families replace decades of careful diplomacy and consensus.

      America hasn't historically been prone to extremism, at least at the national, policy level. Indeed, we've been quite steady while the rest of the world has oscillated between political extremes. That makes it far more unnerving, now that we are becoming a fascist state. Hell, I'm afraid of what we're becoming ... who can blame the rest of the world for being even more afraid? And who can blame our innoffensive neighbor to the north for beginning to feel a little fear. No one likes living next to a Bully ... you never know when he might turn on you, or blame you for his own actions, or simply shake you down for a little lunch money when his runs short.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    44. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Perhaps it's that the newspapers and the CBC seems to generally ignore, obfuscate and smooth over any internal political controversies.
      This is what happens when government funds media.
      Totally false. The CBC ***LOVES*** to embarrass governments. And since they don't have their balls held tight by advertisers, they don't shy from embarrassing big private companies either, or covering the disgusting jewish behaviour in the Middle-East (a no-no in USA for the jewish-owned media).
    45. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      It's because we Canadians waffle so much (we don't want missle defense! but we still want a business realtionship with the US)
      That's a bunch of crap, and I won't waffle on that observation. You are propagating an unwarranted stereotype of your own country.
      Perhaps in your tiny-brained west, where only 5% of the population account for less than .05% of the collective canadian brain power, but definitely not in enlightened eastern Canada.
    46. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      I find most political activism emerges from political scandal. Most often are the scandals are completely blown out of proportion which is constructed by the media. Look at the "Sponsorship Scandal" is the bigger scandal not in the amount of money spent investigating this matter and the fact that people who lied, manipulated and stole money not going to prison?
      The sponsorship "scandal" is mere window-dressing to divert the attention from the REAL scandal: the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SURPLUS SCANDAL, where 45 billion (yes, $45e9 - enough to buy 15 space shuttles and a Hubble) dollars were stolen by Paul Martin from the canadian workers to pay for the tax reduction of the rich.
    47. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      The stupid thing is Ottawa Public Servants. I have been to other cities in Canada and not seen the apathy and laziness (and stupidity) as there is in Ottawa.
      You obviously haven't seen the Montréal City civil servants...
    48. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      You will find a far better explaination of what is going on in this case here. I recommend that you read it and then go back through your questions and assumptions.

      Sure, conspiracies do exist, but not everything is a "conspiracy". Of course, I would love to know what the real meat to this one is, if it really is a "conspiracy". Let me guess what you think: gay porn prostitutes conspire against Democrats with Christian Right hardline administration to ask occasional softball questions at press conferences.... news organizations being forced to carry right-wing gay-porn hardline Christian pro-prostitute spin to further their agenda due to it being only questions allowed to be asked at press conferences. Whoo hoo! There is something after all!!

      Hmmm. Or maybe it is: Loser with a web site feels important from being admitted on a "day press pass" and being called upon due to being known for asking softball questions? Loser admitted to press conferences on same alias basis as Larry King and on the same journalistic basis as the Schlepville Iowa Gazette.

      Hmmm.... Which is it? .... Which is it? I guess only time will tell.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    49. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blocking, the Army should have given 24 to 48 hours for the non-combattants to clear the area, and then engage the enemy with force. They didn't because they couldn't. Bunch of wimps.
      It wasn't the first time the indians blocked the Mercier Bridge. They did it in the late 1950's to protest the building of the St-Lawrence Seaway. The army was called-in.

      No one remembers it because the suburbs served by the bridge were totally insignificant at the time and thus, there was no public outcry.

    50. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      Umm, the guy is not a journalist, tried to get a congressional press pass and was refused, yet manages to get one for the white house. No, make that: managed to get a daily pass whenever he showed up. Because then he could get around the Secret Service background check which would *normally* be necessary. Oh, and he's using an alias. But that seems to be OK with the white house. No biggie.

      The softballs he lobbed to get the admin out of tight spots in questioning is only a small part of the problem here. He also is one of the people fed the information about Valerie Plame being a CIA agent. Hmm, that seems odd, don't you think? Who does he know? What are his connections?

      And don't repeat that crap that Plame was just a secretary or something. She was running foreign agents in a long-runnning operation to track the proliferation of nuclear and biological materials for the purpose arming terrorist groups. That the disclosure of her identity was a felony is one thing, but whoever did it should face a firing squad.

      And i noticed you linked to an article by Ann Coulter - give me a break! She's a GOP attack dog with zero credibility. I read her article, and she's just trying to spin this as no big deal and deflect attention from the real issue. WE don't care that he's gay! If this had happened on Clinton's watch she'd be frothing at the mouth (oh, wait... that's her general demeanor) and probably mostly about his sexual preferences. The issues here are national security, administration law-breaking, and propaganda (BTW, who was paying his salary?)

      So, let's re-cap:

      • "Gannon" is not a journalist
      • "Gannon" was given access to the white house briefings (and called on for "qestions") in a manner presumably to get around the required background security checks
      • "Gannon" was given information classified secret in a failed attempt to embarrass Joe Wilson (which, aside from being a felony has probably put the US at further risk)

      That "Gannon" also apparently acted as a call-boy merely accentuates the seriousness of the fact that some person(s) in the administration got him around the background checks. Someone was using him for political dirty tricks. Who is "Gannon"? Who got him into the white house? Who gave him the information about Plame?

      At a minimum, there should be a congreesional investigation about this. "Gannon" should be brought before a grand jury. And whoever leaked the information on Plame, at a minimum, should be sent to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for life.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    51. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      The liberals are no better, on average, than any other political party. For instance:
      The Conservatives, the previous ruling party, had a bit of an AirBus scandal, which didn't seem to get nearly as much scandal as the Liberal sponsorship scandal. I don't know which cost us more money, and don't care. I'm just pointing out that they had their own, too.

      But they also had a contract to buy new helicopters for the military due to the imminent risk of our old helicopters plummeting out of the sky due to old age. This was a major part of the Liberal platform (vote for us, and no new big helicopters for our military). They won, cancelled the contract, paid the cancellation penalty, we had helicopters plummet out of the sky due to mechanical failure (no real repercussions to the Liberal party who decided to not replace them), had more helicopters grounded, and finally got a contract for a smaller version of the helicopter that the conservatives had contracted to obtain. From what I've heard from some friends in the military, these smaller helicopters will not be able to perform all of the missions performed by the current, obselete, model. This is only one of the problems caused by party politics, and I could find more that point the finger at other parties. I'm sure that searching would find me examples of where a change in ruling parties meant that bad laws didn't get passed, too.

      Now for the biggest issue I have with the former leader of the Liberal party, and which went almost ignored by the media. Although publicized, they never criticized him (Jean Chretien) to the extent this deserved. There was a meeting of international rulers in B.C., Vancouver I believe, which included some known for human rights violations. Protesters did what they do, and started waving signs and shouting slogans. They may or may not have been violent, I've never seen anything to show conclusively whether or not they did. There were some rumours that Chretien contacted the RCMP and made it clear that he didn't want anything to make the meeting unpleasant. The protest ended with some protesters getting pepper-sprayed and put in jail for some period of time (possibly less than a day). Rather than Chretien saying that he was concerned about any human rights violations, or that the situation would be investigated by the appropriate parties, we get "I put pepper on my steak." The fact that these violations occurred, shit can and does indeed happen, but that it may very well have been approved by our highest elected official, and that he got elected again after this.

      So let's not say the Liberals are the supporters of popular opinions, the chamions of human rights, and pretty much anything else. They're politicians, many of whom are driven by goals that are purely personal.

      Some supporting links, you can find more, with more information, if you want to look.
      Pepper sray incident
      Conservative view of the helicopter issue

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    52. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by seminumerical · · Score: 1

      How do you know about the 1950's blockade? Most slashdotters weren't even born then? Just curious.

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    53. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Because some newspapers mentionned it during the 1990 blockade... :)

    54. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      ...give me a break!

      A break? Sure! I'll even throw in a few clues.

      First, Gannon had to submit to the same security checks as everybody else.

      Second, if you read the Coulter piece, you no doubt noticed that she "outed" a number of journalists and media figures that use aliases. So, there is nothing odd there.

      Third, every White House calls on people known to ask friendly questions. No set ups required, and probably no surer way to make yourself fee important by being called on for questions at the White House.

      Fourth, regarding the Plame affair, the New York Times seems to be singing a different tune these days as to it being "illegal". I wonder why?

      Fifth, if Gannon isn't a "journalist", and you think he shouldn't have gotten a press pass after going through the checks, then you are saying that the White House should pick and choose who it considers to be journalists. Isn't that a comforting thought? Some blogs dwarf the readership of even major city news papers. Where is the cut-off?

      You seem to be riding the band wagon to try and turn the presence of a marginal gay journalist asking friendly questions at White House press briefings into a major scandal. I think that you are in for a long, slow, bumpy, and ultimately disapointing ride. I guess you have to play the cards you're delt.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    55. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by mre5565 · · Score: 1
      You see, Canada is a democracy with no real restraining constititution: the notwithstanding clause makes it possible for the government to pass a law overriding any judgement against it.
      For five years. During which time an election will take place, and the government can be turfed. The
      During the 5 years the government cherry picks the opinion polls and gets re-elected. With no term limits on Prime Minister. Hence, 21 distinct Canadians PMs in 138 years vs. 42 distinct US presidents in 216 years.

      And you'd think that since in Canada a PM can call an election any time, when he inherits the job due to a resignation or death of his predeccessor, he'd be in a hurry to call an election to get legitimacy (there's no such provision in the U.S. constitution). But these people often wait a year or more to call an election or hand over power to someone else. Like current Canadian PM.

      clause has never even been used by the federal government.
      So? The point it is there. Such a clause can't help intimidate the federal judiciary, lest the clause is invoked, and the country look like a banana republic and/or the masses disrupt Peace and Order due to Bad Government.

      And the Senate is unElected, inEffective, and inEqual, unlike the USA. So Canada's more populous provinces can dominate the smaller ones. Unlike the United States.

    56. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You will find a far better explaination of what is going on in this case here."

      Hmm, Ann Coulter. Enough said.

    57. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Hence, 21 distinct Canadians PMs in 138 years vs. 42 distinct US presidents in 216 years. ... 216/42 = 5 years per president, on average. 138/21 = 6 years per PM, on average. Is this a big difference to you?

    58. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      Yak yak yak... So what you're saying is that we should believe everything that McClellan and the rest of the white house says about this? They have zero credibility with me (i should say, though, that i've always thought they were a bunch of shitbags).

      And the Times? They're kinda mixed up in this a bit, no? Hardly a dis-interested party. Nice try, though.

      Third, every White House calls on people known to ask friendly questions.

      They've been making up their own "news segments" and hiding the fact that it's just propaganda for their own agenda. Gannon is just another part of that.

      Second, if you read the Coulter piece, you no doubt noticed that she "outed" a number of journalists and media figures that use aliases.

      Coulter also tried to make a big thing about other people who have legally changed their name. Big deal. Christ, i can't believe i'm even responding to something that Coulter wrote...

      if Gannon isn't a "journalist", and you think he shouldn't have gotten a press pass after going through the checks, then you are saying that the White House should pick and choose who it considers to be journalists.

      I'm suggesting that he never would have gotten the pass. He wouldn't have passed the security check. The white house doesn't do that - the secret service does. You seem to be picking up on one your favorite "journalist" ann Coulter's tricks, bait and switch.

      Thanks for the clues, asshat.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    59. Re:From what I've learned from living in Canada. by seminumerical · · Score: 1

      It is an interesting fact. Thanks.

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
  17. Article Mirror by sibsybcys · · Score: 1, Informative

    Article Mirror:

    http://www.hotflip.net/mirror.htm

    --

    73! -KB3MGR
  18. Hmmm by dcclark · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking as a student living in Canada and using Canadian broadband, I highly approve of this move by our most excellent and intelligent government! They truly are a wonderful bunch of beautiful and caring people!

    psst... End-Say Elp-Hay Ow-Nay!

    1. Re:Hmmm by iced_773 · · Score: 1
      End-Say Elp-Hay Ow-Nay!

      By-the-way: Eh?

      Call it offtopic, but it-I-had-to-say.

    2. Re:Hmmm by nacturation · · Score: 1

      A++++++ funny comment. Prompt laughs. Would read again!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  19. "Our" Internet? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Is this really what we want our Internet to be?

    Somewhere in the West, ca. 1806. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are hiding together behind a rock to escape a withering field of arrows fired by a hostile tribe of Native Americans.
    Lone Ranger: "Wow, we're sure facin' a lotta them Injuns!"
    Tonto: "What you mean 'we', paleface?"

    ~wavylines as we fast-forward two centuries~

    Somewhere in Cyberspace, ca. 2006. A techie and a legislator are hiding together behind a firewall. Beyond the firewall are piles of blogs, spam, pr0n, and lobbyist- and law-enforcement sponsored counterproposals of varying degrees of stupidity.
    Techie: Is this really what we want our Internet to be?
    Legislator: What you mean 'our', taxpayer?

    1. Re:"Our" Internet? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      Somewhere in the West, ca. 1806. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are hiding together behind a rock...

      I know you're just making up a year to put with the joke in order to have it come out to a nice round 200 years, but putting the Lone Ranger in 1806 is ridiculous. The Lone Ranger carried a .45 caliber Colt revolver loaded with silver bullets in self-contained cartridges. Unless he was a time traveller, there's no way he was carrying such a firearm in 1806, when flintlock muskets were the norm. I'm not picking nits here-- you might as well have placed Gatling guns in the American Revolution.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:"Our" Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Unless he was a time traveller, there's no way he was carrying such a firearm in 1806, when flintlock muskets were the norm. I'm not picking nits here-- you might as well have placed Gatling guns in the American Revolution.

      Can't blame a guy in a Canadian thread for not knowing that God made Man, but Sam Colt made all men equal in 1873, but now you've got me wondering - when was the Lone Ranger set. Google tells me the Lone Ranger was a radio play in the 30s, but when was it set?

      I'm thinking trains and gold and silver mining, and Custer getting pwn3d in 1876. That'd make 1906 the better date, even assuming the six-shooter in the TV series wasn't a Model 1911. (Damn, were the Indian Wars over that fast? I'd feel guilty about how quickly we kicked their asses, except my ancestors were over a continent away... umm... busily killing each other :)

  20. Now where will I run to? by Performaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess there's always Australia.

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    1. Re:Now where will I run to? by martysdomain · · Score: 1

      Alstralia is the 133test place ever,if i ever leave the U$, i am going there

    2. Re:Now where will I run to? by tqft · · Score: 1

      You are so wrong.

      As well as being a member of the Echelon team, we have an idiot government getting cosy with the religous nutsos, very few links in or out of the coutnry (so very easy to monitor) and some dreadful laws - ripping a CD to an mp3 is illegal there is no fair use clause in Oz; secret detention, trials where the defendant can't know the evidence. Don't get me started on PartVI(a) of the Crimes Act. Books are expensive. CDs a major ripoff. TV shows, DVDs - particularly sci-fi - are way old when they get here. Broadband in Oz is generally thought to mean 256kdown/64k up if you can get it.

      But you can drink alcohol and see strippers at 18. And our women are the best.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    3. Re:Now where will I run to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you can advance to the next level. I'm in Australia, and I'm planning to run to New Zealand...

    4. Re:Now where will I run to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm in Australia, and I'm planning to run to New Zealand..."

      You mean that place where there are more sheep than people ?

      Don't forget the hip waders and velcro gloves ...

    5. Re:Now where will I run to? by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      You go, "run" to Austrailia. And tell me how it works out, if you can.

      --
      I don't get it.
    6. Re:Now where will I run to? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Broadband isnt as bad as all that here in Oz, if you live in a major city and are close enough to the Telstra exchange you can probobly get 1500/256 or so (although that can be expensive and/or limited)

  21. Re:But, but, but... by Paperweight · · Score: 1

    Read the above posts. All democratic countries have screwballs lobbying for this kind of stuff. It would be suspicious if this stuff was NOT out in the open.

  22. Surely not the same Canada that... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Funny

    whose geekier citizens take such glee, here on slashdot, in saying what an evil, Orwellian place the U.S. is? Surely not. Couldn't be. Nah.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine! Orwellianer. Happy?

