Canadian MP Calls For ISP Licenses, Content Blocks

An anonymous reader writes "A member of Canada's ruling Conservative party has pledged to "clean up" the Internet with new bill that would mandate ISP licensing, know-your-subscriber rules, and allow the government to order ISPs to block content. ISPs that fail to block would faces possible jail time for the company's directors and officers."

Comments

what's happening

[Hognoxious]

Is it me, or is Canada going completely mad?

Re:what's happening

[belmolis]

It's always disturbing to see things like this, but this is nothing to worry about. The bill is a "private member's bill". That means that her party isn't interested. Even worthwhile private member's bills that would receive a lot of support if sponsored by the party have little chance of passage. Furthermore, she isn't a prominent member of the party. It's very unlikely that this bill will go anywhere.

Re:what's happening

[ndb]

I wouldn't say madder than most countries, which may be comforting or scary - take your pick. However, it is very unlikely to pass. I don't recall any private member's bill ever passing. Of course, they could simply give themselves the power to shut down dangerous pipes!

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

It's you.

The law will never pass. Just another knee-jerk sensationalist slashdot story.

Re:what's happening

[Opportunist]

In other words, a backbencher trying to catch some limelight.

Please move on, nothing to be seen here.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a workaround.

1. Use Tor.
2. Use JAP over Tor.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:what's happening

[Aidan Steele]

At least they can spell. Licences, as in the title of this thread, is spelt with a C. It's the noun form, not the verb.

Have these Slashdot editors not been to school?

Re:what's happening

[flar2]

Yes, this happens when you have a Conservative government. They still think Bush is cool too.

Re:what's happening

[Ctrl-Z]

I believe the Slashdot editors are American, which is why the American spelling was used.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Madness? THIS IS CANADA!

Re:what's happening

[Lumpy]

you don't understand though. these annoying flies that do t his crap need to be smacked down HARD. Honestly leaders in office need to be treated as uneducated children and spanked on a regular basis.

for some reason, all over the world we stopped electing the best and brightest to power and started electing the mentally retarded that have lots of money.

This needs to be smacked down hard. Canadians need to write scathing letters to their representatives saying how bad the idea is.

These scumbags do this crap as litmus tests to see if they can get away with bigger things. They gauge the reactions to this stuff to see how they can make their real plans fly.

Re:what's happening

[voice_of_all_reason]

Politicians that desire to plunge headlong into tyranny are always something to worry about.

Re:what's happening

[Kenshin]

Is it me, or is Canada going completely mad?

Well, the Conservatives were getting high up there in the polls, but the figures seem to be retreating, so all hope is not lost.

Re:what's happening

[Phisbut]

Is it me, or is Canada going completely mad?

Things have indeed gotten slightly out of hands since we elected the Conservatives, which seem to be a little too close to Bush for my tastes. Unfortunately, the people seem to like them, and there is only one matter that keeps the Conservatives from being able to be reelected as a majority government: Afghanistan. If Harper finds a way out of Afghanistan, he'll get the public support he needs to get reelected, and that's bad for all of us.

Re:what's happening

[Chris whatever]

the problem is not the law, the problem is whoever is behind trying to apply the law and judging what's good or bad.

Zealots will try to ban anything and everything and others will render it useless by approving everything. the flaw is not the law but the human race that interprets the law.

Re:what's happening

[Chris whatever]

Uh Oh! i hope your not from the U.S because if so, you guys elected the most undemocratic fool named BUSH, who passed laws to give himself more power to delve into private data from it's own citizen to catch anyone sayinf bad things about them.
That same country is also trying to change commerce law in every country so it can have the best deal.

Nothing coming from the U.S. is an exemple.

troll me, i dont care it's the truth

Re:what's happening

[rucs_hack]

I suspect that this is a 'note to refer back to' for the politition in question.

Just say that in a few years they become prominant, well this failed bill can be trumpetted as 'a past history of interest in internet user/ISP accountability' or some such crap.

Re:what's happening

[Curtman]

Is it me, or is Canada going completely mad?

Yes. It happens every time the conservatives get in to power. The last one brought us "Free Trade", this one isn't quite sure how it's going to fuck things up just yet.

Re:what's happening

[tsalaroth]

You keep using that word, "elected". I do not think it means what you think it means. (At least, by US election "standards")

Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by the US Supreme Court.

Re:what's happening

[Lockejaw]

i hope your not from the U.S because if so, you guys elected the most undemocratic fool named BUSH

I didn't vote for him. Looking at his posting history, I'd guess the GP didn't either.

Re:what's happening

[Opportunist]

Pol Pot already knew, it's easier to control the mentally weak than those with lots of brainpower. His solution was to kill the latter.

Now, corporations do learn quickly. And of course, they will pump their money into those dimwits that are easiest to control and who do not even think about thinking themselves.

Makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, who would you buy?

Re:what's happening

[blackjackshellac]

Not so much Canada, as an extreme right wing party that pretended that they are a simple conservative party to be elected into a minority position, and then pretend that they have a Bush style mandate (without the implied homosexuality, of course). They takes pages and pages (reams really) out of the Bush playbook, and attempt to pass it off as something that the majority of Canadians want to see happening. Unfortunately, we are in no position to have an election any time soon, and meanwhile, these idiots are doing everything in their power to change a barely socialist country into an American style capitalist empire. They even called up the reserve to serve in Afghanistan yesterday, and the Prime Minister sounded like he was repeating verbatim a speech that Shrub recently made concerning troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Re:what's happening

[mrbcs]

See my sig:

Re:what's happening

[falcon5768]

Your point?

All you managed to point out was that Gore won the most populous states in the nation per square mile while Bush won the ones with small populations with large amounts of landmass being used for farming, which also happen to be the states with high Christian populations, and with extreme conservative streaks. I could take it one step further and point out that Bush lost almost every major city in the country and that Bush's wins where also areas of large Methamphetamine problems. We could go back and forth with these statistics.

So really all you managed to point out is what everyone already knows, the middle of the country is full of hick Christian wackos with no sense of reality since they are so cut off from the culture the west and east provide from foreign influence. And that Bush's brother stole Florida for for him.

Re:what's happening

[Marillion]

Although they do have a minority government, the Conservatives are currently running the Canadian government. Although she doesn't appear to have an official Ministry office, Joy Smith would be expected to support her party (which is the rulling party) and is therefore not a backbencher in the traditional sense of the definition.

Re:what's happening

[NFN_NLN]

http://www.joysmith.ca/

Parliament Hill
424 Confederation Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6

Ph: (613) 992-7148

Looks like my Skype subscription will be put to good use again..

Re:what's happening

[Opportunist]

See mine.

But thanks for the info, I gotta see that one!

Re:what's happening

[nurb432]

And the rest of the world isnt?

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't understand though. these annoying flies that do t his crap need to be smacked down HARD. Honestly leaders in office need to be treated as uneducated children and spanked on a regular basis.

Sexiest. Parliament. Ever.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it happened to Britain...

Re:what's happening

[prelelat]

This is because people never elected smart people, smart people just happened to be rich being able to accumulate enough wealth because of their intelligence. Now parliament is made up of dads little boys and girls who think their opinion matters. I want a pony I want Quebec to split from Canada.

I'm mostly kidding.

Re:what's happening

[c]

> a backbencher trying to catch some limelight

More likely, she made a (really stupid) election campaign promise to do "something about the interweb" and someone (who gave her money) reminded her that she hasn't done a thing and there's probably an election call coming up shortly.

c.

Re:what's happening

[billcopc]

Duuuuuuude chill out it's just a conservative rep whoring for attention. Just look at the lovely writing:

"a new power that would allow the Minister of Industry to order an ISP to block access to content that promotes violence against women, promotes hatred, or contains child pornography."

So according to this conservative asshat, violence against men still falls under the "don't ask don't tell" awning. It's this kind of lopsided tripe that enables minor political parties to stay puny forever. Their purpose is to express the retarded racist sexist views, making them easier to define and conveniently publicized in order to stimulate debate. In a sense, if we didn't have loudmouthed imbeciles in politics, it would be a lot harder to tell bad from good.

Re:what's happening

[deKernel]

Boy, I sure love you liberals. I am now going to start using labels here since you started with "...hick Christian wackos..". Nothing better when the rule of law does not benefit you. You make is sound like it is the big cities that make this country. Those country bumkins you slam on sure as heck don't need you, but you sure need them. Not sure where you think your food comes from, but it sure not from the city. They don't need your Internet, but you sure need that meat that comes from their farms. They don't need your advertising agencies, but you sure need the vegetables and fruits they raise.

See where I am going with this? Probably not because you have been trained to believe that the world is comes to you in the form of a grocery store and malls.

You can hate me or call me an idiot, but the truth is just that, the truth. If you can't or won't accept it then I just feel sorry for you and this country.

Re:what's happening

[jez9999]

Looks like my Skype subscription will be put to good use again

Don't worry, Verizon's investigating how to forcibly provide you with a better service as we speak.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when a country gets a huge amount of immigrants in a short period of time.

The immigrants are permitted to vote, but do not understand the political climate and vote based on skin colour and religion, and end up voting in people that otherwise would've never had a chance.

Re:what's happening

[delepster]

Do not get me wrong, I am in favor of a free-speech Internet. However, this is not a black-or-white matter. I would personally not grant free speech to pedophiles, which is the spirit of section 8.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't know what free speech means. Ponder "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" for a while and get back to me. Everyone gets free speech, or it isn't free.

Re:what's happening

[Embolism]

The problem is that most of the "best and brightest" will not go near public service.

Re:what's happening

[falcon5768]

Funny all my meat and veggies come from NJ, since thats where our state gets all their food from. The only thing the Midwest farms is corn, most of which is exported or possessed into the very foods many scientists are linking to obesity. I also eat a lot of fish which if Im not mistaken other than a few rivers around there you guys dont have much of, nor a industry for.

The truth is the midwest doesn't understand how little the east and west coasts really need it, because they have been fooled into believing everything they do is going to the east and west for us to eat. Its not its going to Canada and Mexico and Japan and Europe and everywhere else, the US ISNT eating it. Infact the only things you guys raise that you could say we eat, is pigs in your massive environmentally damaging pig farms. But then all the meat I buy is raised in NJ for that too. Just tastes fresher.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

We dont need to write letters, because if our crazy ass conservative party (who she belongs to), who are kookoo anyways dont want to do this, then there is no way our liberal party, or the ndp, or the bloc are gonna do this.

