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!"
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
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.
See what I've been reading.
Time to learn how to spell touque. :)
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.
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.
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:
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.
I would give her a shout, as well as your local MP if this concerns you as much as it does me.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?