      Jackass.

    2. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      US isn't the country that imprisons people for denying the holocaust.

    3. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I'm not sure what kind of logic they teach you down there, but even if this were to pass (highly unlikely), it won't make "the U.S." any less evil or Orwellian. It's not a relative thing.

    4. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      na they just do it for no reason....

    5. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Informative
      "US isn't the country that imprisons people for denying the holocaust."

      You're right, that's Germany where it actually is illegal to deny the Holocaust. In Canada it is perfectly legal to deny the Holocaust, you just can't spread that belief as part of a campaign to incite hatred towards a group (such as Jews) or propagate a movement based on this effort (such as neo-Naziism). Incidently, the person in question here was a German national, exported to Germany, and imprisioned by Germany under German law. He was also deported from the U.S. back to Canada while trying to obtain U.S. citizenship. So neither the U.S. nor Canada wanted him.

    6. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > > whose geekier citizens take such glee, here on slashdot, in saying what an evil, Orwellian place the U.S. is? Surely not. Couldn't be.
      >
      > Fine! Orwellianer. Happy?
      >
      >Jackass

      Ahem, that's plusorwellian to you, sir!

    7. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm not sure what kind of logic they teach you down there, but even if this were to pass (highly unlikely), it won't make "the U.S." any less evil or Orwellian. It's not a relative thing.

      Well, let's see. Speaking of who teaches who what, I'm wondering what you think we're actually called, that you feel the need to put "the U.S." in quotes. Odd. Maybe that's how you talk about us in "Canada."

      My point, though, is that many Canadian posters here on slashdot like to use phrases like "you Americans," and imply some sort of sweeping societal failure south of the border, and some sort of prevailing ethical/governmental/cultural superiority north thereof. I really don't care whether this bit of silliness passes or not... the funny thing is that it's at least as draconian as anything that's been contemplated here, and seems to be born of a more paternalistic or nanny-state mentality that normally seems to be a point of pride, but which, when applied to network monitoring is suddenly shocking. But that's what socializing businesses and utilities does, so I'm finding it mildly amusing to have it seem so jarring to Canadian sensibilities to contemplate something that seems like such a natural outgrowth of the more socialist posture of your government. We're not talking about what impact it might have on US law enforcement's mission or legal options - we're talking about pot calling the kettle black.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're reading way too much into things. When we say "You Americans" we mean you folks who make up the country of USA as a group. That's all.

      GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD: Canadians are not superior to anyone. Nope. Not us. Never. If you're paranoid about superiority, perhaps it's because you engage in it too much yourself, hmm?

      And I put "the U.S." in quotes because I was quoting you. The rest of what you say is more delusional babble. Take a pill and relax bud, AFAIK most of the comments that say Canadians are superior come from Americans. Real Canadians don't want to make their country look like much good (hockey excepted), we might get invaded otherwise.

    9. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      US isn't the country that imprisons people for denying the holocaust.
      No, the US is the country that imprisons people without any charges or trial at all. The country that kidnaps people and takes them to countries where they can get away with torturing them to death.

      See here.
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    10. Re:Surely not the same Canada that... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm relaxed. This whole thread is based on me cracking a joke! Of course it's based on my personal experience with posters here on their recurring theme of "you dumb/too-powerful/fascist/etc Americans," and certainly plenty of that has come along with comparisons to how NOT all of those things Canadians are. Same from Europe, of course... but the whole point of the post was to have a chuckle over the Canadian proposal to proctologically examine every packet that hits your web browser, even as we (in the States) get ribbed for things (sometimes by Canadians) that I consider way, way less intrusive.

      As for my "delusional babble" about this sort of thing happening more easily in countries where participation in daily life by, regulation of more industries/behavior/trade/activities by, and public dependence upon government runs deeper and wider... there's nothing delusional about that. And in comparing the reach and regulatory breadth of Canadian government with the US, it's simply no surprise that legislators there would propose something like what's being discussed here. I'm not off base making that observation, and I'm not delusional for enjoying the irony (relative to the "you [insert Orwellian adjective] Americans" comments that do indeed flow from up north in a lot of comments/threads here on slashdot).

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  23. The land of the free by thundercatslair · · Score: 0

    It is a good thing I live in Alberta (USA Jr.) then.

    1. Re:The land of the free by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      I'm comin home next month... Don't put the wall up yet!!!!

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  24. Schools to pay for free content, how to collect? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Informative
    From TFA:
    ... the government may soon unveil a new "extended license" that would require schools to pay millions of dollars for content that is currently freely available on the Internet.

    While the committee recommendation excluded payment for content that is publicly available, it adopted the narrowest possible definition of publicly available, limiting it to only those works that are not technologically or password protected and which contain an explicit notice that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.

    So, I have free pages (see sig) which contain copyright notices, and do not contain an explicit notice that the material can be used without prior payment or permission. How do I collect my tiny cut of the fees?

    By the way, here in the U.S., schools (and everybody else) can freely surf my website. I guess you canuck educators will have to send me a check. Just remember, it was your idea.

  25. Re:But, but, but... by analog_line · · Score: 5, Funny

    That the U.S. isn't as bad as the slashdotters say, and Canada isn't so great?

    You're only half right. Canada isn't so great.

  26. Re:But, but, but... by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, I know. My point was that this puts some of the U.S.-bashing we've heard recently into perspective. As you say: `` All democratic countries have screwballs lobbying for this kind of stuff.'' It's not just the U.S.

  27. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you like high taxes, low healthcare quality, and knowing that your country selectively applies its laws to groups of folks that it doesn't like, then you'll love Canada!

    Canadian taxes are high because so many services are supplied by the government, healthcare being the most notable. The average quality of healthcare in Canada is actually quite high, but past a certain point (measured in cost), healthcare services aren't available, or they're available randomly (in order to be fair to everyone, because everyone paid for the healthcare system). If think you may have cracked your wrist, or are worried about your cholesterol, then go in for an X-ray or blood test. The doctors are required to see you. Same thing goes if you think you're coming down with a head cold. If you're having heart troubles or need serious surgery to replace an organ, forget about it: you're probably going to die as a victim of the Canadian Healthcare Low Pass Filter. Common, easily treatable illnesses are cheaply treated, and so they are quickly treated. More expensive procedures simply are not done. The system couldn't support them all, it isn't fair to support just some, so you or your child will die knowing that the doctors didn't even try doing all they could. You can't even buy top quality healthcare in Canada--it's illegal. Your best chance is to be rich and move to America or Europe, because Canada has smoothed you out.

    Note that some people don't mind this system. It's equivalent to having crappy insurance in the USA. You're betting against anything serious happening, and wouldn't really have the means available to get yourself fixed anyway. The difference is that if you work hard in the USA to provide for yourself, you can buy better healthcare. In Canada, this option is denied to you. In Canada, Patrick might've been dead by now (then again, he might not've. The treatment he needed was pretty cheap, although the testing involved was not (Hey Pat, I've heard on the news at least twice about how ``some doctors believe the mist from electric toothbrushes could get into people's lungs,'' but I didn't hear any attribution).). He certainly didn't travel to Canada for treatment.

    Canadian healthcare is like a front-line MASH hospital in a war. If they can fix you, they will. If it's too hard or too expensive, they'll fix two other guys with less expensive ailments. Your life depends on government-spun fate. You'd have been just as well off being a wine-o as a teacher for all the good it does you in Canada's eyes.

  28. Lets start "Radio Free Canuckistan" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can broadcast unfiltered real news and music produced without government subsidies with minimal Canadian content except where it is newsworthy or good music ..........
    Wait! We already do that!
    Canada isn't FREE the government controls what they read listen too and watch on TV it is only fitting they get a subsidized maple syrup lumberjack Eh? Cheeshead 24 hour hockey internet with p0rn sites like Gros Joes instead of Juggs or Double-DEE.

    1. Re:Lets start "Radio Free Canuckistan" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Howling Mad Murphy]: Hey there, Seamonkeys! Check out Canada. A country full of stupid forest rangers. [Canadian Forest ranger]: He's talking about me! [HMM]: Ah ha ha ha, fignuts!

    2. Re:Lets start "Radio Free Canuckistan" by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Canada isn't FREE the government controls what they read listen too and watch on TV"

      Oh, the irony. Yes, although there are Canadian content laws and a government funded national TV and radio station(s), it's ironic that it's the U.S. in which the media is the governments "bitch" as a compliant outlet for government propaganda. The rules and regulations in place to keep the Canadian government from using its own funded media for that purpose seem to do a better job at keeping the media "free" than the so-called independant media in the U.S. I wonder what Marshall McLuhan would have to say about that.

  29. None of this will work by gone.fishing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The internet does not easily recognize national boundaries. If someone wants something that they can't legally get in their country, they'll just go to a domain hosted in a country where they can get it.

    To some degree, this is bad. It means that things like kiddie porn get made available. It also means that there are loopholes around copyrights and so on.

    But, on another level, the internet is the bastion of freedom! It allows people in places where opinions are regulated to see that there are people in other places who can actually think and express themselves. Totalitarianisim can't really last for long because of this. Although many of us, myself included, think that kiddie porn is an inimaginable crime, I think that the benefits of a free internet outweigh the drawbacks.

    The internet is today a sort of wild-West environment. Not much regulation and lots of hiding places for bad guys. I'm sure that will change with time, just like the wild-West did.

    It will probably take some sort of I-Gov to bring the 'net into line with laws and regulations. I don't know if I am ready for that yet (or should I say the net is ready for that). This will be the result of a maturing process that will take time.

    1. Re:None of this will work by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [I] :think that kiddie porn is an inimaginable crime

      You really think so? They way child pornography laws are currently in the US, a lot of fairly acceptable activity cannot be legal filmed. I agree that a priest raping a 10 year old boy should certainly be illegal (weither it's fimed or not), but what if a consentual couple (both 17) take a pictures of each other engageing in some form of intimacy and the next year decide to look at these pictures? I don't see why they should be thrown in prison (where they might really be raped!).

      Any law restricting free speech will be eventually be used in ways that limit essential liberty. Child porn laws will be used to censor the net, FCC decency regulations will be used to keep small buisnesses out of the media, etc. We must take the first ammendment literally if we are to a free people.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    2. Re:None of this will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Internet service in the US, like telephone service, is provided to most people by a small number of large companies (SBC, Verizon, Comcast, etc.). This means that undesirable content hosted overseas can easily be blocked for the majority of users by an action by a small number of companies. Internet acces for most Americans is not the "Wild West" that you make it out to be.

    3. Re:None of this will work by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, nothing should be restricted by technical means on the internet, not even kiddie porn. If you want real freedom, that's the price you have to pay.

      However, this certainly doesn't mean that kiddie porn should be legal. Those who create it, and those who knowingly distribute it should be prosecuted, and their material confiscated. It's just like the guns vs. people argument: if someone kills someone with a gun, don't take the gun away, and don't start a witch-hunt for everyone who might have a gun. Put the person who pulled the trigger in jail.

      Yes, kiddie porn is horrible (although what exactly constitutes differs by locality), but just because it exists doesn't mean the rest of us need to give up our freedom to make it easier for law enforcement to stop it.

    4. Re:None of this will work by gkuz · · Score: 1
      The internet does not easily recognize national boundaries. If someone wants something that they can't legally get in their country, they'll just go to a domain hosted in a country where they can get it.

      Tell that to the people in China, or Myanmar, or North Korea, or Iran, or....

    5. Re:None of this will work by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Any law restricting free speech will be eventually be used in ways that limit essential liberty. Child porn laws will be used to censor the net,

      Laws against child porn will be used to remove child porn from the net. Surely you can't belive that real child porn is a part of "essential liberty".

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:None of this will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the point. Research "slippery slope".

  30. Re:But, but, but... by Paperweight · · Score: 1

    As a Canadian, I don't see this as flamebait! Only expected ;)

  31. Whoa by pharwell · · Score: 1

    Canada has the Internet?? Weird, eh.

    --
    I quote others only in order the better to express myself. -- Michel de Montaigne
    1. Re:Whoa by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

      Canada has the Internet?? Weird, eh

      Yeah, they use it to hew wood, eh?

      Want to buy some? Oops, sorry, you can't, the US won't let you.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I hear they have the internet on computers now!

      (Homer Simpson)

    3. Re:Whoa by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Canada has the Internet?? Weird, eh"

      As somebody typing this in Canada on a 28.8K dialup I don't see why you need to make an ass of yourself in a derogatory comment like that.

      Can't wait till I get my 33.3K license. Woo hoo!

      (Ectually, the .gov claims by mandate everybody in Canadia will have broadband by 2007, and I choose my 28.8K and rural isolation; I had broadband 10 yrs ago in Tronno and prefer it out here)

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    4. Re:Whoa by pharwell · · Score: 1

      well, sorry if i offended you....... my wife is Canadian, actually, so yeah, I indulge in a jab or two on occasion ;) so lighten up, k? no harm intended.

      --
      I quote others only in order the better to express myself. -- Michel de Montaigne
  32. Proportion... BLOWN!!! by Goose42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thank you Micheal Geist, for blowing something this routine out of proportion.

    Thankfully, Canada has one of the most online governments on the planet. Here's exactly what they, and the public that responded to the governement, had to say about the Lawful Access updates. Of particular note is the Privacy Commissioner's comments:

    "# It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
    # It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose.
    # The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit derived.
    # It must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose."

    The law isn't going to pass if it doesn't meet those criteria, among others. I honestly don't see a problem. The only reason that this update is going through is to ensure that law enforcement have the same abilities, irregardless of the technology. They can already intercept telephone and fax communications lawfully, this just ensures tehy can do the same with TCP/IP traffic.

    1. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by dextromulous · · Score: 1

      This definately seemed like it was the next logical step and I also agree that Geist blew it out of proportion. As long as this is used the same way wire-taps are, it's fine by me.
      Heh, I especially like one of the last lines: "Michael Geist is the Canada"
      Yeah, I know that it was accidentaly chopped, but it is stil mildly comical.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    2. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. I hate to be a prick about it, but IMHO objective conditions are better than subjective. Which one of those conditions listed above is not entirely subjective?

      It's great and all if you *trust* the authority figure (police, judge, politician) who will be making the decision, but if you don't trust them, how do those conditions make you feel any better?

    3. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Because in Canada, subjective rules like this seem to work quite well. Perhaps our courts are simply more reasonable about understanding modern english, I don't know, but they can't simply say "Well we thought it was important enough".. they potentially have to demonstrate WHY it was important enough, to the satisfaction of an impartial judge who would be more than happy to rule against them. That subjectivism works BOTH ways.

    4. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by codeguy007 · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court of Canada has proven to be anything but trustworthy. They take the objective and make it subjective just so they can re-write Canadian law on a whim.

      "Oh that's what the writers of the bill of rights intended, they just didn't have the forethought to write anything about it."

    5. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC for obvious reasons.

      I did for a time work as a consultant to the RCMP in computer matters, since the local detachment did not have anyone sufficiently skilled and at times there was not sufficient time to get someone sent in from regional HQ.

      I can say that at least the people I worked with (Constables, DoJ etc) all tried to act in the best way they could. Concerns were pointed out over privacy, and lines were not crossed. I recall one incident where we had a warrant to search a business. We didn't find anything overt, but definite signs that something was fishy (logs deleted, HDs that were pgp-wiped). I suggested it might be on the person's home system. The RCMP officer informed me that they hadn't been able to get a warrant for their home system since we had no direct proof that he might have been implicated at the time we applied for the search and seizure. Fortunately the fellow jumped at the chance to "clear themselves of suspicion" by volunteering for a search of their home system.

      Naturally they forgot to delete the files there. Oops.

    6. Re:Proportion... BLOWN!!! by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      See, there's a problem with the "potentially have to demonstrate". Because if there isn't a clearly defined reason why they have to demonstrate a reason to 'invade privacy' or 'take property', they simply can and will when the culture changes.

      Granted, it may take 70 to 100 years, but look at just how bad the US is getting boned since the culture changes brought about by FDR. This used to be a great place for free thinkers and immigrants, now it's everything but outright hostile.