Thanks, but we like our internet unmonitored and unfiltered, for that full on german porn taste.

Re:what's happening

[BloodyIron]

i sure hope we're not o.O

Re:what's happening

[tsalaroth]

One important statistic missing from your list:

Popular vote.

Another one? The margin (along with margin of error) that Bush won at least 7 of those states. I'll have to re-gather the numbers, but I'll post them when I find them, but IIRC, those 7 states would have made the "election" go the other way, and the margin was small enough that a true recount and tossing of duplicate ballots (there are thousands every election) might have put Gore in the lead.

Lastly, no matter what you say, it doesn't change the fact that the election was decided by the Supreme Court, not the people or recounts - that were legally allowed, but rejected.

The election was stolen, plain and simple.

And a little piece of information I left out: I voted for Bush.

Sure I was happy the guy I voted for got the position, but NOT at the cost of the integrity of our nation's election system. Not to mention the fact that he completely destroyed the budget surplus and ALREADY improving economy at the time. He gets a lot of credit for the current growth we're going through - any economist will tell you that it takes longer than 4 years to do that, in all likelihood, you can credit Reagan or Bush Sr. for the current economy. The only thing fast-acting in our economy is disaster.

Re:what's happening

[The Spoonman]

Great, then the ignorant christian wacko hick farmers are no longer allowed to vote in any election that doesn't concern anything but food, 'kay? They don't need "our" Internet? Fine, your representatives aren't allowed to vote on net neutrality issues. Don't need "our" advertising? Great, you don't get to vote on issues relating to mass media, which includes so called "obscenity" issues. See where I'm going with this? If all they know is food and the jaysus, we don't need their opinion. And, as another so eloquently pointed out, we don't buy our food from those states, it goes to feed the terrorists. (For the morons without a sense of humor, and there's a significant number of them on slashdot, that last bit was a joke.)

BTW, you don't need to be a liberal to know the midwest is full of ignorant hick christian wackos, you just need to have been there.

Re:what's happening

[tsalaroth]

Well, since I wasn't doing any labelling, I'll assume you're not talking to me when you mention liberals. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially moderate with a leaning towards liberal. So sure, I'm somewhat of a liberal. I'm far from a pot-smoking hippy, however.

Anyway, I agree with you that the GP went a little bit far - one might call me a hick Christian wacko (except I'm not a fundie). I'm also originally from the midwest, and have done my fair share of farm work. So yeah, I agree with you, that they are an important part of our economy.

That being said... I know a lot of folks in Arkansas who voted for Bush in 2000 and regretted it by 2004. And I know even more who voted for him in 2000 AND 2004, and are SEVERELY regretting it now. These are the ascribed "hick Christian wackos" the GP mentions, and they feel they were lied to and cheated. Most of them have sworn off ever voting for a Republican again. Which is a shame, the legislature works best when Congress is close to balanced like it is now. Give me a barely-Democratic controlled Congress with a Republican President any day over any party having control of both branches. The reverse is only somewhat as true for me - Democrat Presidents tend (though not always) to have a narrow field of foresight, and veto too little or for the wrong reasons.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Things have indeed gotten slightly out of hands since we elected the Conservatives

That's a rather short memory. The Conservatives/Reform were elected to replace the thoroughly corrupt Liberal party. Who were corrupted by being too established after we destroyed the previous Conservative party in reaction to the Mulroney extremism.

We kept our politics middle-of-the-road for decades by electing either the Conservatives or Liberals to kick out the other when they'd gone too far. That check mechanism was coupled with a fairly strong NDP party that several minority governments of both stripes had to ally with to continue. The overall result was relatively non-corrupt government with a fair amount of social programs.

All that got binned by the voter rebellion against the Mulroney Conservatives. We lost our check mechanism, quite possibly permanently. These days much of the moderating influence in Ottawa comes from the separatist Bloc party, of all things. (Who get less votes than the NDP, but alas more seats.)

It's a damn mess. These days I mostly see mainstream political hope running down two drains: 1) that nobody gets a majority goverment, and we thus avoid the 'king for four years' mentality that plagues American politics, and 2) that somehow the Liberal party can be remade from within and become the fairly non-corrupt, fairly pro-social Canadian ideal. A lot of decent people are working to make the latter happen, but since there is no check mechanism within political parties, any progress they make will likely just errode after such a party came to majority power, as before.

What's "gotten out of hand" is our political system has insufficient checks and balances to moderate government behavior. This wasn't functionally evident while we had a virtual 50-50 split between two middle-of-the-road parties, but that's history now. Eccentric swings are our new normal.

Re:what's happening

[HAKdragon]

for some reason, all over the world we stopped electing the best and brightest to power and started electing the mentally retarded that have lots of money.

It doesn't seem very nice to insult the retarded by comparing them to politicians.

Re:what's happening

[Have Brain Will Rent]

The only thing the Conservatives need to get re-elected is for the Canadian people to remember what the Liberals were like when they were in power including, to pick a trendy topic, the Liberal's utter failure to do anything about the Kyoto accord they signed, until now it either has to be abandoned or more than a decade of changes have to somehow be squeezed into three years.

Re:what's happening

[rm69990]

Well if you read the article, you would see that this is a Private Members' Bill which has next to no chance of passing, just like the last Canadian bill that Slashdot reported on. So the answer to your question is yes, it is just you (and others who don't RTFA), and to clarify further, a single legislator that privately introduces poor legislation doesn't make an entire country "mad".

We have yet to actually enact a law along the lines of America's patriot act, and I simply don't see the Conservatives being able to push anything like it on us, considering they're a minority government. The US has far more experience with "mad" legislation than Canada.

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the JEWS, stupid...

After all, who else do you think is behind the insane policies designed to turn Canada from an ALL WHITE, perfectly happy and productive country, into a third world shithole?

And the JEWS need total control of the internet, in order to stop their 'cattle' (goyim) from telling each other about the Jews. After all, the poor Jews only control 99% of the white media in the world...

It's the JEWS, stupid.

Re:what's happening

[Phisbut]

That's a rather short memory. The Conservatives/Reform were elected to replace the thoroughly corrupt Liberal party. Who were corrupted by being too established after we destroyed the previous Conservative party in reaction to the Mulroney extremism.

I'm not saying the Liberals were good, and I never liked Chretien's attitude, and much less Martin's. However, the Liberal's problems were on internal matters, and didn't much affect the image of Canada abroad. Nowadays, with the situation in Afghanistan, Harper's tendency to be Bush-like, the way he's screwing our relations with China, etc. Canada's image is being tarnished.

It's a damn mess. These days I mostly see mainstream political hope running down two drains: 1) that nobody gets a majority goverment, and we thus avoid the 'king for four years' mentality that plagues American politics, and 2) that somehow the Liberal party can be remade from within and become the fairly non-corrupt, fairly pro-social Canadian ideal. A lot of decent people are working to make the latter happen, but since there is no check mechanism within political parties, any progress they make will likely just errode after such a party came to majority power, as before.

That is ad advantage of our parliamentary system with multiple parties. Although there can be majority governments that makes a "king for four years" as you mention, however, when all parties are relatively strong (unlike un Chretien's reign when the conservatives and the NDP basically weren't there), the governing party doesn't want to upset the voters, since a slight shift in votes can change the government drastically.

Let's just hope the NDP and the Bloc don't go down the drain though. Last month's provincial election in Québec doesn't spell well for the Bloc.

Re:what's happening

[RobinH]

I'm Canadian, BTW. Yes, you're probably quite accurate in this description, and there is an election looming (it can come any time the Prime Minister thinks he has enough support to win, and they're teetering on the edge of a majority in the polls).

However, there was also a recent article in a popular magazine in Canada (MacLean's) that was talking about how the internet has contributed to a rise in child porn due to the anonymity and the sense they get that there are others out there like them. The article was well written and presented some disturbing statistics that made me glad I don't have kids yet.

It certainly made me wonder if there's anything we can do. If the stats are accurate, a sizeable percentage of the victims are abused by family members, even parents. It also functions like an addiction and there doesn't appear to be a cure. Someone who wasn't aware of the benefits that freedom of speech on the internet gives us would probably suggest regulating it to at least stop the incentive to share pictures (therefore slowing down the production of the material). This MP is obviously a person who doesn't value freedom of speech, and it's not a problem confined to any one country, I assure you. I worked in the US long enough to know there are lots of pro-nanny state people there too.

That said, it doesn't change the fact that we are failing to protect the rights of these children. I absolutely believe that the people perpetrating the crime need to bear full responsibility here, but the issue is different when children are involved, simply because they don't know their rights. I can accept that an abused spouse needs to have the bravery to step forward and tell the police about it, and then I think they should expect the police to do something about it. An adult in a relationship like this can be expected to take that much responsibility on themselves.

However, a 6 year old is in a different position. It's quite possible that the only people who would be in a position to explain their rights to them are the ones abusing them. We consider a child to be virtuous if they accept what their parents say out of respect for their authority. In a normal household, children need to accept what their parents say and do even if it's something they don't like or agree with. But we're saying that there's this line that adults can cross and children should be automatically aware of where this line is drawn. We have no effective communication channel to educate children of their rights. After all, can you imagine a public service announcement during Sesame Street that tried to educate children about what inappropriate touching is? There would be an outcry. But when I was young, I remember these PSA's with that kid from Webster talking about this, but as a kid, I didn't know what he was talking about because they were trying to keep it politically correct, which made it useless.

The whole thing is quite frustrating. Both parents and kids need equal rights. We can't have a nanny state, but we can't just dismiss it as some "think of the children" rhetoric because we've all been on the internet and we know what's out there. It's a problem.

Sorry for straying off topic.

Re:what's happening

[PimpMaggot]

this would be the equivelent of the fcc telling a cable company that they have to tell HBO what they can and cannot show on thier station that people SUBSCRIBE to, just like we subscribe to the internet through our isp, F Canada aye?

Re:what's happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope the NDP and the Bloc don't go down the drain though. Last month's provincial election in Québec doesn't spell well for the Bloc.

Oh, don't worry for the Bloc from that. It's a political ideal for Quebec to vote separatist federally, and then provincially never give it quite enough support to carry through. Actually separating would be a disaster for the province, but keeping the threat alive gives the province more power in Ottawa than they'd have otherwise.