  33. Re:But, but, but... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But I thought it was the U.S. with the totalitarian, authoritarian government?

    Who do you think is pressuring them to do this?
    The same people who pressured them to go face-recognition on their passports, that's who.

    "Nice economy you got there, wouldn't any trade disputes to happen to it... lots of border crossings too. It'd be a shame if someone were to crack down and have every single vehicle searched, really..."

    to escape the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft religious right-wing fascists

    Yeah, 'cause these guys sure stay put at home, they don't meddle in other countries' affairs! No siree Bob! No nation building or vague threats or "repercussions" to neighbouring countries for those guys! No way!

    Sigh.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  34. Time for Candians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to write their letters of concern ;)

  35. Haha by blobzorz · · Score: 1

    The site is called "Eh-wire"... good stuff

    1. Re:Haha by gid13 · · Score: 1

      No, the submitter is called "Eh-wire"

  36. Non-registered version with background links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Professor Geist's appears to have posted a link a non-registered version of the article with background links documenting the various government policy plans.

  37. Welcome Back by Physician · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well I guess a lot of Americans will be returning to the south of the border.

    --
    Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
  38. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're only half right.

  39. In reality, this will never pass or be held as law by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, Canadians have the Electronic Privacy Act, as well as constitutional protections against a lot of the ideas in the article.

    Second, there's no link to the bill, and anyone can say anything they want in a newspaper or opinion piece, because Canadians have something so sorely missing in the USA, aka Freedom of the Press [caveat - unless it's an article disparaging a certain person who owns most of their newspapers].

    Third, while Canucks may tend not to fuss once something becomes law, they DEFINITELY do not just roll over when a government tries to impose things on them. The first use of the railways and machine guns was to put down the Riel rebellion. And they have had way more protests - and successful ones - than we have here in the USA.

    But, hey, what do I know, I only lived there from the age of 13 to 29 ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  40. Re:But, but, but... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Interesting

    this puts some of the U.S.-bashing we've heard recently into perspective. As you say: `` All democratic countries have screwballs lobbying for this kind of stuff.'' It's not just the U.S.

    The point is that to the rest of the world they are screwballs. To you they are mainstream and pass those laws!

    Sometimes it seems you guys will vote for anything if it's got a star spangled flag waving in the background.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  41. Fair is fair. by PineHall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the government is going to keep track of my goings on, I should be able to keep track of what the government is doing. Let us not be one sided. Level the playing field. Fair is fair.

    1. Re:Fair is fair. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Don't you love the name? "Lawful access". That means if anybody but the government did this it would be illegal as hell.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  42. Re:canada sucks by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
    Canadian taxes are high because so many services are supplied by the government, healthcare being the most notable. ... Your best chance is to be rich and move to America or Europe, because Canada has smoothed you out.

    So what is the difference, then, between the way universal health care works in Canada and the way it works in various European countries (e.g., France and Germany)?

  43. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Physician · · Score: 1

    Exactly, you lived there during an age in which you were more busy playing video games or getting drunk than participating in politics. Secondly, the US Constitution has far more protections against the sort of things occuring in Canada than the Canadian constitution. That hasn't prevented our politicians and judges from ignoring those challenges. Oh Canada, consider yourself screwed.

    --
    Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
  44. Really? by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is that why this has been proposed and subsequently derailed for THREE YEARS, mainly from the vehement objections of ISPs, telecommunications companies and civil libertarians? Also, the article is completely wrong about warrantless access to data. Yes, data retention would be required but a warrant would be required to access any of the information. The intention is to create a legislative and technological parallel to what already exists for telephone tapping. It's not a cake walk to obtain a warrant either, you have to prove that you cannot acquire the information any other way.

    I don't have time for search for links, but this issue has been in the news off and on since late 2001 and with a minority government is probably headed nowhere.

  45. millions of dollars by tehwebguy · · Score: 0
    "hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology"
    (from the article)


    holy crap, just think of how many CANADIAN dollars that is!!1

    --
    -- lol pwned
  46. Jumping ship just got less attractive by JoshWurzel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As a young male US resident, I'm getting ready to jump ship the minute Dubya announces he's gonna restart the draft so that we can invade Syria.

    Yes, I know he said publicly that there would be no draft...of course that was only after his audience corrected him! Who's the flip-flopper now? ;)

    I heard that during Vietnam, the draft only took 19-year olds and never ran out. Can anyone confirm that?

    1. Re:Jumping ship just got less attractive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Policitcally active is one thing, being a public coward is something else.

      The military was over twice as big in the 80s and there wasn't a draft. A draft is not an option in today's political climate, unless China invades Japan or some such. Read up and learn and stop listening to your profs, which are mostly just rejects from the 60s and 70s.

      If you are scared of the draft, then you've also got global warming, acid rain, ozone holes, asteroid strikes, killer viruses -- you're gonna have a very nervous existence. Might be better just to join up now and get it over with.

    2. Re:Jumping ship just got less attractive by gkuz · · Score: 1
      I heard that during Vietnam, the draft only took 19-year olds and never ran out. Can anyone confirm that?

      Semi-accurate. For a large part of the duration of the Vietnam conflict, you were subject to being drafted only during the year you turned 19. The military's manpower needs were divided into the number of presumably eligible males with that birth year, and then a "random" selection of birth dates (days) was made and ranked, so if they needed X00,000 people, and that was 1/3 of every guy turning 19 in, say, 1973, they'd rank all the days and give you a number. Your lottery number would determine whether or not you'd likely get drafted -- if your birthday came up #1, you were going, and if it came up #365, you'd go get stoned for a week in celebration. If you were in the #120-180 range, it was iffy. Ask any guy who was eligible and he'll tell you what his number was, even 30 years on.

      Nixon ended the draft in 1973.

  47. um... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Secondly, the US Constitution has far more protections against the sort of things occuring in Canada than the Canadian constitution.

    That's because we have other laws as well, like PEPIDA, which our justices, if not the Gov't respect.

  48. You gotta take the power back! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the Canadian public rarely engages in succesfull political activism. Quebec is an exception, but as far as I could tell, the whole sucession[sic] thing was about language and cultural issues.

    A tradition of successfull political activism is part of the culture.

    There's a student strike right now. The education minister said he didn't understand why the students would do that over a 103 million cut in scolarships, "they're the best-treated students in the country!" he excliamed. Yeah, that's 'cause they don't lie down when you start cutting, you dumbass.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  49. Charging schools for "free" content. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Minister of Industry, together with Liza Frulla, his Canadian Heritage counterpart, are also reportedly about to finalize new rules that may reshape the availability of Internet content to educational institutions. Acting on the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that was chaired by Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte, the government may soon unveil a new "extended license" that would require schools to pay millions of dollars for content that is currently freely available on the Internet.


    In the name of God why?

    Why go out of your way to make things more costly for educational institutions than they already are? Did I miss the point where Canadian schools were suddenly given more money than they knew what to do with and were eagerly seeking a way to spend more in order toobtain what they already had?

    Seriously what possible reason could there be for this?
  50. BS by nic1m · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I haven't read the article in question, but it's obvious what the author appears to claim won't happen. So don't worry - be happy.

  51. Where can I go? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm outraged by this as a Canadian Citizen! Why, if this passes I'll have to move to Can... where does a Canadian move when his govenment starts going crazy for power?

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    1. Re:Where can I go? by Lord+Haha · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quebec?

      just kidding...

    2. Re:Where can I go? by templest · · Score: 0

      Oh my God, I wish I could mod you up. That just made my day. :)
      ... well, e-Day anyways.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    3. Re:Where can I go? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I've been looking at moving to Australia, myself. A bunch of stupid laws going in there, but the people seem more active in moving against stupid things done by gov't whereas in Canada it seems to have to hit the courts first (and then we tend to have somewhat sane judges).

    4. Re:Where can I go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which mod do you use when they all apply?

    5. Re:Where can I go? by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

      Sweden (feels like home, with all the snow) or Switzerland (mmmmm... chocolate)

      Bonus: both are even more caring than Canada for their citizens!

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  52. This is surprising? by bhirsch · · Score: 0, Troll

    It is illegal to verbalize skepticism about the holocaust in Canada. Just as Canada has no first amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression, they have no fourth amendment protecting its citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

    1. Re:This is surprising? by iSeal · · Score: 1

      Well I would hope that Canada wouldn't have the exact same Constitution as that that the US signed some couple of centuries ago. I would suggest that you educate yourself ever so slightly before commenting on something you evidently know very little about (which begs to question your credibility on your other posts). Canada has something called the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. And I quote from the chart: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. So please, spare us of your ignorance next time.

    2. Re:This is surprising? by bhirsch · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should do some more research before you call someone ignorant. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite different from the US Constitution (and its Bill of Rights), especially in that the the former is easily circumvented when deemed justifiable. Perhaps you should have read section 1 of it:

      "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

      This specific clause has been used repeatedly in court to nullify the rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteeed by the charter.

  53. well... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 2, Insightful

    our government may discuss shit like this, but that's far different from actually enacting it.

    1. Re:well... by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 1

      Well, at least when the Gestapo comes for us, we'll be well armed.

      Well, in certain States we'll be well armed. Fuck you very much, New Jersey.

  54. You and me both by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

    For some reason, the Canadian Center for Inland Waterways is crawling my pages. I should send a bill to my government every month.

    --
    What keeps me going is my inertia.
  55. The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1, Informative
    Unless you have something to hide from (as in you're doing something illegal over the internet), this is not a problem.
    1. If this law can pass, the law to render retroactively illegal something you already do can pass to.
    2. Technically, you break the law when you recieve kiddie/bestial porn spam. Once it's in your possession, you're breaking the law.
    file trading (including music) is entirely legal in Canada

    It's not. It's... loopholy, for now.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      The key thing with # 2 is "intent". If you strayed across a questionable site by accident and it gets stuck in your cache they can't do a bloody thing about it. How do you prove it? Well if they start the whole big brother thing then chances are they could look at your logs of where you frequent.

      Now if you repeatedly stray upon the site then chances are you may have a problem...

    2. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      >How do you prove it? Well if they start
      >the whole big brother thing then chances
      >are they could look at your logs of
      >where you frequent.

      Yes, but would they have the motivation? Is Big Brother upstanding enough a fellow to decide "Ah, it's just a mistake." when he's already got his sights on you? Or would he pick on a lone Traci Lords pic from a few months back as "Evidence that the suspect has REPEATEDLY visited illegal sites! And child pornography, no less! OMG! Think of the children!"

    3. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      I think burden of proof would still be needed. Any new lawyer would be able to get someone off (hehe get off) if it was one picture

    4. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's paying for that lawyer that had to be hired because "Big Brother" didn't have to go through the proper channels that include checks and balances.. Oh that's right. I lose money to a lawyer even if I am innocent of whatever they want to charge me with.

      Yep.. Nothing to worry about...

    5. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Something about right to a fair trial....

    6. Re:The ol' "got nothing to hide" fallacy, I see... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      >Something about right to a fair trial....

      If they're eroding one's right to privacy, what's to say that right to a fair trial is immune? And "arrested for possession of (evil thing)" in a news report or the local rumor mill is often enough to convict one in the eyes of the public. No jail time, but your life gets ruined.

  56. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    So what is the difference, then, between the way universal health care works in Canada and the way it works in various European countries (e.g., France and Germany)?

    A lot of those countries still have real live nobles kicking around, who are untouchable by the law, richer than any Middle Eastern oil guy, and have lots of non-nobility friends who aren't quite as rich. They aren't going to leave Europe for serious healthcare problems, and they aren't going to suffer the hassle of being denied healthcare when they have the money to buy anything they want.

    Because of this, the European countries are hurting badly for money. They've got upcoming financial problems that will be as a disemboweling to the stubbed toenail that is the worst of the predictions of the USA's social security problems. Canada routinely has a surplus, which equates to ``somebody in Canada died, and the government had more dimes to spend on trying to save them.''

    Note that I'm not entirely against the notion of universal healthcare, but there are many caveats to my thinking. I'd love to treat every sick person; it's just a matter of finding the money to do it; however, I'm not willing to donate cash to some transexual's HIV drugs because he wanted to catch AIDS so that he didn't have to worry himself to death over when he was going to catch AIDS (search for `bug chasing'). This is especially true when that cash would be better saved against the time I (or my family) am in serious need of healthcare. I worked hard to earn it, after all. I worked hard through school and protected my brain to get to the point where I am. I don't want my gains going to someone who pickled his brain away before he was old enough to smoke tobacco legally.

    And make no mistake about it, if you put an all encompassing safety net under some people, they'll jump from any height. The level of self destructive behavior going on in the world today is downright frightening, and I didn't work so hard just so I could pay for the backlash of this. It's their right to engage in self-destructive behavior, but when everyone is paying for it, it's harming everyone.

  57. if you can't stand canada so much... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    why do you move?

    As much as you seem to think it's the equivilant to soviet russia, last time I checked I was still allowed to emigrate.

    1. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I have moved. I am living, at least temporarily, in the U.S. and there is a good change I will may be able to stay.

      As much as you seem to think it's the equivilant to soviet russia, last time I checked I was still allowed to emigrate.

      Hold, on there buckaroo.

      It may not be that simple. If, for example you move to Ontario, you will have to register for OHIP to replace your existing provincial health insurance coverage. Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently. You could chose to not participate in OHIP, of course, but then you can't purchase private health insurance for things that OHIP covers: that's illegal for a Canadian citizen to do. And, your taxes will still be funding (a horribly broken) system from which you've excluded yourself from receiving even minimal benefit.

      So, no, Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal. Even here, the law is not really enforced, but as the tax base is eroded by people leaving to work in the U.S., it has become more and more difficult to leave in a strictly legal fashion.

      Furthermore, it's sneaky. To survive, many Canadians have to take advantage of programs that require immediate reimbursement if they become non-residents. For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income. One the surface it seams reasonable that if the government provides a tax break, one should stick around for ones taxes to "repay the favour", as it were. However, many people have to take advantage of similar plans precisely because they're taxed so heavily and could otherwise not live a normal life. (Yes, I know that home ownership is considered a bourgois luxery in Canada, and not normal. I disagree.) Of course, once resident, one remains heavily taxed, and trapped.

      This is particularly severe for traditional families where one spouse works and the other raises the children without resorting to government subsidized mediocre day care: there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S., so single-income families pay astronomical income taxes compared to their American counterparts.

      There is also the Canadian tradition of holding an individual enslaved to the state to "repay" any social benefit they may have received at some time in the past over and over and over again. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s. I thought that three was more than enough.

      If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad, from a pragmatic standpoint (even as the libertarian in me gags at the stench of the notion of any tax). But, Canadian government services are among the most inefficiently delivered ones there are.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    2. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeeesh, you've got some issues with paranoia.

      People leave Ontario all the time. And nobody could care less.

      Same for all the other seriously wierd paranoid things you've dreamed up.

    3. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently.

      Oh boy, talk about miss reading thing. "permanently" just means you intend to live there as a resident, as opposed to someone who intends to visit for a few months to get a free lung transplant. Its against the Canadian law to force people stay in Canada for health care. If you move to Ontario, then later change your mind and move out they won't go after you unless its obvious you acted in bad faith to try to cheat the system. Your whole point is grossly missleading.

      For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income.

      If you do the math the HBP is not really as good a deal as it sounds, if you don't beleive me do some googling for some analysis. Secondly, almost all people sell their homes when the leave anyway so this is a total non-issue, the HBP money was tied up in the house so selling it makes the money available for repayment. Lastly, if you withdraw money from your RRSP after you leave the country you are subject to Canadian withholding tax (which is fair since it is untaxed Canadian income), The Canadian goverment wants to be sure you re-pay the HBP so that they are guaranteed to later collect the withholding taxes owed. They're nice enough not to charge the withholding tax up front, you should be thankful for that.

      Yes, I know that home ownership is considered a bourgois luxery in Canada, and not normal. I disagree.

      I only know 1 person who doesn't own a home. I wouldn't call it a luxury either. In some places they don't even seem to be building rental units anymore, with interest rates so low, it seems like everyone wants to buy condos, townhomes or houses these days.

      There is also the Canadian tradition of holding an individual enslaved to the state to "repay" any social benefit they may have received at some time in the past over and over and over again. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s. I thought that three was more than enough.

      What are you smoking? There must be some good BC bud imported to where you are. Firstly you don't repay scolarships you must be thinking of student loans. Secondly, student loans are financed through your bank (Mind you, this may vary from one province to the next as this is a totally provincial issue). If you paid multiple 100k's for a 10k loan, you got seriously shafted by your bank.

    4. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Oh boy, talk about miss reading thing. "permanently" just means you intend to live there as a resident, as opposed to someone who intends to visit for a few months to get a free lung transplant. Its against the Canadian law to force people stay in Canada for health care.

      That's what a reasonable person would think, so I checked with OHIP. They wer quite snipety about "permanent", as in "never leave or pay all benefits back with administrative overhead". Damn, when my wife had emergency IV antibiotics administered on an outpatient basis, I had to pay CA$150 + $10 a page for the damn invoice to file with my insurer! The drugs and service were admitedly cheap at CA$750.

      When my son was seen by a Canadian doctor, he only charged me CA$30 for an excellent job. I tipped him another US$100, and admonished him to "charge what he was worth and not prostitute his skill like a $5 whore." He was puzzled, but hapilly took the Benjamin.

      If you do the math the HBP is not really as good a deal as it sounds, if you don't beleive me do some googling for some analysis...

      It makes sense if you sock as much as you can in an RRSP to avoid a 53% marginal tax rate (I used to live in Quebec at one time), and otherwise can't save a downpayment: you get an interest free loan paid back with pre-tax dollars at the expense of RRSP contribution room that would otherwise grow at market rates of return. Natch, if you had the downpayment outside the RRSP, it would be stupid to raid it.

      But, my point was that so much that repaying the RRSP was unfair, as it was that to live a normal life, Canadians have to entangle themselves in many things that make severigng residency hard: much more so than Americans (who can work outside the U.S. and exempt US$80k of foreign earned income and still retain an American home for when they return - Canadians remain tax residents if they own a home in Canada).

      Firstly you don't repay scolarships you must be thinking of student loans

      I was referring to the maddening Canadian attitude that if one ever got any kind of benefit from the government, like a scholarship, it was carte blance approval to be taxed for life so as to repay it "in spirit".

      --
      You could've hired me.
    5. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was referring to the maddening Canadian attitude that if one ever got any kind of benefit from the government, like a scholarship, it was carte blance approval to be taxed for life so as to repay it "in spirit".

      Errr, where do you think that scholarship money comes from ... trees? You want the handouts, but you don't want to pay for them. Pretty hypocritical.

    6. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Errr, where do you think that scholarship money comes from ... trees? You want the handouts, but you don't want to pay for them. Pretty hypocritical.

      This is exactly what I mean. If I accept the CA$10k scholarship, it stands to reason that my increased income as a result of the better education should give rise to higher taxes that help repay that scholarship. Fair enough.

      But, that does not mean, that if I pay an extra CA$5k a year in taxes because of the increased income due to my better education, after 5 years of those higher tax payments, I should still "owe" something to repay the scholarship. That translates into a usurous rate of interest.

      A scholarship is not a loan: the grantor takes all the risk, but if it were to be viewed fairly as to what I "owe" in return, it should be compared to one at a rate of interest related to market rates and the risk that I would "default" on my education.

      I believe I paid my dues in this particular regard, and have learned to shun all government "freebies", for they are handcuffs in disguise. I intend to refuse Canadian CPP, OAS, and U.S. SSI: depite being stolen from me against my will, I can't bring myself to support the stealing from others in kind.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    7. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buh-bye. We don't miss you!

    8. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot. Every time you post about your "medical" experiences, you show how totally full of shit you are. I imagine your American counter parts believe all that you say about it, but anyone from Canada, knows your full of shit.

      And your bullshit about taxes is also quite funny. Seems whenever anyone with a background in accounting and taxation does the numbers, the gap is about 5% (give or take, after state and muni taxes). The good news is, you have a choice. If the US pastures are greener for you, please stay. I imagine you will change your mind, just about the time your children are 17 and a half years old, but I am sure that will just be a coincidence, and not your fear of having your children drafted. Or maybe that will be the time you instill the French military spirit in your kids "quick, run away".

      Besides, who are you kidding about receiving your OAS CPP or SSI benefits. You will be dead from some obesity related desease long before you are eligible. Heart attack, diabetes, stroke, dealers choice really. I just hope you don't return here for your long term care.

      You are funny though. I read one of your previous posts about your C++ godliness. Then someone called you on your "prime numbers at compile time", and you provide "Well, some of those error numbers ARE prime numbers". Keep blowing your own horn, someone will believe you. BTW today, I fixed a bug that could have saved my company ONE TRILLION dollars, I think I will add it to my resume, along with a link to this post.

    9. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by Effexor · · Score: 1

      Buddy, you are full of shit. I just moved out of Ontario. I wasn't required to pay OHIP 'all benefits back with adminstrative overhead'. In fact I was covered for 3 months after moving.

      For someone that claims to be a former Canadian you have some rather typical American misconceptions about Canada.

      Oh and I loved the bit about tipping the Canadian doctor, but you forgot to say how he looked at it and said, "$100 dollars American? Now I can retire!!"

      --

      As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.

    10. Re:if you can't stand canada so much... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      And your bullshit about taxes is also quite funny. Seems whenever anyone with a background in accounting and taxation does the numbers, the gap is about 5% (give or take, after state and muni taxes

      Paraphrasing: Nazi Germany wasn't so bad: only a small percentage of the population was affected in a bad way.

      You're playing dirty with statistics. Overall, the gap may be 5%, but for significant minority segments of society, it is much, much higher: single-income families, for example, can't file joint returns in Canada as they can in the U.S. That was the real killer for us.

      Of course, the demographics show that such families are in the decline: it takes two parents to work (often, solely because of the income tax burden!). I've done the analysis (crudely, in a related post), and for this group of people, the difference between the tax burden in the U.S. and Canada is insane.

      Even in the U.S., it's a little tough to support a family on one income, so those that can come here from Canada and do that tend to be highly skilled and command a premium wage. They generally commanded a comparable (though about 30% lower, on average) premium wage in Canada. However, the tax structure forces them to leave.

      Canada is shooting itself in the foot with it's tax policies.

      You are funny though. I read one of your previous posts about your C++ godliness. Then someone called you on your "prime numbers at compile time", and you provide "Well, some of those error numbers ARE prime numbers"

      The referenced program does produce prime numbers in the error messages at compile time. GCC happens to intersperse many more warning messages -- not all C++ compilers do. You clearly miss the point: that this can be done at all is a testament to the likely Turing-completeness of the template metalanguage, the messy output notwithstanding.

      If you saved your employer $10^9, good for you! You should get at least 1% of that as a bonus reward! Enjoy your cool $10 billion. Methinks your employer's accounting will be a little different though.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  58. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    Dear AC,

    Don't believe everything the U.S. private health insurance industry tells you. Expensive or complex procedures are commonly done on a waiting list basis, "first come, first serve" basis, not randomly as you imply. As for organ replacement, it has the same limitations as the U.S., namely the organs go to whomever was on the waiting list the longest, and many people, wealthy or not, do die on the waiting list in both our countries because it's also illegal to buy organs in the U.S., and I see little done to change that.

    Canadian health care is not nearly as bad as you've been led to believe. So, please stop misleading others.

  59. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In Europe, it's legal to go to a private clinic when the waiting lists at the public one are too long. In Canada, it's illegal. Don't like that your grandmother has to wait 8 months for her hip replacement on the public system? You've gotta be rich enough to get her to the US for treatment if you want to help out; illegal to get the private service in Canada.

  60. Should this be a surprise? by mtrupe · · Score: 1, Informative

    They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).
    http://http//fromthemorning.blogspot.com

    1. Re:Should this be a surprise? by rush22 · · Score: 1

      They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).

      For those that are curious, you can read the hate propaganda law here (it's short).

      Personally, I see no reason to advocate genocide based on someone's colour, race, religion or ethnic origin (if I even would ever consider advocating genocide of all things, characteristics and/or beliefs a group are not the same thing as the actions of a group). I also see promoting hatred in public where such hatred will lead to a breach of the peace (riot) as a good idea. I don't want Falwell coming down here and trying to start a riot. I also see that promoting hatred in public communication, where that communication is not established to be true, nor in good faith someone is expressing an argument on a religious subject, nor is it relevant to the public interest and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true, nor is in good faith pointing out--for the purposes of removal--matters tending to produce feelings of hatred, protects people from hatred.

      I see it as protecting freedom in terms of protecting those in an identifiable group from others would advocate killing them.

      I see it as keeping the peace in terms of not allowing people to publically incite a breach of the peace based on their views of an identifiable group.

      I see it as protecting those from others who would publically encourage people to hate those in an identifiable group based on things that are untrue, irrelevant, and not a religious belief.

      I see the penalties, the first being imprisonment up to five years, the other two being imprisonment of up to two years or a fine, as reasonable.

    2. Re:Should this be a surprise? by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just my browser, but when I click that link I end up at Microsoft.com. Perhaps this is thinly-veiled criticism on the part of the parent? Still weird though.

    3. Re:Should this be a surprise? by mtrupe · · Score: 0, Troll

      You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free.
      http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com

    4. Re:Should this be a surprise? by rush22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You see anyone who speaks out against homosexuality as a criminal. In order for speech to be free, even things that seem bigoted must be free.
      http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com


      Don't tell me what I see.

      You didn't read the law. Therefore a) you haven't even bothered to think even the tiniest bit about you're reason, and b) you're a troll.

      Did you miss the part where sexual orientation is not even included in the current law, and you just forgot to mention that? And considering your link, did you miss the part where attempting, in good faith, to argue a religious subject is a valid defence?

      It's obvious that you did. Therefore, you are a troll. Come back when you've actually thought about it. Unless, of course, you believe "Kill the dirty niggers" is just "speaking out against" them in a way which just "seems bigoted."

    5. Re:Should this be a surprise? by mtrupe · · Score: 0, Troll

      I believe using the N word is pretty stupid and bigoted, but it must be free... It MUST be. Plain and simple.

    6. Re:Should this be a surprise? by matthewp · · Score: 1

      Sentry21 wrote: Maybe it's just my browser, but when I click that link I end up at Microsoft.com. Perhaps this is thinly-veiled criticism on the part of the parent? Still weird though.

      The URL starts 'http://http//...', presumably because the poster left a ':' out of the original URL.

      Your browser is probably using Google as a 'keyword' service: if a host doesn't resolve in DNS, it's looked up on Google instead, and you're sent to the first result. Firefox seems to do this by default.

      www.microsoft.com is Google's first result for 'http'.

    7. Re:Should this be a surprise? by rush22 · · Score: 1

      I believe using the N word is pretty stupid and bigoted, but it must be free... It MUST be. Plain and simple.

      I agree, and, though I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that it is (and actually I shouldn't have used it in the example; it confuses the issue). I think the law is pretty straightforward. Don't tell people to kill everyone of an identifiable group ("Kill the Jews"), don't preach hate in public and cause a breach of the peace (a la Falwell*), and don't write hate propaganda and distribute it publically--unless it's relevant to public discussion and you believe it's true, or a good faith argument on a religious subject. Falwell can write "God Hates Fags" in brochures and distribute them all he wants, as he is simply an asshole arguing a religious subject and believes it to be true. I'm pretty sure one can even write "The white menace is destroying our society" or "Blacks cause all crime" if one thinks it's true.

      *sexual preferences are not even included in the current law, so in theory he could--but would probably be charged with inciting a riot if one broke out.

      I understand the "all speech must be free, no matter what" view however, and I respect it and am glad to have it. It's definitely a grey issue. But it's quite annoying to have people screaming "Canada hates freedom of speech!!11eleven" who can't even discuss it (and I mean the first guy, not you).

      This I found on the 'net is actually a good short read on the subject and it seems to touch on and explain many of the concerns people have that are for or against the hate propaganda law. The quote at the bottom best represents my view. Though I wouldn't say it in such grandiose terms as "[hate propaganda] is an attack on democracy," I do believe that it has the purpose of actively denying identifiable groups their freedom.

      And here is a much longer discussion on the law itself by a lawyer who talks about the law with respect to Internet forums and such (and with good discussion on its interpretation in general).

    8. Re:Should this be a surprise? by mtrupe · · Score: 0, Troll

      My problem with it is the grey area. You're using an extreme example: Its wrong to encourage genocide. Sure. I agree. But what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.

    9. Re:Should this be a surprise? by rush22 · · Score: 1

      ...what about my church, that says homosexuality is a sin. Is this wrong? Some may think so. I don't. I think my church, as an organization, has a free speech right to teach this.

      And it does have the right to teach this.

      Note, for the third time, that sexual preference is not included in the law.

      (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

      Also note, again for the third time, that, even if sexual preference denotes an identifiable group, arguing an on opinion an a religious subject is still a valid defence.

      (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) ...

      (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;


      Aren't you reading my posts???

  61. Re:But, but, but... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "That the U.S. isn't as bad as the slashdotters say, and Canada isn't so great?"

    Of course not. We both have problems with ultra-conservative nutbars. The biggest difference is that in Canada we delegate them to the radio or proposing legislation that will never pass. In the U.S., they're elected to run the country.

  62. hotspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, but what are people doing that are running hotspots, both in Canada and the US? And are hotspot providers

  63. Canadian Government must crack down ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on illegal moose exports via eBay!

    You know what is really funny?

    The same government that will not cooperate on building a missile defense system is more worried about stopping copyright violations.

  64. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Canada has no problem chucking the constitution in the trash and rewriting it whenever they see fit. (Meech lake, et al). There's nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop any of these proposals.

    They've done it more than a few times in the past. They try to do it every time a bunch of vocal racists in Quebec start piping up about the special priveledges they feel they deserve.

    The US Constitution gets amended. The Canadian one gets rewritten.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  65. Big Brother moves north by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1

    And you thought America was creepy!

  66. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    [I am perhaps close to my maximum allotted posts in 24 hours, so if I stop responding, that's why.] please stop misleading others.

    You imply:
    • that I am wrong,
    • that you are right, and
    • that I am intentionally misleading others.
    The third item is certainly untrue. I seek to enlighten. As for the first and second items, these are the purpose of debate, not mudslinging like you did.

    Don't believe everything the U.S. private health insurance industry tells you.

    You have no idea where my facts come from. You make assumptions based off of your prejudices.

    Expensive or complex procedures are commonly done on a waiting list basis, "first come, first serve" basis, not randomly as you imply.

    Whether or not you can get the procedure you need is entirely random. It's not based on how hard you've worked to provide for yourself, it's not (truly) based on how badly you need the procedure, and it's not based on the resources available to this world to provide you with the procedure. It's based on whether the government is willing to pay for it and whether the resources would be better used curing anyone else. It's effectively random.

    As for organ replacement, it has the same limitations as the U.S., namely the organs go to whomever was on the waiting list the longest, and many people, wealthy or not, do die on the waiting list in both our countries because it's also illegal to buy organs in the U.S., and I see little done to change that.

    Firstly, it's a very good thing organs are illegal to sell. I can't imagine how much sorrow that market would cause. Secondly, organs are bought and sold on the black market all the time. Money buys anything, unfortunately.

    Spare organ supply is much, much lower than the demand, and there'll always be people who die waiting on an organ; however, here in the US, there are innovations on this front. A functional liver can be regrown from a part of a donor's liver, leaving both with working livers. Artificial hearts have been implanted, extending lives for hours. The signs are that they'll be used to extend lives for years, eventually.

    In Canada, these operations (and others like them) are available to you based on how many resources the government has to spend. How much of a syphilis outbreak would it take to to keep you from getting an operation you needed? The point is that in the USA you can work hard, take care of yourself, and purchase healthcare to help protect yourself. In Canada, you're not allowed to.
  67. Call for help to retain democracy in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Canadian government is trying to steal hundreds of millions of its citizens' tax dollars in order to develop technology against them. This is not the act of a free and democratic government but that of a totalitarian one that violates human rights and privacy.

    This is not the type of government we want! Please help us to contain this madness and to retain democracy in Canada. Every Canadian please email our law makers and let them know how much you value your basic rights to privacy and urge them to do something about these alarming developments.