It's Gallic politics. It's exhasperating for the more straightforward joe-anglophone who doesn't get it, and that simply amuses many francophones who are quite happy to yank the chain harder. Think of it as the French castle scene in Python's The Holy Grail.

I'm not saying I like it or don't think it's a risky game, just that it's important to keep in mind when thinking about Quebec.

Re:what's happening

[infidel13]

Nice point - but the language is a little repetitive.

Obligatory comment

[eggman9713]

In Soviet Canada, ISP screws YOU!

Re:Obligatory comment

[yuriks]

I don't think that only happens in Soviet Canada...

Re:Obligatory comment

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Slashdot, Redundant is VOTING ME !

Yeah, right...

[OriginalHunchy]

They tried this crap here in Australia a few years ago. Banned gambling sites so we all now send our casino $$s to Barbados. Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology. The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.

Re:Yeah, right...

[montyzooooma]

"Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology. "

They should be able to pick up something cheap out of China.

Re:Yeah, right...

[drsmithy]

Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.

Unfortunately the problem isn't just the right-wing Family First wackos, it's also the plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".

The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.

Only to the tiny minority of people who realise how impossible it is.

Re:Yeah, right...

[SQL Error]

Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.

This happened years ago. But by the time it became law, it had been so watered down that the only real requirement was for ISPs to inform their customers that filtering software was available.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Frogbert]

Internet censorship already happens in Australia, there is a list of banned sites and newsgroups that no ISP in Australia can give access to. You can't find out what sites are on the list either, because the list is secret.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Of course, the fact that going to www.imaterrorist.com in your web browser gets rejected at the ISP level is not the same thing as preventing you from accessing the content on that site.

I think we need a new Slashdot tag: wethinkweowntheinternet. We could just automatically moderate the first post in any such discussion pointing out the futility of censorship at a national level to (+5, Insightful), all the others repeating the same thought to (-1, Redundant), and the remaining 97% of comments (+5, Funny)...

Re:Yeah, right...

[badfish99]

Of course the list is secret, because publishing it would be tantamount to publishing a list of "good terrorist and child porn sites", and no government would want to do that!

If it's the same "clean feed" technology that the UK government forces all ISPs to "voluntarily" use, then you might like to look at this paper (pdf) which describes how to use the system to discover what sites it is blocking, and perhaps will give you some ideas on how to circumvent it.

Re:Yeah, right...

[elrous0]

Sadly, I suspect it's only a matter of time before this happens in the U.S. the same way it has happened in China and the middle east already. While it won't COMPLETELY kill freedom on the internet (since there are always ways around it for the technologically well-informed) it will have a horrid chilling effect. What we will end up seeing is a game of cat and mouse between the fed's and controversial sites like Pirate Bay (who will no doubt begin shifting between different IP addresses as a countermeasure).

Re:Yeah, right...

[voice_of_all_reason]

Of course the list is secret, because publishing it would be tantamount to publishing a list of "good terrorist... sites"

Maybe we can tie it to user ratings to help ensure that. A++++++ GREAT SIET. WOULD DEFINITELY JIHAD WITH AGAIN

Re:Yeah, right...

[SQL Error]

Funny, I ran the technical operations for an ISP until last November and I never heard of that list.

There is a list of sites that have been shut down, but those are sites that were hosted in Australia. There's no list of sites that you're not allowed to access. There simply isn't any filtering in place to do that.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not lose track of reality. Only government holds the keys to oppression -- THEY are the organization holding the unique "right" to employ coercion as their means. Since anyone else who does so is a criminal, how can an IT consultant possibly employ organized coercion against you? Sure they're crooks, cheaters, scumbags for making deals with the devil -- but in the end, only government holds the keys. (Unless you believe in that tired old fairy tale "for the people, by the people" where individuals somehow oppress themselves, forcing themselves to pay for things they would never pay voluntarily, hauling themsleves off to jail for engaging in various peaceful activities, etc, etc.)

Re:Yeah, right...

[corbettw]

Funny, I ran the technical operations for an ISP until last November and I never heard of that list.

Of course, you have to say that, or they'll come take you away.

Re:Yeah, right...

[OriginalHunchy]

Yes you are right it failed when it was announced, not only was it just plain dumb & anyone who could think for a nanosecond realises this... IIRC it was also part of the a Fed Govt deal with a Tasmanian wowser politician to win his vote on some other piece of useless legislation of the day. My comment is based on DCITA's (Department of Communication, Information Technology & the Arts) press release last year, plus the tenders out right now (also run by DCITA) for filter analysis and checking. www.dcita.gov.au. There is another govt body ABA (Australian Broadcasting Authority) that has a list of 'approved' filters for corporate/ private/ government use. www.aba.gov.au.

Moronic MP Repeats Mistakes

[Brickwall]

As if we didn't waste enough money on the gun registry debacle, now they want to create another registry? I'm guessing there are more internet users in Canada than gun owners. This would be a logistical nightmare; luckily, it has little chance of becoming law.

Re:Moronic MP Repeats Mistakes

[cayenne8]

"As if we didn't waste enough money on the gun registry debacle..."

They made ya'll register your guns up there?!?!

Well, if history is any foreteller of the future, you know what will come next........confication.

Direct link to the Act

[dleigh]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicati on.aspx?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&D oc=C-427_1&File=24#1

Some lowlights:

"Internet service provider" means a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge.

4. (1) No person may offer the services of or operate as an Internet service provider unless the person has been granted a licence to operate as an Internet service provider in accordance with subsection (2).

So if I let my flatmates share my internet connection, that makes me an ISP without a licence?

(8.4) No person shall respond to a contact that is made using the Internet for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.

Which makes telling a paedophile to get help an offense. On the upside, this could cut down on some of the vigilantism.

Re:Direct link to the Act

[GNU(slash)Nickname]

Which makes telling a paedophile to get help an offense. On the upside, this could cut down on some of the vigilantism.

Maybe. I think the language is ambiguous. Your interpretation parses like this:

(8.4) No person shall respond to (a contact that is made using the Internet for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.)

But you can also parse it like so:

(8.4) No person shall respond (to a contact that is made using the Internet) (for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.)

In other words, is the intent to facilitate a designated offence attached to the person making the initial contact or to the person responding?

Star systems, fingers, slipping

[sycomonkey]

Trying to regulate content on the internet is like trying to make politicians work pertinent issues.

Re:Star systems, fingers, slipping

[donaldm]

Just recently I brought a wireless modem and connected it my ISP's modem. This enabled me to allow my son who is an avid gamer and myself to use my personal laptop and my work laptop without any interference. I actually am wondering why I did not do this sooner since the cost was under AU$90 and it is so flexible. In addition I also use my personal laptop (Linux only) to act as a file-share and backup controller.

What I noticed when using the wireless on our PC's to connect to my router was a few other wireless routers. All you would need is some method of joining each router via wireless and I know this works since I have friends who do this. So you end up with a small network dependent on neighbour cooperation that can easily be used for file-sharing (think videos or music) so you have a reasonably cheap fast "grey" network (one cost upfront then it is free) and an ISP (hopefully secure) Internet connection.

If an ISP is hobbled by government then many subscribers won't notice or feel powerless to do anything but once the government starts to try and control the grey networks everyone notices and this will insure political suicide for any government that tries to propose this. Of course if the grey networks grow you start to have another Internet and things could get interesting since you now have individual householders controlling the infrastructure. Of course I am not holding my breath on this but still it is feasible.

Re:Star systems, fingers, slipping

[computational super]

Or, install an encrypted overlay darknet on top of the hobbled network and communicate freely. And herein lies the problem - there are solutions to curtail government censorship in existence RIGHT NOW. Unfortunately, they never gain any traction, because everybody seems to support the censorship of something or other because, well, "X is REALLY bad and NEEDS to be censored, whatever the cost." There seem to be very few of us who understand that censorship is all or nothing.

Re:Star systems, fingers, slipping

[jcausey]

Actually, I'd bet that most people don't use the privacy-based 'meta' networks (like Freenet) because they're still dog slow compared to other solutions -- and not enough stuff that most people really care about is being censored.

How long...

[Mukunda_NZ]

Were Australia not building up a filter service to allow customers to block porn sites a while ago? What is to stop this technology being used to filter out political writtings that they don't want people to be able to access?

It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see, and I feel it is a very bad idea to build them the weapons to do so, no matter how much they promise to not use them for their own advantage.

Re:How long...

[Digital Vomit]

What is to stop this technology being used to filter out political writtings that they don't want people to be able to access?

The good will and decency of our elected officials.

Re:How long...

[Mukunda_NZ]

Haha indeed.... Because when given power humans have proved themselves oh so capable of being responsible and moral with it.

Re:How long...

[LordLucless]

Were Australia not building up a filter service to allow customers to block porn sites a while ago? What is to stop this technology being used to filter out political writtings that they don't want people to be able to access?

The fact that this is a government initiative, and this, won't work.

Re:How long...

[LordLucless]

What is to stop this technology being used to filter out political writtings that they don't want people to be able to access?

The fact that this is a government project, and thus, won't work.
Also, the fact that the very attempt is impossible (without serious tradeoffs).

Seriously. I rent a server in the US. I can SSH to that server. Unless they block all encrypted traffic (goodbye to any commercial internet venture, along with thousands of IT people who use SSH for work daily) they cannot block anything that the US doesn't block. And if the US does block it, well, there are servers for rent all around the world. Censoring the internet is not possible. At best, you can make it inconvenient for the ignorant.

Re:How long...

[rm69990]

What technology??? This is simply a private members bill that has not been implemented in any way, shape or form and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be. As a Canadian myself, trust me when I say you can relax. I don't have much respect for Harper or the Conservatives, but they're a minority that is not going to push through any bills that are likely to cause them to lose the vote and be forced to call an early election (hence the reason this bill is not sponsored by the Conservatives).

Re:How long...

[OriginalHunchy]

Yeah it started and faltered a few years ago. But in mid 2006 a press release was put out by DCITA announcing a spend of up to 14m on filtering for every public libary in Australia. The two tenders out right now, also managed by DCITA, are part of this process. And yes I agree 100% on the rights or otherwise of govt to control what we can & can't do on the Internet.

Promotes violence against who?