  68. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In Canada, these operations (and others like them) are available to you based on how many resources the government has to spend. How much of a syphilis outbreak would it take to to keep you from getting an operation you needed? The point is that in the USA you can work hard, take care of yourself, and purchase healthcare to help protect yourself. In Canada, you're not allowed to.

    Wrong. American doctors are quite happy to take our money if we have it. As well, a good 1/2 of my taxes go to providing excellent, universal health care - not stellar, but excellent.

    Besides you being sucked in by the "everyone will get ahead if they just work hard" BS that your government feeds you, we do get expensive, critical treatments when we need them if our life is threatened. We even jump ahead in the queue if needs be.

    IOW, if you're a poor Canadian and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you get the help you need. In the US, if you're poor and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you die.

    I prefer our solution, thank you very much.

  69. Have to say it by Kn0xy · · Score: 1

    Were Gonna be watchin you, eh.

  70. Add to that, the elections are all rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how the frog always winds up in the Prime Minister's Office. The last english canadian to have a proper mandate there is almost beyond living memory. Get rid of Elections Canada and have the provinces do the counting for all federal elections. Then watch what happens! Let's see how pro-liberal pro-french Canada really is!

    1. Re:Add to that, the elections are all rigged by seminumerical · · Score: 1

      Mulroney is an English Canadian. Trudeau was half English. Paul Martin is English (well his mother Scottish and his father Franco Ontarian, which makes him half). Hmm, Kim Campell was English Canadian. Joe Clark was. Deifenbaker was. Nooooo, I see it now: you are a troll.

      --
      In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
    2. Re:Add to that, the elections are all rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Campbell and Joe Clark. Yes, what a glorious era that was! About a year in total!! While the frog gets two terms minimum. Hahahaha. Mulro... the Boy from Baie Comeau... And your objection to the provinces doing the counting instead of Elections Canada is what exactly? Try again! I see it now, you are an idiot!

  71. A semi-apt if not quite verbatim quote: by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    "Those who choose to avoid politics give their tacit consent to the very real probability of being governed by someone less intelligent than them."

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    1. Re:A semi-apt if not quite verbatim quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct verb is "executed":

      "Those who choose to avoid politics give their tacit consent to the very real probability of being executed by someone less intelligent than them."

      Unless you're trying to quote Plato, where what he actually wrote in the Republic, Book I, long paragraph near the end, is more along the lines of:

      "The greatest damage to oneself is from a bad leader, if one should not wish to lead."

  72. Re:canada sucks by yabos · · Score: 1

    "If you're having heart troubles or need serious surgery to replace an organ, forget about it: you're probably going to die as a victim of the Canadian Healthcare Low Pass Filter."


    That's such bullcrap. If you actually knew someone who's had major surgery to save their life you'd know you are wrong. Really, it's the opposite of what you say. Small things may be put off, such as if someone comes in with a fractured wrist that's not dangling by a vein, and someone comes in with a heart attack you better believe they're going to treat the heart attack guy first.

  73. Fear monger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's simply fear mongering to get attention.. pay no notice.

  74. article isn't really making much sense by WildBeast · · Score: 1

    And the government is gonna make schools pay millions for access to the internet? The same government who fully funds those schools?

    Article is quite weird, but then again crazier things have happened.

  75. NWO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The New World Order is global in reach. You cannot escape. You will not fight.

  76. Yeah, look at how the liberals are suffering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have been nothing but scandals for over a decade, and everyone's a fucking moron and votes them back into power every election anyways.

    1. Re:Yeah, look at how the liberals are suffering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who else are they going to vote into office?

      Frankly, a neutered Liberal government seems like a much better option than a Harper government (or going back to the previous election, a freaking Stockwell Day government. Man... that would have been messed up.) If the Conservative party were more about simple fiscal Conservativism (where, really, the current batches Liberals aren't exactly Trudeau-era social spenders), rather than being perceived by voters in Ontario and Quebec as backward rednecks who oppose gay marriage and abortion, they might actually have a chance of winning. Meanwhile, the NDP certainly shouldn't form the federal government (due to inexperience).

      Personally, I would have liked to have seen the NDP get a few more seats, hold the balance of power, and keep the Liberals to account, in a coalition of sorts.

  77. How can we blame bush for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be a way!

  78. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides you being sucked in by the "everyone will get ahead if they just work hard" BS that your government feeds you

    This gets repeated despite evidence to the contrary. Did they teach you this in school?

    American doctors are quite happy to take our money if we have it. As well, a good 1/2 of my taxes go to providing excellent, universal health care - not stellar, but excellent.

    You step outside the rules to do it. If you're really concerned with the plight of everyone in your country, you'd just quietly die and donate your money to the government. Also, the healthcare isn't excellent, it's only good on average. Whether you fall above or below the average is a matter of chance.

    if you're a poor Canadian and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you get the help you need.

    Not always. Not if there aren't the resources for you.

    In the US, if you're poor and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you die.

    Didja not hear of ``Frank Must Die''? Needy patients don't get turned away at the door in the USA, whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe. In Canada, the process itself turns people away. The system must, by definition, fuck some people over.

    I prefer our solution, thank you very much.

    Good luck.

  79. wow... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whatever stuff you and Ann Coulter are smoking... you should really share.

    Your "points", where not incomplete are completly incorrect.

    Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently.

    Do you mean this form?

    Um, no shit you have to live in Ontario permanently. As opposed to say, living in Quebec and renting an apartment in Ottawa for the weekend, then claiming both OHIP and Quebec Health Benefits? That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever. There's a huge section of "returning to Ontario". Duh.

    Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal.

    In light of your misreading of the simple OHIP form, I think you need to elaborate on this statement.

    For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income

    You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break. How you interpret the plan is not their fault.

    there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S

    I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount. If you put all your savings into both RRSP's and RESP's for your kids, you'd be paying some pretty low taxes I'm sure. If you were smarter and opened of a small business, you could write off your spouse as an employee if she did your books, then write off the car you leased, etc etc.

    When you get down to it,US citizens pay less tax than Canadian however you look at it, so it's kind of silly to compare individual structures.

    How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s

    I have no idea what the heck you're on about here...Are you suggesting the only benefit you received from the gov't was a scholarship? Are you suggesting you shouldn't repay a student loan?

    I'm not sure what you're talking about really.

    If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad,

    I suppose it's a matter of perspective... clearly, certain events in my family's history would have left us broke had we been without publicly provided health care. (Which in the US, a the son of a single mother of 3 we would have, certainly.)

    As someone who made use of that helping hand and now sits quite confortably on the other side of the fence I have no problems contributing to our services. Did you factor in lower crime and higher quality of life into your "pragmatic" calculations?

    1. Re:wow... by renehollan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Um, no shit you have to live in Ontario permanently. As opposed to say, living in Quebec and renting an apartment in Ottawa for the weekend, then claiming both OHIP and Quebec Health Benefits?

      No, as opposed to leaving after 10, or 20, or five years. Requiring a mininum waiting period before being eligible for benefits is reasonable. Requireing any benefits provided within a modest period before leaving would be reasonable as well. But, no, the requirement is to live in Ontario permanently, not simply to have one's primary residency in Ontaro for some mimumum contigous time.

      That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever.

      Yeah, that's what I thought. OHIP told me, in writing, otherwise.

      "For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income

      You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break.

      You missed my point. It could be considered "fair" except that is the only way many Canadians can afford a home: making the downpayment with an interest-free loan of their own pre-tax earnings. To live a life comparable to the typical middle class American requires taking advantage of so many "tax breaks", that it becomes impossible to leave if one wants. Americans have no such burdens.

      Since you missed the point, let me exaggerate the problem to make it clearer: let's say you're taxed 100% on your earnings, but the government provides everything: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, etc. You can leave the country, but only if you repay all the government "benefits" you received. Clearly, that's impossible. The liberty to exercise the fruits of you labour gets perverted from a natural right to a state-granted "benefit" or permission. Granted, that is an example in extremis of the problem, but Canadian taxation is so severe that it is close to that extreme rather than the "natural rights" position.

      I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount.

      Ah yes, the measely "spousal amount". What this is is, for the benefit of Americans not familiar with Canadian taxation, is CA$7298 (about US$5838), less any income your spouse earns, with a minimum at $0. That translates into a credit against tax at the lowest tax rate, currently 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario, against tax owing. So, for someone in Ontrio, that's about a US$1290 tax credit, regardless of income (though it is non-refundable).

      Let's say that you make CA$71.2k a year, or about US$57k. If you and your spouse were both working, each might earn US$28.5k to match that family income level, and would be effectively taxed as singles, with no spousal deduction. Your individual marginal tax rates would be low: 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario. However, when that extra US$28.5k is earned by one person on top of their US$28.5k, it is taxed at a much higher marginal rate: 22% federally, and about 9.15% in Ontario (the federal and provincial rate scales don't match perfectly, but are close), an overall difference of 31.15%=22.05%=9.1% That's about US$2600 of extra tax. (Americans are gasping in horror at the sheer level of taxation on such low incomes). The US$1290 spousal credit rather sucks, doesn't it? I haven't even addressed the federal and provincial surtaxes (an extra tax paid on income tax over a certain amount), so the situation is worse. A hundred dollars a month penalty for supporting a family. Of course, the Canadian will argue that that's reasonable to pay for the "luxery" of a spouse that doesn't have to work.

      Now, let's look at it the 'merkan way: you ba

      --
      You could've hired me.
  80. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "I worked hard through school and protected my brain to get to the point where I am. I don't want my gains going to someone who pickled his brain away before he was old enough to smoke tobacco legally."

    That's a very reasonable point of view. But I would like to point out that sometimes your tax money is spent saving the life of someone who deserves to live *more* than you do.

    Frankly, as someone who lives in a country with unviersal free healthcare, it's 100% worth any inefficiencies and quirks purely because it makes life easier, simpler and more pleasant. Private companies are out to get your money, treating you is incidental. The Government wants to keep you alive and happy, so you'll vote for them.

  81. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you better believe they're going to treat the heart attack guy first.

    That's emergency treatment. What happens when the guy had the heart attack (and three others, just like it) several months ago? Instead of the bypass he needs, he gets dead. It's too expensive to treat him, regardless of how his heart problems are hereditary. He gets bumped for the pregnant crack addict. Sucks to be him.

  82. Lack of Manpower by [cx] · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Living in Canada in a rural area (even by Canadian terms) I rarely see a police car much less anyone who IDs for liquor, or strangers. I doubt a system of constantly watching rural areas for those terrorists that are terrorizing farms, would be financially feasible. I mean our government's party is called "Liberal" but that does not mean they are liberal enough to let a system, especially an independantly controlled one be set up for the government or private company usage.

    Ever since the installment of the Patriot Act, Canadians had a sort of hushed wait for their version which came and never was really implemented. Due to the recent tragedy involving 4 shot mounties it appears to be the "Reichstag" in the unravelling of these "Big Brother" type surveillance and systems of control.

    But in reality, atleast in Canada this system will not work because most Canadians on their own will spot any kind of thing going on, and with the lack of manpower they better start to invest trust in the common citizen rather than turn them against each other with idiotic ways of monitoring us all.

    Since when was the citizen corrupt enough to warrant monitoring from the government?

    Kind of like a group of criminals to watch over a public school.

    We should be the ones with a Little Brother system monitoring the government, tattletailing every time they do something wrong..now if only we could convince someone to hand out punishment.

    [cx]

    1. Re:Lack of Manpower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ever since the installment of the Patriot Act, Canadians had a sort of hushed wait for their version which came and never was really implemented"

      it's called bill c-36...

    2. Re:Lack of Manpower by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      yeah keep your eyes on the farmers, while the gun registry is flaunted - I walked past a house in north east Toronto last evening and, while glancing in through the window, saw 4 rifles on the wall ... not locked away, or trigger-locked etc anyone can see this, anyone can break in and steal these weapons ... police? nope, more important things to do ... invading my rights to have a conversation, and verbally condemning my unrepresentative government for being corrupt, and looting my country ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  83. Wake up, Paul Martin! by musicman2059 · · Score: 0
    Man, if this is true...

    Someone must've stole his copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while he wasn't in his office.

    --
    When you need great justice, take off every zig.
  84. I would say it would be scary by rikkards · · Score: 1

    if the govt would actually put the money where their mouth is.
    One thing the govt doesn't do is shell out the cash where it is needed. Unless you think another golf course is needed.

  85. The Sky is Falling! by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, just because someone is trying to regulate the internet doesn't mean that they're eventually going to impose draconian measures to limit access to free information.

    The internet is now somewhat of an economic center, and one of the oldest functions of government is to regulate trade. It doesn't mean there's some huge conspiracy to destroy the free internet. If you're worried about the course these things may take, be careful who you elect and what internet services you subscribe to.

    All this FUD about big brother is really starting to get a bit absurd, and it only encourages journalists when stories like this get a big reaction. Is it so hard to just say that some people are trying to regulate the internet? Why does it always have to be some big huge deal that's going to destroy the world?

  86. Re:canada sucks by aoeuid · · Score: 1

    The government doesn't decide on a case by case basis whether it is too expensive to treat someone. That happens in other countries like NZ, but not in Canada.

  87. as a former canadian soldier... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would submit that anyone who knows anything about our army would tell you that the quality of our troops and their training are among the best in the world.

    Regular Canadian troops are on par individually with high level US ones. Even American commanders will tell you that.

    Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blockin

    Once again you're slightly off. Oka was the main issue, and it had nothing to do with a bridge. Your "bridge" was the Mercier Bridge near montreal, which was blockaded by others as a show of support.

    Finally, this isn't some fucking invasion of germany! The Mohawk were fucking fellow Canadian citizens (legality and treaty status aside)!

    The army was called out in support of the public institution, the same way they were called out to help with flodds in Manitoba, or to perform Search and Rescue. Their mission was not to attack and destroy the Blockade. Their mission was to effect a solution with a minimum loss of life on both sides.

    They accomplished their mission in textbook fashion. To suggest that the outcome could have been "better" with bloodshed speaks a great deal to your (lack of) character.

    1. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude - don't bother. he's a fucking wanker. check his website link. then decide if you think its worth arguing with him.

    2. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by renehollan · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I was there. I was a Canadian citizen too, and damn it, my taxes were paying you to secure and liberate that bridge along with everything else.

      But, of course, the Canadian taxpayer has no rights: they get told to shut up and support the majority freeloaders.

      You avoid as much bloodshed as possible by ordering the enemy to stand down, giving non-combattants the freedom to leave safely, arrest those who surrender, and use force against the rest: for nothing will convince them otherwise. What? You'll wait for them to tire, and jail them at my expense? Kill the enemy. Better yet, wound them and let them tend to their own, without aid. Just know who the enemy is before you pull that trigger.

      Oh, I get it, you do know who the enemy is: it's the taxpayer, and you do an excellent job of wounding them.

      The reputation of Canada's so-called "peacekeepers" was irreperably destroyed when they had every opportunity to prevent a Rwandan genocide and did nothing, claiming to be hamstrung by the U.N. Convenient excuse. Of course, after Somalia, it was no surprise.

      The Canadian millitary may have been elite at one time in the past, but that was long ago before socialism eroded the country like a cancer. Good God man! You can't even keep your birds in the air and your boats seaworthy. Open your eyes: not only do you not have laurels upon which to rest anymore, the powers that be are burning them and castrating you!

      It's not enough to never actually engage the enemy anymore: you have to pick your battles and win then decisively.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    3. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by Xross_Ied · · Score: 1

      university scholarship:
      You think your 1980's university fees covered the cost of the education you got?
      Goverment transfer payments covered over 95% of the costs (of the university) for you.
      Don't you think you have an obligation to pay for the next generation?
      Just like the previous generation did?

      --
      This sig space tolet, reasonable rate.
    4. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "you were there" you mean you were one of the million or so Montrealers who whined about the problem, they helped to create. From your website photo, you were obviously not there as part of the military, or police.

      Rene, you are such a loser. You are chock full of shit about everything, I have never seen a resume so full of bullshit in my life.

      Your comments about the military are WAY off. Ask anyone in the US forces who have trained with us. They get their asses handed to them with regularity in the war games (ya, I know, if it was for real, things would be different, but this is how armies evaluate their skills). Thats all branches, Army, Air Force, and Navy. In fact one of my cousins was the Tac officer for one of the exercises in the Pacific, and he whacked the carrier battle group.

      Please, just eat that next twinky and die already. Or at least shower. Just a note, just because you are full of shit, doesn't mean you have to look like shit, have some pride you slob.

    5. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      But, of course, the Canadian taxpayer has no rights: they get told to shut up and support the majority freeloaders.
      Boy I am glad you are no longer here, but with your cavemen brethen, in the US!!!
    6. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      university scholarship: You think your 1980's university fees covered the cost of the education you got?

      No, of course not. That wasn't the point. The Canadian socialist argument is that the state is entitled to make a tax slave of anyone who receives even the slightest benefit at any point in time, an absurdly bad value proposition.

      Even if one takes into account all the other services subsidized, it was a bad value proposition for me given the taxes I paid. Filing jointly in the U.S., with far lower taxes and more relevant deductions (mortgage, property taxes, etc.) is much, much, better.

      Bottom line: I was not getting my money's worth. Not by a long shot. And it got far worse when I supported a wife and kids. Despite keeping three other individuals off the public dole, my tax rate remained about the same, with extremely small additional non-refundable credits. I've done the analysis in another post.

      Goverment transfer payments covered over 95% of the costs (of the university) for you. Don't you think you have an obligation to pay for the next generation?

      No. See above. I paid back the value of what I received, many times over, taking into account all state benefits received. It was a bad deal. Do you think I left for the U.S. without doing a detailed financial analysis? A small difference would not have induced me to leave. The difference was enormous.

      Just like the previous generation did?

      Did what? My parents were peniless immigrants who had absolutely no government assistance in the late 40's, 50's, and 60's, and managed to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start a new life, post-WWII, paying medical bills themselves, etc., with no social safety net.

      Then, socialism took root in a big way in the 1970s with Trudeaumania, and their standard of living went way down: my mother had to start working to help pay the ever-increasing income taxes. They paid far more than they ever received, and so did I.

      Some redistribution to help the truely destitute is reasonable, but even churches only ask for a 10% tithe.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    7. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      By "you were there" you mean you were one of the million or so Montrealers who whined about the problem, they helped to create.

      First, I lived in Montreal. Second, the mayor of OKA enraged the Mohawk, not Montrealers. Third, my taxes paid for, and supported an open bridge, not a closed one, as well as keeping it clear. Do the job for which I paid you: clear the protestors off the damn bridge! Once attention was drawn to their complaint, there were many ways to continue that (legitimate, IMHO) protest without such disruption. Finesse is providing an honourable withdrawal in the first 24 to 48 hours. After that window closes, you play hardball.

      Your comments about the military are WAY off. Ask anyone in the US forces who have trained with us. They get their asses handed to them with regularity in the war games (ya, I know, if it was for real, things would be different, but this is how armies evaluate their skills).

      Pretend does not matter. "For real" matters. Idiot grunts with nukes will whallop more disciplined and "better trained" infantry any day. That's all the Canadian military is, these days, infantry, in a time of relatively-soldierless war. (Of course, the U.S. does tend to stumble badly once on the ground -- tell ya what: why not provide cannon fodder for the yanks who are so bad at a ground war, as you say?).

      This is typical: the U.S. is a more effective brute (that admitedly may lack finesse, as a result), and Canadians proudly claim that they play a "better game of chess". The old "Yeah, but we're better at..." something that is largely irrelevant. Christ, you can't transport your own troops anymore, you need piggyback transport. Yes, there are times when finesse and diplomacy are called for, but even here, Canada stumbles badly: witness Somalia and Rwanda. They can't keep their idiots under control and they don't have the guts to take charge to prevent a slaughter. Afraid of some bad press, are we?

      Face it, socialism is grinding a once-proud nation into the ground.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    8. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by erlenic · · Score: 1
      Ask anyone in the US forces who have trained with us.

      OK, I'll jump on that. Your military sucks.

    9. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by erlenic · · Score: 1
      Don't you think you have an obligation to pay for the next generation? Just like the previous generation did?

      For the love of God, when will socialism finally die?

    10. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by Xross_Ied · · Score: 1
      Bottom line: I was not getting my money's worth. Not by a long shot. And it got far worse when I supported a wife and kids. Despite keeping three other individuals off the public dole, my tax rate remained about the same, with extremely small additional non-refundable credits. I've done the analysis in another post.


      I don't know what you are doing wrong, my marginal tax rate drops (every year for at least the last 6 years) from 39% to ~23% when I add my family to the dependents section + RRSPs (401K in US).

      I would agree with you that taxes paid are easily more than triple the cost of benefits received. Part of this is the inheirent cost of goverment but the big chunk is most canadians are less well off than you, you subsidize their healthcare and education, etc.

      Your parent's may have had a hard life but without socialism you probably wouldn't have been able to go to university. My mother never went to work when I was growing up (70s and 80s) and money was tight through all my childhood. I know my siblings and I wouldn't be able to go to uni. (3 of us all started in a 2yr timeframe) if it were for..
      a) low tuition
      b) gov. grants
      c) but mostly gov. student loans (interest free until 6months after graduation).

      Specific to university/college (higher education)..

      I used to think like you did, until I became aware of the budgeting process at my college. Currently, students pay less than 25% the actual cost of the education they receive.
      In the 80s (gov. transfer payments were much higher) the percentage was less than 10%.

      The remaining is/was covered by gov. funds in one form or another (all derived from taxes).

      By the way, socialism took hold earlier than Trudeau.

      One could argue Diefenbaker started it at a federal level.
      http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primemini ster/p/p mdiefenbaker.htm

      Initiated earlier by Tommy Douglas at a provincial level in Saskatewan..
      http://www.weyburnreview.com/tommydo uglas/tommydou glasintro.html

      All things start with good intentions.
      --
      This sig space tolet, reasonable rate.
    11. Re:as a former canadian soldier... by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Finally, a reasoned rebuttal.

      Yeah, I am aware that a University education in Canada is subsidised. However, I factored that into account when I figured out whether I was getting my money's worth. I really wasn't eager to move to the U.S., and cut all ties: bank accounts, credit cards, health coverage (lol, what a joke). Honest. I liked the freer market, in theory, of course, but practice is a scary thing. Still, it's been amazing, despite suffering through the telecom bust (and having to return to Canada for a bit over a year). My skeptical wife jumped at the chance to return to the U.S. despite being weary of moving.

      As for tax rates, with proper tax planning, I'm in a 15% marginal tax bracket on a (low) six figure ($US) income. Of course, owning a home, filing jointly, having two kids, and maxing out a 401(k) are biggies there. Yes, I'm close to the AMT limits, thanks to efficient tax planning. No, this income is not considered wealty.

      Frankly, while I don't mind a pragmatic 10% tithe on gross income to help the "less fortunate" (I do oppose it on principle as I am a libertarian), the income redistribution in Canada is draconian, inefficient, and ineffective. My parents and I earned our station in life through hard work, sacrifice, and absolutely nothing in the form of net government "help". Of course, this meant no fancy vacations every year, and one or two toys on birthdays and at Christmas time.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  88. lol... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    Have you even considered that no matter who does the counting, it would be difficult to be elected without Quebec's seats?

    And Quebec is french, and constantly on about their unique culture, and the second largest (pop wise) in canada...

    Sometimes.. the simplest answer is the correct one.

    1. Re:lol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your objection to the provinces doing the counting instead of Elections Canada, is what, exactly?

      The french make up 18% of the population, and have been holding office since '68. Uh huh... with luck like that, they should separate and move to Las Vegas!

    2. Re:lol... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dummy, we have a first-past-the-post parlimentary system.

      Quebec accounts for a full third of parliment, regardless of population. The descrepancy is right in the open...

  89. Mark my words, it will be done. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if I'm creative enough to come up with it, but I'm sure someone here on slashdot will enlighten us with the connection.

  90. Man, FUCK canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is their own problem, and they can deal with it themselves. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, and they're getting a bit of their own medicine they've been serving everyone else.

    Suck it down.

  91. "Lawful Access" by rscrawford · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Lawful Access", "Clear Skies", "No Child Left Behind", etc. Governments everywhere are getting better and better at Orwellian double-speak, but the main lesson we're learning is that when you get people in power, all they want is to stay in power. Pretty pathetic. It would be nice to see a government that had the best interests of the governed at heart, but that's not going to happen as long as human beings are involved.

    (Damn, I overdosed on my cynicism pills this morning!)

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
    1. Re:"Lawful Access" by JFMulder · · Score: 1

      as long as human beings are involved.
      If science-fiction is any indication, we might even fare worse when robots rule.

    2. Re:"Lawful Access" by rscrawford · · Score: 1

      Well, I for one...

      Eh. You know the joke.

      --
      -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
  92. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Screaming+Lunatic · · Score: 1
    Canada has no problem chucking the constitution in the trash and rewriting it whenever they see fit. (Meech lake, et al).

    The last time I checked, the Meech Lake accord did not pass.

    They've done it more than a few times in the past. They try to do it every time a bunch of vocal racists in Quebec start piping up about the special priveledges they feel they deserve.

    The Meech Lake Accord did not pass. The Charlottetown Accord did not pass. Your post is a bunch of mistruths, ad hominem attacks, and FUD.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottetown_Accord

    Good Sir, welcome to my foe list.

  93. Stupid question by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    Don't Americans use the word touque?

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
    1. Re:Stupid question by gkuz · · Score: 1
      Don't Americans use the word touque?

      Uh, no. Next question?

    2. Re:Stupid question by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Don't Americans use the word touque? Yes. Yes, we do, but in the U.S., "toque" generaly refers to a touque blanche (chef's hat).

  94. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to point out that sometimes your tax money is spent saving the life of someone who deserves to live *more* than you do.

    And who is this? My money is best spent on myself, and any place it can be fixed so that it's spent on myself is a good thing.

    Private companies are out to get your money, treating you is incidental.

    Not when you get good insurance. The primary differences between your universal healthcare and the situation I'm in are that whereas you can walk into your family doctor and get a checkup anytime you want, I am restricted to going either when I'm sick, or one annual checkup. The other difference is that I have a much higher quality level of doctors available to me, more quickly. If I tore out my ACL tomorrow, I'd be Birmingham (Dr. Andrews) within the next few days. If you tore out your ACL, you'd have to go to whoever the government says. He might be good, or he might not.

    In case you're interested, Dr. Andrews is the best knee guy alive. The professional sports guys always poke a little less fun at Alabama when they're there getting their knees glued back together.

    as someone who lives in a country with unviersal free healthcare, it's 100% worth any inefficiencies and quirks purely because it makes life easier, simpler and more pleasant

    That's psychological. I don't have a worry in the world concerning my healthcare, and I have more of my own money to spend as I see fit (which, since I'm me, means it goes into savings).

  95. Re:But, but, but... by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just so you know, that's how they started out here, too. You do have the advantage of seeing our bad example.

  96. Thank god I live in the USA! by squatex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh wait...Patriot Act.

    Nevermind.

  97. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

    Meech Lake was not ratified, so using it as an example is specious.

    Calling Quebecois 'racist' for demanding cultural considerations as a minority in a country overwhelming english merely demonstrates your personal biases.

    As for the US Consititution getting 'amended' vs Canada's being 'rewritten', its a matter of semantics. Personally, I find the religious reverence paid to the US Consitution laughable...its a document written 250+ years ago, hopefully SOMEONE in America has had some good ideas since then worth updating.

    --
    John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  98. Hi, ever try reading the FAQ? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 2, Informative

    A handy FAQ for the tinfoil brigade.

    Of special note:

    Will Internet service providers be required to keep records of all their customers' web activity?

    It is important to clarify that data retention is not being considered in the lawful access proposals. ISPs would only be required to preserve specific data when requested to do so through a preservation order and only for a specific period of time. The proposed amendments would not require ISPs to retain data relating to their customers' web activity.

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  99. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    No, it didn't pass.

    But it could have.

    The method for constitutional change in Canada is to rewrite it. That was my point, and that is the way it is, not FUD.

    And, for the record, I think it's better than the American way: pretending that the founding fathers were gods and their words can never be undone.

    Oh yeah, fuck you and your foes list. Noone cares.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  100. Agreed, Reading the article's basis... by Luthair · · Score: 1

    After reading the paper which much of his article was referring to he's blown things way out of proportion. Each issue lists multiple possible solutions, the options are provided by 3rd parties. The paper then recommends an option, the scary pro-CP options in his article have *gasp* not been recommended by the committee!

    ISPs: recommended would need to do Notice & Take-down for copyright material stored on their facilities.

  101. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "cultural considerations"? Give me a fucking break.

    You're either french-Canadian, or you haven't heard all of the issues in this (*still*) ongoing debacle. My main piss-off about the whole fiasco is that they lost the stupid referendum and what do they do? Just bring it right-the-fuck up again! Yeah, we'll just keep voting till it goes in our favour somehow. That's real fair. Does that work the other way around if they happen to win? Does the rest of the country get a re-vote until we get our way? Somehow I think: Not fucking likely.

    In any other country, they would be brought up on charges of treason.

  102. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ok, I know you are an idiot, I am walking into this conversation knowing full well that you know absolutely shit all about healthcare in Canada and think you are King Potentate, Lord of Healthcare, Knower of All. Being Canadian, mayhaps you will read the words I say and shut the hell up.

    First, in Canada there are two levels to dealing with a patient; injury level and order.

    If I break my leg and am bleeding all over the place I will be dealt with with a higher level of urgency than were I to break a leg and simply have a bone need resetting.

    If I have my heart failing I will be rushed to the nearest hospital that can deal with my problem and be treated there with the utmost haste.

    If you are treated is based on one thing alone, reasources available. There is no bill; there is no immaginary slip of paper stuck in your ass that only can be removed by the deft hands of the gouvernment. The Hospitals are given a budget and that budget is used to obtain supplies, these include doctors, nurses, equipment and medication.

    The operations that are required to save peoples lives happen even if the resources are unavailable at the nearest hospital, as an example:

    My mother almost died from Pancreatitis, the hospital in town had no idea what was wrong because it is relatively uncommon condition that basically cripples the organ and will often cause the onset of diabetes and massive infections throughout the body, clueless and desperate to stabalize her they sent her to the next hospital fourty minutes away in an eighteen minute drive. There they found out what was wrong, their doctors had seen this before but were completely unequiped for such a situation, sending her to Toronto. She was then there for a day as they prepped her and tried to get her stable, at which point they found her gall bladder was dead too and she needed a Cholecystectomy.

    So, they got her a life saving operation in less than a week (keeping her monitored to get her well enough to operate on was the cause of the delay).

    Now, looking at some out of date information on the internet regarding billing for such a procedure, the figure ballparks around 3761 $ American for the Cholecystectomy, but I can see nothing about the massive IV and liquid requirements not to mention the cleanup. Now, I dunno about you but most people I know cannot simply shell out 4 grand on a dime.

    So, you state that in the United States there are innovations on the front of of organ replacement, as though the same work is not being done in every country in Europe as well.

    A breakout of a disease will do nothing to stop an operation because the resources are completely different, besides penicillin isn't so scarce here.

    And yes, you can infact work hard and make your own money to get your own private healthcare; you just go to a doctor in another county (there is this handy little sucker to the south of us, couple hours drive tops for most folk), because all the doctors here work under the same terms or not at all.

    Let me say it again my Red friend, if you need an operation to save your life you get it or they have you headed to a hospital that can when you die.

  103. hey look it's the canadian patriot act! (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  104. yeah, but it's the Toronto Star... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone please keep in mind that this is the Toronto Star reporting this... Slightly above the National Enquirer, but still pretty much a sensationalist rag. Besides this is slashdot. We just respond by announcing we'll encrypt everything. oh, and keep in mind this is the same Canadian government that couldn't put together a simple database to handle firearms registrations. Oracle is apparently beyond them. I wouldn't be too concerned by anything they do.

  105. They did outlaw Alchohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Not in Canada, but in the US experienced prohibition in the 1920s.