[Dr Damage I]

Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"

I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men. Or, hey, why not violence against people. Or, better yet, they could simply stop walking the authoritarian path of banning everything that moves and poke fun at people who promote violence against [insert group of your choice here] instead. People rarely want to emulate individuals who are widely derided.

Oh, sorry, poking fun requires wit. The folks who want these kind of laws only have half of what is required.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm wondering about material that promotes violence against men.

Not important. Remember, it's a tragedy when women are beaten or raped or molested as girls by men, but a joke when men are beaten by women or raped in prison (much less women, since most people believe that isn't possible) or molested as boys by women.

It's the old double standard: "Men are strong and supposed to be able to take anything and want any sort of sex even when their infant or their not men, they're pussies. Women are weak and suppose to require help for even the most minor things and hate sex and when this is occationally not the case, it must either be because a man corrupted her or she's had mitigating circumstances.".

Then problem with double standards is that they cut both ways. In this case, it's against men but in others, it's in favour.

Fortunately, since the Charter of Rights (the Canadian constitution) explicitly focuses on human rights (not men or female rights) and explicitly goes against discrimination against gender, race, creed, or religion, so it should be possible to strike down this law (or at least broaden it to "that promotes violence against people") on constitutional grounds.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[essence]

Not important. Remember, it's a tragedy when women are beaten or raped or molested as girls by men, but a joke when men are beaten by women or raped in prison (much less women, since most people believe that isn't possible) or molested as boys by women.

It's the old double standard: "Men are strong and supposed to be able to take anything and want any sort of sex even when their infant or their not men, they're pussies. Women are weak and suppose to require help for even the most minor things and hate sex and when this is occationally not the case, it must either be because a man corrupted her or she's had mitigating circumstances.". Who says this? really?

The majority of rapes are committed by men against women. Women have been treated as property in our civilization for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It's only in the last few decades that advances in equality have been made. So there is still quite an entrenched male domination in our society.

Certainly, volence by women against men or against children should be treated seriously, but what stinks is men that get all upset when people try doing something to reduce voilence against women, and these men shout 'reverse sexism' or other such crap.

Wake up. Our sisters need support. We still live in a male dominated society.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[Lumpy]

If they want to stop violence I have the answer.

Block all political party and personal sites. If someone is running for office, block their site, emails, tv commercials and paper advertising.

this will stop violence more than anything else.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[Anonymous Coward]

And as long as you keep drawing that distinction, you're making the same mistake the parent post was talking about. People need support. Reducing it to one group of people vs another just clouds the real issue.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[essence]

And as long as you keep drawing that distinction, you're making the same mistake the parent post was talking about. People need support. Reducing it to one group of people vs another just clouds the real issue. I don't think its one vs. another. As I said, all violence needs to be addressed. But what we need to recognise is that some forms of violence is more prevalant than others.

How often do you hear of men getting raped by women?
Now how often do you hear of women getting raped by men?

I must also state that I think the whole idea of this bill is stupid. Censoring people is stupid. I'd rather have all the haters and violent people be allowed to post their stuff on the net. If people are censored, they feel more repressed, and are more likely to commit violent acts.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[mdwh2]

Because, according to them, images which involve men as the "victim" don't exist.

Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"

Also, if recent events in the UK is anything to go by, note that any image seen as violent (even if simulated and consensual - yes, some adults are into stuff like that remember) is automatically assumed to be "promoting violence". The UK Government is planning to criminalise possession of images (even if simulated and consensual, even private images never published), and it's very hard to oppose without being branded as "supporting violence against women" - even though most the time, it's men wanting to be the "victims".

Some go so far as to say that _any_ pr0n should count as a "hate crime" against women.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshi re/5297600.stm (also covered on Slashdot somewhere).

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. QED anyone?

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How often do you hear of men getting raped by women?

You don't, because the problem doesn't exist. La-la-la-la-la...I'm not listening. Get the point? This isn't much different from wife beating 100 years ago. The problem didn't exist because no-one saw it as a problem.

> Now how often do you hear of women getting raped by men?

Quit often. After all, the stereotype is what women are victims so it's front page news, but if the accused men are found innocent, it's a page 99 retraction and since men are obviously guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be accused, they're on sex registries for life.

The double standard stinks. We already know how it stinks for women and thankfully this part is being remedied, but it also stinks for men but this part isn't being remedied.

Instead of focusing on women or men or some other distinction, our laws need to focus people, regardless of gender or other artificial classifications (yes, gender is an artificial classification when it comes to rights and crime). Thankfully, that's what the Charter of Rights and Freedom guarantees.

Thank being said, I agree with you. Censorship doesn't help. One of the great things about the internet is that it's possible to see all views and examine them critically. We don't want to get hateful people hiding in their secret clubs, away from criticism. We want them out in the open so that they can be criticized and their flaws be brought to light.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[canuck57]

Apparently, they will to be able to block material "that promotes violence against women"

They may state that but the real reason is much more hideous. There are a growing number of uncontrolled decent sites on the internet, separation groups, private blogs criticizingly government actions. With TV, the control of CBC (a government corporation on the dole). Others that are private can't compete as easily and get the squeeze from CRTC if they get too frisky. There are mandated Canadian content guidelines and often the government sponsors the Canadian content they must provide.

The government of Canada would love to control the Internet. Quite likey could too. Shaw and Rogers don't really compete, they each have their own exclusive territories. With Telus and BCE the only real other alternatives the diversity of access is rather limited for Canadians.

Clearly this is a quiet move towards more censorship. Unlike the US, Canada has only one active branch of government so if it passes it is as good as law.

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[statusbar]

How many men get raped by men in jail?

How many boys get raped by men?

How many males are abused and get no support except laughter?

--jeffk++

Re:Promotes violence against who?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Certainly, volence by women against men or against children should be treated seriously, but what stinks is men that get all upset when people try doing something to reduce voilence against women, and these men shout 'reverse sexism' or other such crap.

Well, rather than reducing 'violence against women,' wouldn't it be better to reduce violence? Rather than fighting for 'equality of women,' wouldn't it be better to fight for equality?

Total Bunk.

[css-hack]

Especially the bit about violence against women (but not against men) being grounds for a license to be revoked. And the bit about censoring my access to information.

The internet loses value if we start filtering it. Granted there are laws that prohibit sexual exploitation (of minors) and violence against anybody, but this is not a reason to give anybody such a high level of control over our (not mine, not his, not yours, but our) medium.

I don't think this will make it through as law... I hope. But I worked as a Legislative Page for a while, and you'd be amazed what gets voted on.

Re:Total Bunk.

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Especially the bit about violence against women (but not against men) being grounds for a license to be revoked.

That can only mean that they think that promoting violence against men is okay.

Re:Total Bunk.

[rm69990]

It's a private bill...I'm not too concerned. In-fact, I kind of wish the Conservatives would push this as a party, and then get their ass booted out of office. I was dissappointed when they came to power (although by voting green I didn't exactly help...next time I'm voting for a party that actually has a chance in hell of winning)..

when

[forgethistory]

will we humans learn that restricting something without any chance of respite only makes it worse?

This is like world domination

[wannabgeek]

Just as every villian dreams of world domination, I guess every government keeps dreaming of controlling the internet.

Re:This is like world domination

[Grashnak]

Hey, its easy to block the interweb-thingy. Just plug the tubes that have the bad stuff on them! Who could object to that? /sarcasm

Re:This is like world domination

[innerweb]

Hey Pinky! Where's the Brain?

-InnerWeb

Re:This is like world domination

[Shadowlore]

It's not the Internet in particular that every government dreams of controlling. It's citizens. And government can only control criminals. Hence the more crimes they've defined the more control they have.

paranoid ++

[witte]

Yet another attempt to curb criticism on governments? How can we protest or criticize when we are no longer anonymous ? I don't mind spewing vitriolic comments on slashdot under my account because IRL I remain anonymous. It wouldn't surprise me if this legislation is being pushed under the guise of protecting us from evil terrorists and child pron. I'd rather have those in need of such protection be kept off the net than exposing everyone's private information to government officials. To be honest, I don't trust any govt to have its people's best interests as their first priority.

Re:paranoid ++

[RLJ1.51]

You got that right. If anyone remembers, during the Charlottetown accord, throughout the accord, the government had put in that they were not to be held legally responsible for anything they do.

So your comment falls right into line with what they had tried to before.

Anyone know where there is truly a free country on this planet? I can't think of any. And no, the US does not qualify, Homeland security is just a couple steps away from being the new SS. Think what you want, but look at history.

Re:paranoid ++

[cdrguru]

Yes, your anonymous rantings and gruntings are real fine. Unfortunately, without the courage to stand behind them, they are meaningless rantings and gruntings.

Anonyminity on the Internet means that you have the same credibility as everyone else and their dog. It also means that I can threaten to kill you, spam you, commit all sorts of crimes against you without any fear of consequences. Without any connection to "reality" the Internet remains a bunch of (possibly overaged) teenaged wankers without any political effect.

And it is a breeding ground for crime because everyone knows there are no consequences on the Internet. This is why we have spam, phishing, botnets and all sorts of other wonderful stuff.

Re:paranoid ++

[witte]

>Unfortunately, without the courage to stand behind them,
>they are meaningless rantings and gruntings.

I disagree that they are meaningless. Example : You are quite anonymous and safe, posting on slashdot, but your post is still meaningful.

I believe there is a difference between not being a coward, and being stupid.
Given the current political climate in some countries, it is A Good Thing to have anonymous internet access when discussing political matters, especially if they are critical of the regime. Of course, I'm not very worried about the Canadian govt going Gestapo-style, but there are other countries out there with less benevolent regimes that will drag people off to jail for posting "subversive" opinions.

>It also means that I can threaten to kill you, spam you,
>commit all sorts of crimes against you without any fear
>of consequences.

It also means I am relatively safe from anyone who would actually act out those threats while not giving up any liberties.
Think about that for a second.
(I would still be able to post or search on the net and not worry about any emotional/litigious/religious/politically inspired retaliation, for starters.)

Public opinion has never been more free from censorship than in the last decade because we now can discuss anything with anybody, and search for information at our leisure. (Wikipedia is a good example of this.)
There is no such thing as objectivity in the real world, so we have to get our info from everywhere and form our own opinion, or rather, now we *can* do this, easily. In stead of only relying on traditional media.

Liberty for all does pose the risk of idiots behaving like idiots do, or criminals as criminals do. But I'd rather be free and anonymous in an eclectic and chaotic environment, than curtailed and known to the Powers That Be in a regulated but safe environment. Or persecuted for having "subversive" ideas, for that matter.

Since most people nowadays are swamped in work, bills, staying alive etc. and basically just want to be safe and left alone, very few actually have the courage to stand by their convictions.
If you *do* speak out publicly you might get singled out and stomped on. Can you take the punishment ? What would be your next move ?
It is good to have ideals, but you should live by them in a pragmatic way.

Cheers,
Tim

Re:paranoid ++

[rm69990]

This legislation isn't being "pushed". It's a private bill that isn't even supported by the party that the author of it belongs to. I'd say it has a less than 1% of becoming law, and I'm probably being generous there. The conservatives wouldn't risk something this stupid. All it takes is a single loss on a bill like this that is not private or a free-vote, and the Conservatives lose power (assuming they're not re-elected). Don't you just love multi-party systems :-).

The Bible

[themusicgod1]

What if I post the Holy Bible on my webpage? I'm a little blurry on details; (I haven't read it in, oh at least 10 years now), but I'm pretty sure there's explicit violence against women within it's sacred pages. If my online library(accessible through gnutella, usually) contains this work; will my hosting the Word of God cause me to be a criminal under this bill? To the point that I am essentially banished forever from connecting to the internet in Canada?

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

but I'm pretty sure there's explicit violence against women within it's sacred pages

Just because The Bible has historical records of the crap stuff that some evil people did, doesn't mean that the Word of God endorses said behaviour. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible. The New Testament is actually more relevant for today's living, so even better if you can show such a quote from the NT.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

will my hosting the Word of God cause me to be a criminal under this bill? To the point that I am essentially banished forever from connecting to the internet in Canada?

We can only hope...

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible.

"Suppose a man marries a woman,
and says, "I married this woman;
but when I lay with her, I did not
find evidence of her virginity." ...
If, this charge is true, that evidence
of the young woman's virginity was
not found, then they shall bring the
young woman out to the entrance
of her father's house and the men
of her town shall stone her to death."
Deut 22:13-21

Re:The Bible

[themusicgod1]

"doesn't mean that the Word of God endorses said behaviour" I'll let your challenge stand; I have neither inspiration, energy, nor time, really to fufill it. That being said; Do you really understand what is in the bible? I sure as hell don't think I grok it. It's a thick book...I read it only twice*, the last time was probably over a decade ago! I know someone who spent years of her life, and by now at the rate she was going she will have memorized the whole thing, word for word, old testament to psalms. Where I spend my time doing things like working for a living, and going to university for computer science, she's dedicated her life to this work; she is aware of weird numerological connections between pages and modern day events, and supposed deeper, 'true' meaning, that I am simply not privy to. She is learning languages closer to the language it was written in; and will in this sense understand it in a way that english readers can't. I wouldn't dream of claiming to understand the bible to the extent that she does.
I seem to remember violence against women; I don't remember where, or who was involved, or whether the official doctrine of X$ church says that this is God or against God's wishes. Doesn't matter; it's a matter of faith that you believe either way. And if your faith does not match the faith of the government in this case, you are a criminal. Criminalizing christianity is not a Conservative thing to do; and so far that's the only convincing argument that would appeal to a CRAP MP that I've come up with. Please help me do better, because I will write a letter to my also CRAP MP.

*2 different versions, in case one church was lying to me about The Word of God.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, the way the bible condones stoning in so many circumstances in human relations, I'm convinced that it's not so much violence as it is god's idea of foreplay.

Re:The Bible

[Paulrothrock]

Exodus and Leviticus are chock full of prescribed punishments for women who do everything from sleep with another man (stoning) to practice "witchcraft" (stoning) to a slave having sex with her master (that's a stoning) to stating that women are "worth" about 50-70% what a man is worth.

Though like most Christians you'll insist that none of that stuff matters anymore. Why then, I ask you, is it still in your holy book, and why do people point to the same book when talking about other "moral codes."

Re:The Bible

[Paulrothrock]

You want a NT quote? How about 1 Peter 3:2-6 where it says wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord."

Re:The Bible

[Attila Dimedici]

I think you are very sheltered if that is what you consider violence. However, there is a passage in the book of Judges where a woman is raped to death. Of course, the rest of the Israelites banded together and killed the perpetrators and all of those who defended them. But I guess that is not what you are looking for (although I think it would likely run afoul of this proposed Canadian law), you want where the Bible promotes violence against women. Well, there are some passages that can be taken that way, but when you compare the writings to the practices of the surrounding societies of the same time, you will see that the Bible promotes a far superior treatment of women than those societies did.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people believe the Bible is the literal word of God. If you read the Bible in that way, then God endorses slavery, human sacrifice, genocide and war, by doing these things and telling other people to do them. And yes there is plenty of violence against women, including rape and murder.

I really hope that the Old Testament isn't the literal word of God. If it is, we're all fucked, because God is a psychopath, indisguishable from the Devil or a Stalinist dictator. One day it's "thou shalt not kill", and the next day he wipes out virtually all humans because we don't meet up to the crazy double standard that he set for us. The OT had better be a load of bollocks or we're all fucked.

Re:The Bible

[computational super]

will my hosting the Word of God cause me to be a criminal under this bill?

No, because they'll apply the same ambiguous, mercurial, politically motivated "standards" to censoring the internet that they apply to censoring radio and television. "If you hold the wrong opinions, we'll shut you down. What are those opinions? Well, you just tell us what yours are, and we'll tell you if you're shut down."

Re:The Bible

[Dragonslicer]

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible.

Please enlighten me and show me exactly where the parent post said anything about the Bible promoting violence targeting women. The post only said that it contains descriptions of violence targeting women. A broad interpretation of a poorly worded law could mean that such parts of the Bible would be illegal on the Internet.

Re:The Bible

[mdwh2]

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible.

We won't know for sure until a bill is produced, but typically the way this works is that even though someone calls for banning "promotion", the resultant law has no such requirement. The implication is that any image is inherently promoting the act.

For some reason, literature tends to be exempt from such censorship these days, so the Bible wouldn't count on those grounds, but there's plenty of religious artwork showing violence. But for some reason, no one has a problem with that.

Re:The Bible

[Paulrothrock]

So in comparison to barbaric societies, the Bible is less barbaric. However, when compared to modern sensibilities it is a horrible, horrible book.

And what about Deuteronomy 22:13-21 where it explicitly states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be stoned to death on her father's porch?

Re:The Bible

[hcdejong]

If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it. Not interested in becoming a Jew? Then you might be interested to know the rules changed about 2k years ago:

"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.""
John 8:7

Re:The Bible

[Attila Dimedici]

Where do you think modern sensibilities derived from. Do you think they just appeared whole cloth from societies that thought that that prescription was excessively lenient?

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but when you compare the writings to the practices of the surrounding societies of the same time, you will see that the Bible promotes a far superior treatment of women than those societies did."

Umm. Not in my book.

The Hebrew (Apiru/Habiru/Hapiru) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru were some of the nastiest people in existence, who gained a living as merceneries and highway robbers, raiding settlements where they could.

"Sumerian documents from the reign of Shulgi of Ur (around 2150 BC) describe a class of "unclothed people, who travel in dead silence, who destroy everything, whose menfolk go where they will.."

Letters from vassal kings in Canaan and Syria in the 1300s BCE -- mention the "Habiru". These letters, written by Canaanite scribes in the cuneiform-based Akkadian language, complain about attacks by armed groups who were willing to fight and plunder on any side of the local wars in exchange for equipment, provisions, and quarters.

Eventually these murderers succeeded in killing enough of the inhabitants of one part of the Middle East to settle there. They kept raiding their neighbours, and caused such trouble that the Egyptians, and later the Romans, had to supress them.

Now the US has given them back the country they originally stole, and they are back to their old ways. Of course, few Americans know anything about this history, and what they do know comes from the Bible - written by the Apiru - where they describe everyone who lived around them as being suitable for killing.

If any race is a suitable candidate for extermination it would be these people.

Re:The Bible

[cdrguru]

Just try. Is is a crime to disseminate the Bible to Muslims, and it gets you the death penalty. There are plenty of Muslims in Canada that will be happy to enforce this. And, in the spirit of happy multiculturalism no Muslim is ever convicted of practicing their culture.

Re:The Bible

[Ernesto Alvarez]

If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it. Not interested in becoming a Jew? Then you might be interested to know the rules changed about 2k years ago

But whether or not what says in the bible are the current rules is not being analized here. The point is that the part cited does promote violence against women. The hypothetical "Current rules for christians" (or whatever) would not be banned (I hope). But the text cited by the GP poster would certainly be. If being a set of valid rules to follow was part of the argument, then (as an example, since it can be extended to any text/image) the bible should be banned only if the user is christian, since a christian would consider it rules, while should be allowed to non christians, since a non christian would consider it a fairy tale, and not a model to follow (and the same applies to other religions or other influential texts).

The GP poster made a reductio ad absurdum argument, possibly considering that the idiot pushing this bill was not thinking of banning the bible.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it. Mind telling that to all of the anti-gay protesters? I love how Christians conveniently forget this idea when it's advantageous for their a priori beliefs, but it's the first argument out of their mouths when the absurdity of the Old Testament is brought to the forefront.

Re:The Bible

[smellsofbikes]

I'll bite...

1 Samuel 15:2-3
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

If ordering your chosen people to kill *all* the women and *all* the children isn't promoting violence targeting women, I'm not sure what is. (Want to make a pro-life person crabby? point out that there's Biblical support for killing babies. Warning: you won't make friends or influence people this way.)

The NT's pretty clean. Paul's edict that women aren't allowed to speak in church can't really be called explicit violence, merely misogyny.

Re:The Bible

[Paulrothrock]

Most of our modern sensibilities came from the Enlightenment, which was a rebellion against the church.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the things in the OT were actually lenient for their time. Should we then continue to hold the Bible up as a paragon of moral guidance? Of course not! Times have changed. We can't go around saying we get our morals from a book that says you should shave the head of a woman who goes to church without a head covering. (1 Cor 11:5-6)

Re:The Bible

[Attila Dimedici]

It doesn't say that YOU should shave the head of a woman that goes to church without a head covering. It says that a woman who goes to church without a head covering might as well shave her head. If it tells anyone to do anything it tells the woman to shave her own head. There are several alternative interpretations of what the original greek means, however, the most likely interpretations I have seen fall somewhere between the two I mentioned. None of the interpretations of the original greek that I have heard can be taken to mean that someone else should shave the woman's head.