    Its interesting to see that it worked (at least somewhat, somewhat despite a huge undergound movement of moonshine and imports of Canadian and Mexican liquor), and its also interesting that it was revoked later.

    1. Re:They did outlaw Alchohol by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      It worked? Wow. I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that prohibition was actually successful.

      Organized crime was essentially the result of prohibition.

      --
      No Comment.
  106. Only in USA would this matter. by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this were happening in the USA, maybe it would matter. Not in Canada.

    Why?

    Because in Canada, when legislation is found to be in violation of the Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legislation is overturned. We have judges that actually do what they were meant to do ... protect our rights against what the lawmakers might try to do.

    On the other hand, in the US, its perfectly fine, in fact downright encouraged to pass laws that take away even the most basic rights, with no regard whatsoever about any type of constitutionally gauranteed right. Judges are placed purly by political affiliation and pay back the government for their posting by ignoring rights where they see fit.

    PATRIOT ACT!

    You americans are living in 1930's Germany right now and don't even see it. Already thousands of American citizens have been held for days without charge, without being allowed to talk to a lawyer or even family, with no warrant and no probably cause. What a great way to treat your fellow citizens!

    All because you let Dubya scare you. Take my rights away! Take my rights away! that will somehow protect me from the world!

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:Only in USA would this matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All because you let Dubya scare you. Take my rights away! Take my rights away! that will somehow protect me from the world!

      Just remember, those of us who did not vote for him are farking stuck with those idiots who did.

      And by idiots, I mean those who had a knee-jerk response to Dubya's invocation of authoritarianism, religion, and anti-homosexuality. Just remember, by Dubya's own words from the debate, he is acting for god to spread democracy around the world.

    2. Re:Only in USA would this matter. by BallyHigh · · Score: 1

      With all due respect .. what a load of cr*p.

      Ever heard of Bill 101? It's a Quebec signage law "restricting access to English schools and prohibiting the use of English on commercial signs predominate on all signage" It's been ruled by the Supreme court to be a direct violation of the Charter of Rights & Freedom but guess what? The law has stood for over 20 years, despite the Supreme Court of Canada declaring it to be in violation of the Charter (Source: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/ccskeywords/bill_101.ht ml)

      But wait .. it gets worse in the sacred Canadian legislation department - the Canadian Health Act whose second tenant proudly claims "all medically necessary services provided by hospitals and doctors must be insured". Again, completely violated by private for-profit MRI clinics in Montreal. (Source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/04/23/4339 05-cp.html)

      If this comes off as Quebec bashing it wasn't intended as such. It was to point out that in Canada, the Charter can, is, and will be violated subject to the discretion of the ruling class.

  107. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For organ transplant the list is often based off a score, by region. Score is calculated by how bad / urgent the situation is.

  108. Better dress warm, depending on when you try.... by ShadeEagle · · Score: 1

    Some guy crossed the border at a non-border crossing a month or so ago, up into Manitoba. He was denied legal entry because of a prior conviction. He was coming up to Canada to meet with a net-girlfriend.

    He damn near froze to death.

    (Wish I had a link to the story, but it's on a pay-only part of the Winnipeg Free Press site)

  109. Tony's Law by captwheeler · · Score: 1
    This may change in the US according to the Onion...

    'Tony's Law' Would Require Marijuana Users To Inform Interested Neighbors

    --

    Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.

  110. Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only that weren't the case, I'd be able to buy my weed at 7-11 by now, instead of helping support the underground market.

    When that happens, weed will be taxed so much you'll be paying a lot more than you are now. Worst, you'll pay that much for the crap that'll be sold by the big companies. The real good stuff will be sold as "organic non-GMO" weed for double that. And who do you think runs the big companies? You'll still give your money to scumbags, but with legal marijuana you'll give them a lot more.

    1. Re:Be careful what you wish for by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, OK. The current market will just dry up overnight when 7-11 comes to market with crappy dope for twice the current street price. That'll work well.

      It'll be cheaper and/or better or it won't go at all.

      --
      No Comment.
    2. Re:Be careful what you wish for by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "The current market will just dry up overnight when 7-11 comes to market with crappy dope for twice the current street price. That'll work well."

      If it's legal you could grow it, if it was legal it would be twice as good and half the price of street drugs... a blackmarket typical inflates prices, not decreases them...

  111. Take what you Get. by zeropointentity · · Score: 1

    "...all [parties] support the government's current legislation, which will decriminalize the possession and consumption of small amounts of pot." --"debated?"

    Seems to me that the subject is pretty much settled, and I agree. Legalization would stir up the pot too much... so to speak. That's what politicians are supposed to do; control the flow of power. By giving an inch now, it leaves room to do more in the future without jumping in head first and making a bigger mess.

    If Canada were to straight up legalize it, the international consequences would be impossible to ignore. American politicians already migrate to Canada on a regular basis to enforce their views on pot. I don't agree with that, but Canada is still the 'Little Brother'. It's wise to respect that, and accept the fact that now, you won't get jail time for a joint.

    1. Re:Take what you Get. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with that, but Canada is still the 'Little Brother'.

      Thats what I thought about Bush's missile defense plan. But thankfully cooler heads prevailed on that one, and we just pretty much ignored the rantings from politicians to the south about us "giving up our sovereignty".

      It's wise to respect that, and accept the fact that now, you won't get jail time for a joint.

      I think the danger of the decrimilization legislation is that it does the exact opposite of what should be done. All it does is reenforce that the black market is the place to buy from. I would support legislation to legalize cultivation for your own personal use, and crack down heavily on anyone who sells it, or even brings it outside of their home.

      Its a much better solution to taking the profit motive out of the drug trade. It would also remove the dangerous activity of bypassing the power companies meters in order to not red flag yourself as a potential grow op (that is very common practice among marijuana growers). Many of them build their own aparatus without any knowledge of proper grounding, or heat dissipation. If it were legal, you could have an electrician inspect your set up, which you absolutely cannot do now if you don't feel like going to jail.

    2. Re:Take what you Get. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to laugh whenever I hear about people doing this. I've known people that have burned down houses doing this.

      What's particularly amusing though is this: It doesn't matter if you bypass the meter or not, the power's still being consumed and it is quite easy for them to figure out where it's 'leaking'. I know of a couple of people that got busted because the power company traced power leaks to their grow house.

      I totally agree with you that that would be another _huge_ benefit to legalizing growing.

    3. Re:Take what you Get. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're growing for personal use only, you probably won't be turning your house into a grow house. You probably won't be running up $12,000 per month electricity bills either. You don't need a very big setup to maintain a couple plants for personal use. I like the idea a previous poster had where pot could be completely legal as long as it doesn't leave your house.

    4. Re:Take what you Get. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they actually do this currently in the US, I have 4 computers in my house, typically on all the time with 4 CRTs, if this doesn't generate enough wattage to flag me I dunno what would ;)

    5. Re:Take what you Get. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      It's patterns of usage that coincide with optimal gowing conditions that they watch for.

    6. Re:Take what you Get. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Well if this was possible to track yes, but they don't see when usage goes up or down in a day, all they read (at least in the US) is how much usage in a period, like a month.

      I'm pretty sure they don't have daily usage tracking or they wouldn't be sending someone out to check my meter every month ;)

    7. Re:Take what you Get. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they don't have daily usage tracking or they wouldn't be sending someone out to check my meter every month ;)

      Yeah, it used to be like that here too. Then a few years back, they came and took our meters out. I'm not sure where they are now, but it's not on my property anymore.

  112. Re:canada sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gets repeated despite evidence to the contrary. Did they teach you this in school?

    No, I was taught that sometimes people, even though they work hard and dilligently, still end up poor.

    You step outside the rules to do it. If you're really concerned with the plight of everyone in your country, you'd just quietly die and donate your money to the government.

    No, I'd work to make not only my plight but that of may neigbours better. That way everyone benefits, not just those who pick my bones. Troll. Oh, and it's quite legal to go to another country to recieve health care. Doesn't affect your status with our health care system at all. I think you even get a tax break.

    Also, the healthcare isn't excellent, it's only good on average. Whether you fall above or below the average is a matter of chance.

    Sure. Tell that to my father (atrerial reconstruction, very healthy now), father in law (open heart - same), grandmother (stroke - still looking after herself afterwards), aunt (breast cancer, enjoying Fla. ATM), wife (high blood pressure, all better now), child (busted up hand, metal re-enforcement, all better now), hell damned near anyone I know - they've all recieved excellent care anywhere they've gone in the country. Canadian healthcare is not without it's problems (mostly delays in some forms of care) but it's not just average, unless you count the Mayo Clinic as only 'good'.

    Not always. Not if there aren't the resources for you.

    Bullshit. If that were the case, the press up here would be having a fucking field day tearing into the government. That's not happening. If I were arsed enough to do some research, I'd bet more people die in the US due to sub-standard care than in Canada. But I'm not spending time on a right-wing, thick headed troll like you.

    Didja not hear of ``Frank Must Die''? Needy patients don't get turned away at the door in the USA, whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe.

    Like you've been indoctrinated to believe that poor people deserve to be unhealthy because they're sponges? OK. Sorry, I know that the poor can't be turned away in the US. They get the absolute best care going though, right? Well, they wouldn't with your attitude.

    In Canada, the process itself turns people away.

    What? You have proof of this? I've seen elective sugeries delayed but never once has anyone I know been turned away because the hospital administratore said "Go away, we can't afford you." You have no proof - I do, I've lived here for over 40 years and have first hand experience with Canadian health care.

    The system must, by definition, fuck some people over.

    Yeah, the whiney bitches who complain that they can't get their wart removed when they want. You are a troll who can't stand helping out your countrymen who are down on thier luck. Ever wonder why we have a lower crime rate? We try to get sick people healthy, because healthy people are generally more happy and productive. Even knowing this reduces tension. Canadians have agreed to do this as part of the price of living here. If we don't agree, we usually end up south of our border (or in Alberta).

    Good luck.

    Thanks, but you'll need more luck that I, I think.

  113. I stand corrected... by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 1

    You are right. The poll was 55%, and what's more, there seems to be a majority FOR the shield outside of Quebec. The various sources aren't too clean on where the support for missle defense lies, so I'm not going to pretend I know.

    However, it does seem strange that the government did not make any commitments until this poll was released. All the coverage makes it look like there has been almost no communication between US and Canada in the past few weeks, so I can't think of another factor that caused the Liberals to suddenly announce they were against missle defense.

  114. Well thank god... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...No country has yet been bold enough to outlaw tinfoil!

    I'm sure that's the final step.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well thank god... by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe next time you can try to be more creative. The tinfoil thing is a worn out Slashdot standard. Sometimes its used legitimately when someone goes off the deep end about an unprovable conspiracy theory. In the case of Rendition you are just using it so you can stick your head in the sand and enter a state of denial about something that is increasingly well documented, and that you don't want to admit your beloved country does. As you are using it here:

      tinfoil == denial

      Maybe you object to the use of the term Fascist police state to the U.S. but that isn't conspiracy theory, its more a matter of opinion on how you describe the bizarre political path the U.S. is taking. To me this term is a case of if the shoe fits..... Fascism became a dirty word in World War II so it became politically incorrect to use it, so we have terms for left wing police states, Communist or Socialist, but we have no "allowed" politically correct term for right wing police states though the world has them, they are now a form of government with no name. At the moment the U.S., the U.K., Italy and Columbia certainly qualify as shades of Fascist state though they haven't yet achieved the extremes of World War II era German, Italy and Japan. Spain was pretty close to one before its government was pushed out of power at the ballot box last year. They are kinder, gentler fascist states to be sure, maybe compassionate fascism. Today's fascist states maintain a greater pretense of Democracy, they rely on a majority at the ballot box from a fascist leaning populace to keep them in power. It appears in the U.S. that we are now very close to being a one party state. As soon as the Republicans change the Senate rules on the filibuster so that they can vote closure with a simple majority the Democratic party will be essentially powerless at the Federal level and they can pretty much just stop bothering to show up. The Republicans are teetering on the verge of doing this, they call it the "nuclear option". If they exercise it they will eliminate the only remaining obstacle to their political agenda, the Senate fillibuster. Then they just need to bombard the American people with propaganda so that American's vote away their freedom, and vote Fascist, every 2 years.

      As for the CIA's Rendition there isn't much that is conspiracy theory about it now. The government admits its happening, just not the details, there are numerous witnesses to the snatches in various countries around the world, the tail numbers of the two planes that are used are well known, one is a Gulfstream, the other a 737, owned by a front company for the CIA. The planes are crewed by men who were black masks to conceal their identity though the tail numbers on the planes tell everyone they are American.

      Their flight plans aren't secret so they've left a trail of the places they've been including Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

      An ex CIA agent admits he worked on it.

      Congress is investigating it, its being referred to by them as "outsourced torture".

      A number of people have been caught up in it and often released, usually by intervention of countries who still value basic civil liberties like Sweden and Canada. The program isn't disappearing all of its victims quite as perfectly as it would like.

      About the only thing that is not provable, by design, is exactly how much torture is being used on the people snatched by rendition, and how many have died in the process.

      About the only thing the Bush administration is denying is that they are technically endorsing the use of torture. Again by design they are sending people to countries who use torture in interrogation, and claiming their hands are clean because they have no control over what happens once the victims land in Egyptian or Saudi hands, though they gleefully take the intelligence that comes back from the process. The worst problem being, and most interrogators will tell you, is the intelligence is usually worth

      --
      @de_machina
  115. Zundel by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 1

    The Zundel case highlights the sheer hypocrisy of the government of Canada in terms of human rights. No a lot to expect there, either.

  116. Monitoring Canadians: a benefit? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, monitoring Canadian internet traffic might answer a question that has been plaguing the rest of the world for some time: what exactly is a "hoosier"?

    I'm not sure I spelled that correctly, so bring on the spelling nazis...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    1. Re:Monitoring Canadians: a benefit? by loserMcloser · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've got the wrong term. "Hoosier" is an American term -- it's what you call someone who plays on any of Indiana University's sports teams. See here.

      You're thinking of "hoser". A hoser is anyone you don't like. See here for other definitions. It originates from the "Great White North" program on SCTV, hosted by Bob and Doug Mckenzie. See here for a synopsis of the show.

    2. Re:Monitoring Canadians: a benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hoosiers live in indiana. hosers live in canada. ;)

    3. Re:Monitoring Canadians: a benefit? by JerBear0 · · Score: 1

      Informative yes, but a bit wrong. Hoosier refers to ALL residents of Indiana, not merely the athletes of IU. The term Hoosier was in use long before it was adopted by Indiana University's sports teams. Its just that the folks at IU aren't creative enough to come up with anything else. Go Boilermakers!! :)

      --
      Bad experience is a school that only fools keep going to.
    4. Re:Monitoring Canadians: a benefit? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't expect such sensible responses to a silly post, but that clears a few things up. Thanks.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  117. 1 word by Anonymous+Cowarcl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Co-fucking-incidence. Do you honestly believe that Bush ordered the murder of senators and political dissidents... through plane crashes? I'm sure if you hunt deep enough you can find just as many right-wingers killed in plane crashes in the same time period.

    1. Re:1 word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down here in Texas we call it the Good Ole Boy Network and if'n you think it ain't real yah got your blinders on.
      After 9/11 Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and N. Korea as an "Axis of Evil" and it's only been recently that anyone has even started talking about Saudi Arabia as "The Womb of Evil" and the reason is oil money.
      They have been the financier and breeding ground of every major terrorist organization with the exception of the IRA which would probably disband if Britain got the fuck out of their country.
      There is no oil shortage in this country and never has been. If you follow the money you'll soon see that most of the people profiting from all this unrest are the same people who created this illusion and are half heartedly attempting to resolve these conflicts.

    2. Re:1 word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now Bush is giving a live broadcast on terrorism and you can catch it on CNN.
      I've been watching/listening to it for some time now via my ATI All in Wonder card.
      Not once has he yet mentioned the Saudi's. He's mentioned every other nation in the middle east though.
      If he'd get that Saudi tit out of his mouth and that Saudi cock out of his ass perhaps he could speak the truth clearly without mumbling.