Re:The Bible

[Shadowlore]

Does commanded work for you? How about approved of? Try some of these passage, see if you can name them.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem."

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house."

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. "

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."

"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded.

Re:The Bible

[Paulrothrock]

The actual text is:

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

I read that as "if a woman is praying with her head uncovered, she is being dishonorable, because it's just as bad as if she shaved it bald. And if she's not covered, she should have her hair cut off, because it's just as bad to have her hair shaved off, because she should feel ashamed about not having her head covered."

And what about the millions of women who go to church without head coverings? Are they breaking god's law? Should they be forced to wear a covering or shave their own hair?

And why is this ridiculousness even in the Bible? Does it really matter whether women have their head covered or whether men have short hair?

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah stoning is the climax. Chopping off of hands, slavery, shaving of heads, that's the foreplay. That said there is a whole lot of stoning going on. Since it is "stoned to death" we know it can't mean they were forced to take pot.

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

Hey, if you are going to quote, please do it in context. If you actually bothered to read a couple of verses down you'd see the following final remark:

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." -1 Corinthians 11:16

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

Most of our modern sensibilities came from the Enlightenment, which was a rebellion against the church.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the things in the OT were actually lenient for their time. Should we then continue to hold the Bible up as a paragon of moral guidance? Of course not! Times have changed. We can't go around saying we get our morals from a book that says you should shave the head of a woman who goes to church without a head covering. (1 Cor 11:5-6)

Ummm.... so the old testament law (specifically the 10 commandments) which most modern laws are based on has been discarded entirely? I guess "Thou shall not murder", "Thou shal not steal", etc, has been done away with and is completely irrelevant nowdays? Well, if you look at what's been going on in Iraq, I guess you'd actually have a point there.

But then there's "Thou shall not commit adultary", "...lie", "...covert", etc, which I'd say are actually excellent rules to live by. If you really "love your neighbour", you won't want to do these things against them. Many of society's problems could be solved by following these rules. Just look at the amount of teenage pregnancies, abortions, abuse, single-parent families, violent crime, thefts, etc, and their effect on society, the family, the taxpayer, the children.

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

But whether or not what says in the bible are the current rules is not being analized here. The point is that the part cited does promote violence against women.

Not really a valid point. If you take this verse in context of the entire Book of Leviticus (which is mostly a book of Jewish laws), you'll see not just punishments for women, but specifically for men too. Women are not being singled out in the law, except in a few very specific circumstances. The punishment of stoning was also given specifically to men in numerous other circumstances too. Equal-opportunity, so to speak. :-)

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

If you're going to follow Moseic law, you'd better follow all of it.

Mind telling that to all of the anti-gay protesters? I love how Christians conveniently forget this idea when it's advantageous for their a priori beliefs, but it's the first argument out of their mouths when the absurdity of the Old Testament is brought to the forefront.

To educate AC, perhaps you'd be surprised to know that this is mentioned specifically in the New Testament also. Nowhere in the NT is death-by-stoning or destruction by any other means commanded for homosexuals (this will be an excerise left to God, not the reader, on judgement day). However, it is extremely clear throughout the Bible that the practise of homosexuality is something that God hates i.e. hates the sin, not the sinner. But if you are not interested in pleasing God, then you wouldn't be reading the Bible (in most cases perhaps), let alone caring what it says about Him or His plans for your life.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

I think New York Times being the word of god is more likely.

Re:The Bible

[AnalogDiehard]

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me and show me exactly where explicit violence targeting women (i.e. beating, raping, torture, etc) is promoted in The Bible.

To be fair, there are plenty of biblical examples where explicit violence targets men. I forget the exact scripture, but in the old testament there is the account of a war where a king hides in the dwelling of a woman, and she kills the king while he is hidden in a depressed opening covered by blankets.

Re:The Bible

[Attila Dimedici]

You are asking two questions. One about whether God requires women to wear a head covering to pray and a second about whether they should be forced to wear one or have their head shaved. The first question is outside of our discussion about the Bible promoting violence against women. The answer to the second question is, Paul seems to be saying that women should wear a head covering or have short hair (a better translation of the greek than shaved). He does not say that someone should force them to this behavior. In addition as another poster points out a little bit further on in the same passage, Paul seems to say that this is not the practice of the Church. It is important to remember that Paul is the man who said that Christians are neither male nor female (from context, men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men). This is at a time and place where women have little or no right to property. As for the Enlightenment, where do you think the ideas of the Enlightenment came from? We have already wondered far afield from the original topic, suffice it to say that on the whole the Bible calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than the society around it when it was written, and, I believe that the New Testament calls for treating all people with greater honor and respect than that practiced by any society today.

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

As already pointed out, men were also subject to capital punishment under Old Testament Jewish law. To say that The Bible promotes violence against women (implying only women) is false.

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

And if your faith does not match the faith of the government in this case, you are a criminal. Criminalizing christianity is not a Conservative thing to do; and so far that's the only convincing argument that would appeal to a CRAP MP that I've come up with. Please help me do better, because I will write a letter to my also CRAP MP.

I know what you mean. All I can say is that you might wish to email/write to as many MPs as you can. My country the government has a website listing the MPs and their contact details. Maybe yours does also? Contact even those who are against the bill, because they need to be assured that they are supported in their stance. All the best. Oh yeah, and thanks for replying BTW. You seemed to have thought about this alot. From personal experience questions/objections regarding a book are best answered by asking the author of the book directly. The Bible is no exception. :-)

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

The context of the sub-topic was the promotion of violence against women was is not?

Re:The Bible

[Eccles]

No, it was not. The original mention of the Bible was to point out that it had passages of violence against women, which is the sort of thing this Canadian MP wants to ban. It's not an issue of the work putting said violence in a positive or negative light, just the question of where it is there, which it clearly is, along with murder, genocide, incest, rape, attempted homosexual rape, and the like.

Re:The Bible

[grolschie]

Understoond. Well in that case, any historical records will be banned i.e. wikipedia pages, CNN news, etc.

Re:The Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

none of its relevant, its just crap written down thousands of years ago. who gives a shit whats in it?

Re:The Bible

[Ernesto Alvarez]

The punishment of stoning was also given specifically to men in numerous other circumstances too. Equal-opportunity, so to speak. :-)

And that would be a tu quoque fallacy. The fact that it also promotes violence against men does not mean it does not promote violence against women, so under this law it would be banned anyway. My point stands.

The only violent texts that would be allowed would be the ones that promote violence exclusively against men, pretty unfair is you ask me.

Truth in advertising

[hotdiggitydawg]

Conservative party Well, at least it does what it says on the tin...

Re:Truth in advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow Canadian politics (slim chance), long ago, before Canada really existed, the party was known as the "Conservative Party", largely in parallel with the sense used in the UK. Then they changed to be the Progressive Conservative (PC) party, which effectively split up in the 1990s into the Reform Party and residual PCs. After an earlier attempt to merge the "small c" conservatives back together to avoid so-called "vote splitting" of the conservative side of politics, they ended up with the new Canadian Alliance, and still a few residual PCs that continued to split the conservative vote, though a bit less. Finally, they united under one party a few years ago (2003), though it (arguably) deeply inherits from the Reform/Canadian Alliance side of conservatism, in philosophy and personel, up to and including the present-day Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

Anyway, with small "c" conservatives reunited, they decided to call the new party the Conservative Party.

So, there's actually more humor in your comment than you probably realize, given the long and somewhat circuitous route to get to that particular label.

in other news

[plasmacutter]

a member of canada's ruling conservative party was voted out of office in the next election, no opposition attack ads were required.

canada is not like the US, canadians care about civil liberties and open society.. well at least enough to be outraged if their government tried what a certain other government has been doing.

Re:in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't live in Quebec do you?

Re:in other news

[Have Brain Will Rent]

canada is not like the US, canadians care about civil liberties and open society..

Ummmm did you miss the part where the Supreme Court of Canada said discrimination of the basis of sex and race is A-OK? Or the one where the same court said an accused is not entitled to the best possible defence? Or where it became a crime to publicly disagree with the official state sanctioned version of history? And, as another poster has pointed out, there is the whole Quebec thing.

Re:In other news

[Bishop]

I would be satisfied if MPs were just required to read at a 4th grade level. That would be enough to raise the average IQ.

Re:In other news

[compro01]

not a guy. she's a woman by the name of Joy Smith from winnipeg.

here's her site http://www.joysmith.ca/

As was once said...

[BlackMesaLabs]

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Canada, we shall fight on the LAN's and WAN's, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the fibre, we shall defend our Internet, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the Servers, we shall fight on the Routers, we shall fight in the DNS and in the Backbones, we shall fight in the Computer Rooms; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Internet or a large part of it were subjugated and censored, then our Industry beyond the 'Net, coded and staffed by the Valiant Geeks, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, Internet2, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Re:As was once said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!

That's pretty good!

You know, if you have a way with words like that, you should consider becoming a politician. Perhaps in some country where fluent speeches in the legislative chamber can sway the members?

Apropos of nothing in particular, did you see George Galloway taking that Senate committee apart? Politicians who can speak well without texts seem to be quite rare in the US.

Does she not understand

[themusicgod1]

that a good portion of internet traffic is encrypted, and that ISPs cannot know what is contained within it? How can an ISP living under this bill possibly coexist with encryption? And if we outlaw encryption, how can we possibly compete on the global marketplace?

And because it hasn't been said yet; it's violence against women and child porn now; but before the ink on this bill dries, it will be turned toward copyright enfringers, and peole who promote the end of marijuana prohibition.

Re:Does she not understand

[Anonymous Coward]

to be honest, im happy with any law that cuts down on copyright infrinegment. its time people stopped leeching and started actually buying stuff they want to consume.

Re:Does she not understand

[Anonymous Coward]

before the ink on this bill dries, it will be turned toward ... peole who promote the end of marijuana prohibition.

How is the campaign for legal reform going in Canada? I'm not a Canadian, but I gather it is legal medicinal usage, but it's still not legal to sell it or produce it.

This situation of semi-legality (which is also found in the Netherlands) is totally retarded. It's almost a set up for failure, since it forces the industry underground and puts it under the control of organised crime, but allows end users to buy from the black market with relatively low risk. I cannot understand why governments are willing to permit medicinal use, but are not prepared to go the whole way and issue licences for production and sales, as with alcohol - putting themselves in control of the industry and creating a profitable source of taxes.

Too far off topic? It's a civil liberties/free speech issue at least!

Good idea actually

[ThirdPrize]

Lets face it, there are good ISPs and bad ISPs. By that i mean that some will host anything (legal or not) as long as the money is right. How do you put the bad ones out of business? Lets see, self regulation? Hmm .. that always works. Once ISP X has been busted a couple of times all their legitimate users will go to someone a bit mor reputable/reliable. I suspect though it will just drive the dodgy providers to some other country where no one can touch them.

Re:Good idea actually

[kebes]

So you're saying that the "bad ISPs" are the ones that "host anything (legal or not) as long as the money is right" which I suppose by implication means that the "good ISPs" are the ones that "only host appropriate, sanctioned content."

That's weird because I would have said the exact opposite: the "bad ISPs" are the ones that enforce their opinions of right and wrong onto their customers, thereby discriminating and censoring; whereas the "good ISPs" are those that behave as common carriers and don't interfere with the content their customers store or transmit (except in the case of a subpoena).

You ask the question "how do you put the bad ones out of business?" But the question is misplaced. The aim should not be to put "bad ISPs" out of business to stop "bad websites" from existing, anymore than we should aim to destroy "bad roads" for facilitating the transportation of criminals. Instead you should target the "bad websites" themselves. If they are doing something illegal, then make them stop. If they are not doing something illegal, then let them exist. In any case, leave the ISPs out of it.

Re:Good idea actually

[ThirdPrize]

I think you'll find most ISPs are in it for the money rather than some some urge to promote freedom of expression. How do you make a website stop doing something illegal? I think Pirate Bay have shown that asking them nicely doesn't work. Even busting their ass'es hasn't had much effect.

Re:Good idea actually

[kebes]

Yes, exactly, all ISPs are in it for the money, not just "the bad ones."

The Pirate Bay is a bad example, since they are not doing anything illegal (according to Swedish law). A better example would be a phishing site. Rather than going after the ISP for hosting it, you would be better off tracking down the people running it and putting them in jail.

Obviously you should also notify the ISP and get a subpoena if necessary to shut down the site. But your original call to "drive the bad ISPs out of business" is, in my opinion, misplaced. After all, the bad sites can easily move to other ISPs.

Re:Good idea actually

[dana340]

I think that it's about time that some leader of a nation appointed themselves to clean up the Internet. I mean after Al Gore set it up, he sat back and watched, WATCHED as half of it became pornography and gambling. I think that it's about time that the conservative moms who don't understand anything about the Internet finally get what they want, government controlled censorship to protect the virgin eyes and ears of their kids. Instead of surfing for porn, the kids can go listen to gangsta rap and death metal. So i guess, all that's left for me to do is to find something to do with all that time that I spend downloading porn at home, or my office, or on my PDA.

well let's get to it...

1) set up proxies and terminal servers for Canadians who want download pornography
2) let it be known by word of mouth
3) ???
4) $profit$

Fuck Godwin

[Jaysyn]

It just amazes me that a generation of politicians whos parents grew up fighting WWII seem to want to emulate the Nazi's as much as they can get away with. It's not just Canada, it's everywhere.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You may say "Fuck Godwin", but it's posts like yours that Godwin's Law tries to prevent. The problem is that this attention-seeking MP, seeking to censor the Internet is not at all comparable to Hitler. It demeans the whole ordeal when people selfishly attempt to use it to draw attention to their problems. Say it to me again when she actively hunts down and imprisons people for their dissident views and (even better) starts a genocide.

I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but I'd prefer this situation any day to the one of Nazi Germany in its prime.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[AJWM]

Say it to me again when she actively hunts down and imprisons people for their dissident views

I think most people would prefer to stop the likes of her before it gets to that point. It's a whole lot harder to stop later rather than earlier.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[Jaysyn]

Ok genius, I'll bite. Other than the rapid oxidation, exactly how is censoring information not like burning books?

"..Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Re:Fuck Godwin

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

See, again it's the same problem. You are assuming that this little flea-bite on the face of the freedom movement will lead to another Hitler. It makes Hitler sound trivial if we spring the whole slippery slope to a Nazi state story on every threat to personal freedoms! It makes him sound like a product of normal circumstances, which makes him dangerously relatable.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was a product of pretty normal (normal in that there was an economic snafu - see: America, pretty soon) circumstances, and tens of millions of germans had little problem relating to him at the time!

Fortunately for america, Hitler was a good deal more intelligent and charismatic than Bush is. America would be a global disaster if Bush had Hitler's charm.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[AJWM]

Read Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, it's a reasonably accessible history. Anyway, the point isn't so much about Hitler's rise per se, as it is the change from a reasonably open society to a totalitarian one. That's happened other places and times than just Nazi Germany.

And while perhaps this particular "little flea-bite on the face of the freedom movement" won't lead to that, how are we to tell at the time which ones will and which won't? And which flea might be carrying plague? As Jefferson put it, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[Have Brain Will Rent]

You may be correct about the specific comparison to Nazi's in this specific instance, yet the general thrust of the poster's comments have the ring of truth to me.

My parents' generation fought a war against racism etc. yet here we are in a country that has officially embraced discrimination on the basis of sex, race etc. - as long as it's the right group being discriminated against, because hey, we're not like the Nazi's we're good people and when we discriminate on the basis of race or sex it's for a good reason and so it's OK.

You can also chalk up another point of pride which, as it happens, is related to the above. Our country has officially adopted the position that an accused is not entitled to the best possible defence.

Oh and let's not forget our country also officially approves of both censorship and a state specified version of history against which it is a crime to publicly disagree.

Oh Canada, eh?

Re:Fuck Godwin

[vux984]

Oh and let's not forget our country also officially approves of both censorship and a state specified version of history against which it is a crime to publicly disagree.

Example / Cite please.

I'd *particularly* like to know what Canada "officially" claims has happened in history but didn't (or vice versa), for which one can be charged as a criminal for publicly disagreeing with.

Re:Fuck Godwin

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but I'd prefer this situation any day to the one of Nazi Germany in its prime.

Stuff like this is much more dangerous in the long term than Nazi Germany was. Sure, the Nazis killed millions of people for their religion, but that sort of thing gets resolved pretty quickly with a strong cultural reaction in the other direction. Insidious restrictions on free communication, if allowed to flourish, can actually self-reinforce.

Genie is out of the bottle

[Billosaur]

Perhaps Joy Smith does not understand, but the Internet is a global system, i.e. most of the content exists somewhere else than Canada, eh. She can try to regulate ISPs all she wants, but she can't actually touch most of them, and those that don't want to be bothered simply won't operate in Canada, or will flout the law and dare the Canadian government to come after them.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Aladrin]

I've decided that the freak that posts this is actually a Mac hater and is trying to promote Microsoft by making everyone think Mac user are elitist assholes. I could have believed the first one I saw was actually just a dumbass. The second time... Well, a persistent dumbass.

But to post this very same post on each and every single Slashdot posting... That takes someone dedicated to a cause. And since the person wasn't born with a Mac, there was a time when they didn't know all the things in the list. Any idiot could think their way through that.

So it's got to be someone trying to make Macs look bad by pretending to be a Mac troll. And just for kicks:

ATTN: TROLLEURS

If you routinely get modded -1 Troll, GTFO.
If you have nothing to say worth reading, GTFO.
If you post the same exact post over and over, GTFO.
If you can't be part of a community and interact with others like a civilized human being, GTFO.

Trolls are not welcome among real Slashdot reader. Keep your filthy, troll fingers to yourself.

I think it needs some work, but it's not bad. ;)

Oh, that's an easy one

[Opportunist]

Encryption is only legal anymore for businesses, and they have to provide the unencrypted data at request. You'll have to store it for, say, 7 years just in case...

Huh? What do you mean, "impossible"? Since when's that been an issue with laws concerning the 'net?

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[wes33]

Encryption is only legal anymore for businesses

I am - to say the very least - skeptical about your claim here. I know of no such law in Canada. What is your source here? Who's going to arrest me for encrypting my email?

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[Opportunist]

It's not yet illegal. It was a reply to the question what they could do against the ability to encrypt your traffic without hurting businesses.

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[CastrTroy]

How could they prove that I was sending encrypted data and that I wasn't just sending random data? Sure, you say, who would send random data over the internet. But that's not the point. If they are trying to prove you guilty of sending encrypted data without being a business, then they would have to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that you weren't sending random data.

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[Opportunist]

Proof? Since when does a law concerning the internet have to make sense or even be enforcable? Did something change while I wasn't looking?

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[Deliveranc3]

I really want Slashdotters feelings about what information is dangerous?

Should any information be censored(Sticks and Stones Break your bones but words never hurt anyone) or should it all be free.

I support piracy, not terribly concerned about terrorism (limited by motivation [I hope] not co-ordination, or knowledge of means). Violence against women is problematic, as is racism, but I think the open spread of ideas will do more to break these down than showing only one side of the issue.

I'm a bit concerned about Child Pornography, for one our society really hurts these kids (He touched you where?! Oh my goodness you should feel so guilty!) and second the pedophile usually does tend towards violence :(
Copyright infringement for some, though not for me.

And the Fire!/Slander which is controlled by not listening to anything not backed up with a reputable source.

Is there anyting I'm missing?

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[Anonymous Coward]

Herein lies one difference between legislation and law:
It's got to hold up in the courts to be law. Hence whilst legislation can require the impossible, the law cannot.

Of course, IANAL (nor do I play one on television)

Re:Oh, that's an easy one

[Opportunist]

There is no such thing as dangerous information. It can be used dangerously.

The information how to build a bomb from household chemicals is not dangerous by itself. If people build one, the bomb is dangerous. It's not the information, it's the person building the bomb.

Racism cannot be removed by not talking about it. Actually the only way to counter it IS to talk about it. Let them spread it and let people read it and realize how much bunk it actually is. If you believe that nonsense, you are already a racist. I've read my share of material that allegedly "proves" the superiority of the white race, and without fail it was easy to see through the crap.