    3. Re:1 word by FHMyles · · Score: 1

      "...financier and breeding ground of every major terrorist organization with the exception of the IRA..."

      Don't forget the FLQ.

      How did we get here from "privacy on the internet" anyway?

    4. Re:1 word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FLQ
      http://www.ola.bc.ca/online/cf/documents/1970 FLQMa nifesto.html

      I think we always digress into a thread such as this when Billionaire and Conglomerate influenced governments propose restricting the rights of minimum wage workers who are near starving and living in slums etc.
      For example keeping with an FLQ theme:
      Anyone who thinks that one can live in the U.S., Canada or any other developed nation on $5.15 per hour needs three pieces of lead in the head.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/p olitics /main678648.shtml
      Not that an increase would do any good, because if it were doubled, prices for everything would rise till every dime was right where it belonged, which is in the pocket of those billionaires and conglomerates.

  118. Re:Better dress warm, depending on when you try... by canwaf · · Score: 0

    That may be, but Canada has refused access to anyone who has prior convictions which have equivilent offences in Canadian Law. If someone's only crime is to dodge the draft, I am pretty sure they will be allowed to stay.

  119. Technical Solution by roger_post · · Score: 1



    For every step that is taken to spy on people without reason, there will be a technical solution to solve the problem.

    Freedom of speech is not the enemy. Freedom of speech has not been the motivator behind terrorist attacks. Rather, it's the lack of ideas caused by the lack of free speech that causes irrational, desperate and violent behavior.

    To get around people "snooping" on my Internet communication, I use an online privacy proxy (specifically spynot.com) that encrypts all of my communication. That's the sort of technical solution that will stop Big Brother.

    For now, I'm not too worried about my government (US), but I'm more worried about my workplace, which is intenet on keeping me out of my webmail out of a misguided notion that it's "bad." Free Speech is not bad- it's enlightning! When will we finally learn this?

  120. Re:Better dress warm, depending on when you try... by Ravnia · · Score: 2, Informative
  121. Favorite quote by GoMMiX · · Score: 1

    "Canada's rules for child pornography still require a court order before content is removed, yet if the Canadian Recording Industry Association and other well-funded interests get their way, the ISP will respond to a mere allegation of copyright infringement by "kicking the subscriber off the system."

    Seems as though they're not that different from the US, both governments care more about who gives campaign donations then the people.

    Personally, I can't WAIT until they install backdoors in all their routers. I've always wondered what canucks were up to - I imagine quite well I'll be spying on those very same government hosedogs who passed the crap using their own gear.

    Idiots.

  122. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
    No, it didn't pass.
    But it could have.
    The method for constitutional change in Canada is to rewrite it. That was my point, and that is the way it is, not FUD.

    Isn't that the way constitutional change is done in most places? Legislators make proposals according to the change mechanisms in those selfsame constitutions? Constitutional amendments on various things (flag burning, gay marriage) are often proposed in the United States, too.

    Also, doesn't the fact that the amendments you cited didn't pass suggest something? Any law before the House and Senate could pass, but many don't--often due to either common sense or political self-preservation.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  123. Re:But, but, but... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    Over-taxation with or without representation isn't so hot either ... and in Canada - it is WITHOUT ...

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  124. Re:canada sucks by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    Incidentally, I've done my part to help the health care industry, and the tax-payers ( of which I unfortunately ;) are one ) 39, and since childhood haven't been to a doctor ... there was that time in 88 when I walked on adrove a rusted metal spike through my foot, went to a clinic and got a tetanus shot, that has been my sole-usage of our health care system ... I'm in good shape, eat right, just quit smoking, walk a lot etc ... should I require some care in my old age / dotage, then, I have everry right to expect it ... I'm not like the vast majority, running to the emergency ward for every little sniffle ! This is what has been draining and destroying our health care system ... particularly the influx of foreigners ... there are millions more Ontario health cards than therre are citizens - how's that again ?

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  125. Jeff Gannon (Guckert) is GAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I'm going to die in a Bush engineered PLANE CRASH! Well I regret I have but one life to give to slashdot.

  126. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

    The method for constitutional change in Canada is to rewrite it. That was my point, and that is the way it is, not FUD.


    Uhm, I guess you've never actually read the Canadian Constitution then? The Constitution of Canada is not "rewritten", it is ammended, in accordance with the provisions laid out in Part V, as per section 38:

    38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

    (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
    (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.


    Subsection 3 even allows for the attachment of dissenting opinion.

    Both Meech Lake and Charlottetown did not pass because they failed to meet the standards set forth in Section 38 - they were actually following the contitutional recipe for amendment.

    So, in fact, your assertion IS FUD. But hey, don't let little things like facts get in the way of a good arguement...

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  127. I call: Astroturf!!! by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

    Of course, facing bankrupcy for any illness is much better than getting "fixed", regardless of personal fortune. As for the MASH hospital style, nobody who has actually come in an hospital here would think that.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  128. Let's be vigilant, still... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    This is but a police wet-dream whish-list. The police always want the largest surveillance powers over civilians, because deep down in their little narrow twisted bird-brains, they do not trust civilians. They do not trust what they don't understand, and they don't understand much.

    Their entire training revolves on ferretting out crime suspects and they are naturally suspicious of everyone who has not been anointed into policeness (which is plain silly, given the number of cops who perform crimes).

    Yes, we should be vigilant, because the cops are inherently untrustworthy (why should we trust them if they don't trust us?), and make sure our member of parliament are fully aware that our legal tradition ALSO does not gives blind trust to the police, and that the Internet shall be treated NO DIFFERENTLY from the rest of society.

  129. Re:canada sucks by SamSeaborn · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up! This guy is spot-on correct.

  130. Re:canada sucks by Karn · · Score: 1


    IOW, if you're a poor Canadian and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you get the help you need. In the US, if you're poor and you're stricken by a serious, life threatening illness, you die.


    This is not entirely true. There are options for people like this who have no insurance, but there is no guarantee that if they don't have insurance that they will get treated. This is called incentive. We have hospitals here in the US that are free (charity hospitals, in fact, one of my sisters was born at one of them.) Many hospitals are obligated to take N ununsured patients each year. In addition to these options, decent Americans aren't going to sit around with other decent Americans die from curable ailments. If you don't have insurance for your child and your child needs an expensive prcedure done, you can always appeal to the public for help (many a time I have seen 'tip jars' in convenience stores to help out children who are sick and in need.)

    In your country, healthcare is a right, but here it isn't a right. Why should I have to pay for someone else's drug habits? Why should you pay for the fact that my mom, even after having had a triple bypass, still continues to smoke? What sense does it make to have a right to wreck her body and have guaranteed healthcare?

    I may sound like a cold-hearted person, but I'm not. I want to help people, I take pride in helping others, I just don't want to be forced to do it.

    --


    Why do I keep typing pythong?
  131. Insightful parent. MY ASS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's off topic.

    But politically correct for /. so I'm really not surprised.

  132. I've already written my MP by Phantasmo · · Score: 1

    I wrote my MP the first time this was proposed, and again the second time it was proposed. Luckily he seems pretty sharp on some fronts, so I can probably leave him alone this third time.
    It's going to come back over and over again, though. I always write the same thing: "I've got this software installed called Tor. It makes my online traffic completely private and anonymous, and it's free. I don't use it for everything, but I can easily switch. Please don't waste my tax dollars."
    Maybe I'll just remind him ever five years.

    --

    The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  133. Everything but the kitchen sink? by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1

    Your interpretation of history in light of Paperclip is interesting, and reminds us of the depths which spy types are willing to plumb, but this list of plane crashes is silly. You're one paranoid step away from claiming that Bush hired bin Laden to rub out John O'Neill (whoever he is).

    And I don't know what the "family tree" is meant to demonstrate in this context, beyond your willingness to stretch a point all the way to invisibility. Since The Conspiracy is everywhere, everything is evidence of The Conspiracy? Surely we can work the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in here, somehow.

    1. Re:Everything but the kitchen sink? by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      well, in response to you and the other who claims that I stretch the truth, let me qualify my post a bit for you.. it was late when I did it, so;

      Yes, what I am trying to show in these posts is several ideas:

      1. that after the operation paperclip which the US assimilated Nazi scientist (usually SS) into the intelligence body, we can see how some of the philosophies of the SS and Nazi's in general thrived in the super secret, well funded CIA when there was little actual oversight to the "How" of their work.

      and that now the US is seeing how this choice has affected the US on all spectrums as the mindset brought into the US at the highest levels has seeped through to our political and judicial systems. Placing us a subtle coup of character, marching us towards a repeat of old and terrible mistakes.

      2. That the bush body (and yes I am aware of clintons list as well) is rife with mysterious deaths, usually people close to the family who would have been in a position to know something come to suspicious deaths. The plane crash theme is significant in its commonality, and therfore lshould be observed more closely to see why. If we beleive all the FAA statistical data about how planes are orders of magnitude safer than other forms of transport - I think we would find that the statistical risk here is quite incongruent with national averages.

      3. anyone who hands down just ignores the fact that the majority of the political whos who of the US can be found in this family tree is just fooling themselves into comfort as the reality of the ruling class upon them is too much for them to admit that we are, in fact, still fealty.

      Yes, you are right I didnt cite how far removed these people are - I actually do cite this in my full length write up on the presidential cousins, but the only copy of which I had was on a board that is currently offline - so I posted the straight list.

      The people we see here in this list is interesting in the fact that I hold that it would be damn hard to find any other (except one) family tree which has the density of political figureheads (significant political figureheads) in it. Most people I have discussed this with have started out with the same argument "You dont show how removed these people are" or "you can trace the relationship from anyone to anyone if you trace back far enough" - while these two comments, simple enough, seem to throw the "conspiracy theorist" label at me - and will quite effectively re-close the minds of other readers who would be on the verge of not wanting to look too deep, it does not hold up when looked at statisticaly. The density of political names within this tree IS significant. It is also significant the fact that this is one family tree that goes directly back to european royalty.

      When you look at the statistics of those who have been in charge of this country in the light of the TYPE of government that has been put in place (a representative democracy - do not confuse our country with a democracy) you can see that this actually a little odd. Through putting in place a representative democracy, the actual vote of the "people" is abstracted from final decision making process. The representative group in effect in only given the consultation of the people on the overall trend of the political conscious landscape. Which if looked in the context of the Stern Father vs Nurturing WorldView, we can see that the overall conscioussness of the country, can be skewed through several tactics.

      Finally, I can prove that I have been writing about this subject since before Moore came into the limelight as a tool of the propaganda machine. So try to actually look at the fact that there has been a hell of a lot more thought put into the ruling of people through the ages than you will ever put into these observations in your lifetime, and you will realize that the veils of delusion and the "conspiracy" defense mechanisms are in reality not your own, but effectively placed social triggers. Layer the notion of mass conspi

  134. Action against irresponsible laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I live in Canada, every so often I email friends in the US to the effect of "Nyah, nyah, I live in a free country, you don't.", it looks like it's their turn to laugh if this lawful access business becomes law. I wrote my MP to protest. Unlike a large number of technically minded people I am not content to just tell my buddies that the government is stupid. I have exercised my right, as a Canadian citizen, to write a polite letter to my MP. Ever get the feeling that your voice doesn't count?

  135. Re:canada sucks by Karn · · Score: 1

    My mother-in-law came to the US (Mayo) for the cancer that she has. They were treating her at home, but the treatment was sub-par, and being productive members of your society, they had the means to buy the care they wanted here in the US.

    Careful, enough of that and your people may just decide that they could move 100 miles south and keep more of their money and have better healthcare. And if enough productive members of your society exercise their right to go where the cost of living is the lowest, the tax burden there is going to go way up. Remember, not everyone in Canada is a die-hard socialist or is die-hard anti-American.

    If the US let anyone in Canada move south, do you think you could sustain your healthcare system? How many business owners and service providers there do you think would not choose to move south so that they could keep more of their money and have better services? When I first met my wife (who is Canadian), I recall her being resentful of the fact that the US was 'stealing' all of your hockey players. I wonder if the US allowed productive Canadians to move here if a similar thing would occur?

    --


    Why do I keep typing pythong?
  136. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Exactly, you lived there during an age in which you were more busy playing video games or getting drunk than participating in politics.

    Strange, I seem to remember I was very active in politics, designed role-playing games, and had actively served in the Canadian Armed Forces (Army) for seven years ... but, I guess you must know more about my life than I do.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  137. Most people shouldn't fear by Z00L00K · · Score: 1
    that monitoring communications occurs.

    The problem is that anybody that REALLY is doing something suspicious will of course use encryption or obfuscation when exchanging messages, so the idea of monitoring all communication is as hollow as it can be. The only thing that you may be able to prove is that some communication has occured, but if it was about some criminal activity or exchanging some stupid PowerPoint presentations, that is a completely different matter.

    If anyone is suspected of criminal activities then that individual has to be monitored, but there are better ways to do that then to harvest internet traffic. I suspect that the majority of the internet traffic they actually will catch that is readable are spam, porn and /.-traffic.

    Anyway, this is an example of a government that has misunderstood it's purpouse - The only reason it really exists is to serve the citizens, everything else is excess.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  138. Canada = thought police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Along with a bag full of European countries.

  139. Re:canada sucks by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
    So what is the difference, then, between the way universal health care works in Canada and the way it works in various European countries (e.g., France and Germany)?

    Well, it's an over-simplification, but in a nutshell European health care delivery tends to be done by private institutions which are publicly funded, whereas here in Canada 99% of the delivery is done by public institutions, with no private component (there are exceptions like doctor's offices, which are privately run operations).

    For example, for all intents and purposes in a Canadian hospital everyone who works there is a govt. "employee." There are lots of exceptions, i.e. food services, janitorial etc., but generally anyone front-line is a govt. employee. Whereas in Europe you might be employed by Acme Hospitals inc. which is in turn funded by the government.

  140. That's a nice tin foil hat ya got there buddy... by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    You even got the shinier side on the outside like any true believer should.

    Given that highly-visible, powerful people with ties to the government are likely to be frequent flyers it isn't all that unusual that a number of them would see their demise on an airplane. I'm sure you could compile a list of Republican/right-wing people of note who died in plane crashes as well. I guess it's just hard to imagine Bill Clinton orchestrating anything like that, given his repurtation as uhhh...a lover and not a fighter ;-)

    As for the "presidential cousins"--you listed President Taft, and his senatorial son and granson as "cousins". The Bush family is far from royalty, and even royalty isn't inbred enough that a man, his son and his grandson could all be FIRST cousins--it is quite obvious that you consider cousins to be any people who share a traceable ancestral link. Well, that makes Orville and Wilbur Wright my "cousins" (I am more closely related to them than GWBush is to Kerry actually).

    I guess since my "cousin's" invention was used as an instrument of murder by Bush and his Republican cronies that makes me part of a conspiracy...In any case, thank you for the most entertaining piece of paranoid conspiracy theory I've come across since Farenheit 911. I am thoroughly amused.

  141. Re:That's a nice tin foil hat ya got there buddy.. by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    well aside from the fact that youre clearly an idiot, youre quite welcome.

    The point that I made, had you possibly read all my posts in this thread was that the *density* of political figureheads found in one particular family tree is significant.

    your closing paragraph is contrived to make you feel mentally superior to me, but the fact is it does nothing against the argument that I made whereby I point out some odd anomolies which are all documented fact.

    Try looking around a bit and you will see that there are many books and sites that document the presidentail relations in the same family tree.

    its wonderful how you use the term "paranoid conspiracy theory" in direct connection to F9/11 and my post. I stated that I feel that Moore is a tool of propaganda, but I am sure that this would be over your head just as I am sure that you likely feel that we actually are served by the "two party system" here in the US.

    feel free to deny any of the things that I said, I dont care. I think these are suspicious connections that are fully and adequately documented and that I have spent some time looking at. You on the other hand are typing in a knee jerk reactionary post to information that you likely have never thought of let alone spent any real time looking into. and I am sorry, but 5 minutes on google looking at the links that appear on just the first page doesnt count as "research" so dont use that as your measure.

    good luck to you.

  142. Re:In reality, this will never pass or be held as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well. I would guess that you're from Alberta. Here, read this and then come back and play with the literate folks, okie?