There is no way to successfully suppress information. There will always be people who deem it part of their personal and very private freedom (like me) who do not care if there is a law against it. If it's a crime to search and exchange information, then I'll be a criminal. So be it.

Information by itself is never dangerous or harmful. It can be put to dangerous or harmful use, but then one should rather ask why people deem it necessary or at least beneficial to put it to such use and react to that problem instead.

This is of course no easy solution. So it does not apply to politics.

Clean Up The Internet?

[heretic108]

Yeah right
That'll work

Re:Clean Up The Internet?

[SCHecklerX]

For some reason connections to both of those pages time out on me...

I hate news like this

[rinkjustice]

it makes us Canadians look like a bunch of jackasses (I fear I've left an opening for mockery here). Anyhow, I'll be writing my MP about this (again).

Re:I hate news like this

[A_Non_Moose]

it makes us Canadians look like a bunch of jackasses (I fear I've left an opening for mockery here).

Oh, y'all don't need much help, I mean seriously: censor the internet, hockey, ice fishing, cheap beer and expensive cigarettes? What kind of country is that?

Anyhow, I'll be writing my MP about this (again).

Aboot time, eh?

(I kid, I kid)

Not even remotely constitutional.

[Hamster Lover]

It doesn't take a law degree to understand that almost nothing in this bill would pass constitutional muster. Besides, this is a private members bill meaning it was introduced entirely on the volition of the MP in question and without the support of cabinet or caucus. Without that support, it has zero chance of passing and amounts to nothing more than grandstanding for their constituents. It should also be noted that several private member bills along the same lines have been introduced in years past, all without success.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned or silent. Concerned Canadians should write their MP and the author of the bill, Joy Smith.

Re:Not even remotely constitutional.

[Anonymous Coward]

But why would this kind of bill be attractive to constituents? Isn't it scary that there are constituents ignorant enough to be impressed by such a bill? And are we supposed to take comfort in the idea that political elites will surely thwart the will of this MP's ignorant constituents and thus keep Canada free?

Re:Not even remotely constitutional.

[computational super]

It doesn't take a law degree to understand that almost nothing in this bill would pass constitutional muster.

When did that start mattering again?

Re:Not even remotely constitutional.

[Hemogoblin]

Technically, it's called a "charter challenge" since we don't have a Constitution. But close enough.

Re:Not even remotely constitutional.

[compro01]

what is this then?

the charter is part of our constitution.

That's taken into account in the bill

[themusicgod1]

"or a similar law of the province or a foreign state."

If a country defines "violence against women" as the same as "dishonouring a woman" (ie, not killing her when she is raped...), you are breaking a "similar law" of a "foreign state" if you are providing information that goes against this process in some way, from my reading. This brings canadian citizens under the laws of whatever the CRTC(appointed bureaucrats) decide, online anyway.

Re:That's taken into account in the bill

[Billosaur]

But that doesn't matter. If I am running an ISP in a foreign country, I really don't fear the Canadian Government. I am not going out of my way to enforce decency standards that Canada has defined, even if they make sense to me. The cost is prohibitive, and given the number of countries on the planet, if everyone decided that ISPs had to enforce their rules or else, most ISPs would go belly up. Regulating the Internet is a waste of time and resources; not even ICANN can do it, and they handle the domain name structure. The United States thinks it runs the Internet, but the network is now global and is simply beyond our control.

Blocking objectionable content starts in the home. It can't be legislated by governments.

You don't understand

[ady1]

The tubes have been totally clogged (and dirty too).

In other news

[freedom_india]

A canadian concerned citizen filed a petition at the supreme court asking it to clarify the credentials required to be an MP.
The request contained, amongst other things, "...MPs should be graduates with IQ above 110...must not present any bill for consideration without concurrence of 80% of his/her constituents...and should provide for hardcore jailtime if the MP is found falsifying records about education, IQ, etc..."
No, am serious. Who is this guy? Does he know a thing about internet, beyond "series of tubes",??

I'm moving to China !

[frednofr]

That's it !

404

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Nothing to see here. Move along please, eh.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[guidryp]

The new Conservatives are like the US Republicans little brother, intent on proving they can hang with big brother. A little anti-gay marriage rhetoric, some Kyoto bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy, increased military spending and an increasing desire to use it.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy are you ever clueless.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[simm1701]

So nice of you to show your name

This post is obviously getting rather tedious and seems to show up posted as AC witht he same AC replies every couple of days...

Seems you forgot to click the Post Anonymously button this time old chap

Typical of Canada...

[Panaqqa]

As a Canadian who has some interest in these matters, I can tell you that there is at least one serious proposal for Internet regulation every couple of weeks. This week, it's licensing ISPs and demanding content be filtered. Two weeks ago, it was union demands that Canadian content regulation be enforced on YouTube and other online video services. (Broadcast media available in Canada must show at least 30% content developed in Canada). A month ago, it was yet another proposal to try and force Canadian companies to use the .CA TLD rather than .COM (fat chance).

Canadian governments at all levels love to float trial balloons such as this (as, I suspect, do governments everywhere). Fact is none of them ever really make it to the law books. Or in the occasional case where something silly does in fact make it into regulations, it is discovered to be silly and ignored from then onwards. An example? Because Canada spans 5 time zones, it is against the rules to broadcast interim election reports in those parts of the country where the polls have not closed. Theoretically, this includes Internet reports. But it is not enforced because regulators discovered, much to their annoyance, that servers in the Tonga Islands are not within the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.

This will blow over, just like every other ill conceived Canadian government plan to stick its regulatory proboscis where it is not welcome.

Re:Typical of Canada...

[waldonova]

Too late, man. It isn't going to blow over, it's here. I clicked the link to TFA from here in southern Ontario...

ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1884/125/

The following error was encountered:

• Read Error

Time to break the glass holding the list of proxy servers...

Re:Typical of Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Canada spans 5 time zones, it is against the rules to broadcast interim election reports in those parts of the country where the polls have not closed. Theoretically, this includes Internet reports. But it is not enforced because regulators discovered, much to their annoyance, that servers in the Tonga Islands are not within the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts. You might live in Canada but apparently you don't get out much. Canada might not enforce laws like this on violations from the Tonga Islands where a non-citizen is involved, but it sure as heck enforces it when Canadian citizens have violated it.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Aladrin]

I see you didn't bother to read mine. It's not the one you are used to seeing. I responded to that one.

No, I didn't 'forget' to click 'Post Anonymously.' I'm not a troll and I have no worries about what I post. The only time I post anonymously is when I don't want to be a karma-whore.

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[simm1701]

Ignore me please, my apologies - I'm losing my top at everyone today due to the medication I am taking causing both irritability and sleep deprivation - you really should just pity my co workers

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[savaget]

It appears you believe all what the NDP and Liberals say about the current government.

No real understanding of the Internet at all.....

[adarklite]

The only way they can make this work is to have proxy servers that they themselves control. But the way that they seem to want it to be done is have the isp block the content themselves. Which would place more of a burden on an overburdened infrastructure and would mean that the cost for internet access would go up while the experience would be worse. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada was then banned from the internet. Which would actually make the internet a better place for the rest of us. Too bad for the Canadians unfortunately.

Canadians should comment on this..

[bignickel]

Send an email to Joy Smith (the MP who introduced this half baked bill). Here's mine:

I would like to voice my objections to the "Clean Internet Bill" recently introduced by Ms Smith. This bill will be totally unenforceable as any traffic can and will be encrypted on the Internet. And an ISP licence? I thought one of the goals of this government was LESS bureaucracy. This would be yet another arbitrary and unenforceable regulation. Do I become an ISP for sharing a connection with other members of my household? Canada currently has a reputation as a leader in the high tech field, but this reputation will be eroded by such poorly thought out pieces of legislation as this.

Re:Canadians should comment on this..

[mdwh2]

Send an email to Joy Smith [mailto] (the MP who introduced this half baked bill).

Writing to MPs is good - I don't know how the Canadian system works exactly, but presumably it's best for people to write to their own MPs. Furthermore, writing to ones who are more likely to listen will be more effective - letters to idiots who introduce such proposals typically get ignored.

Canadian MP?

[djones101]

One of the mounted police wants to censor the Internet?! For shame!

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[guidryp]

I don't listen to the NDP on anything. I can see massive military spending increases and jingoistic speeches for myself. My information comes straight from the mouths of the conservatives themselves who were just spouting the tired empty rhetoric that following the Kyoto protocol would result in economic disaster, they have engaged in multiple round of anti-gay marriage rhetoric. Charles McVety (CFAC, Canadas Jerry Fallwell) has a strong working relationship with the harper conservatives, and was drafted by Harper to sell his "child care plan".

This McVety:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=52904

I'll make them a deal

[smooth wombat]

Though I'm not from Canada, the same nonsensical prattlings occur from time to time here in the U.S from our elected officials. From now on, whenever I hear this clap-trap being spouted, I'll reply with the following:

I'll give you my support for "cleaning up the internet" when you clean up the bribery, corruption and kickbacks in your profession.

Unbelievable...

[FunWithKnives]

We can't get politicians to do a goddamn thing to owners and managers of corporations when their companies kill and exploit other human beings, but now they suddenly want owners and managers of ISPs to be held accountable and face jail time for content? What in the fuck? They're not even really attempting to hide the fact that this is really about censorship.

Re:Unbelievable...

[smellsofbikes]

It takes careful research, evidence, and police work to go after corporate misbehavior, which is slow, tedious, non-flashy, and most importantly, completely removes any chance of that company or similar ones providing lobbying funds. In contrast, proposing a law that sounds good to uneducated voters is quick, great for popularity, and costs the legislator nothing. Even better if it fails, because then the legislator can A: decry interference and claim to be an underdog fighting against big business, and B: re-propose it with accrual of all benefits thereunto. This works until the legislator proposes something so stupid that even uneducated voters realise it's junk, at which point legislators give media more leeway to consolidate and provide distracting entertainment to reduce the voter oversight. It's not a fast process, but it seems to work.

I'm Proud To Be A Canadian

[Anonymous Coward]

where at least I know I'm free... ah crap flush this one folks.

The original quote

[Xocet_00]

I really can't tell if you're joking or not, but here's the quote he's working from, for those who are interested but might not know the original:

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

- Winston Churchill (who most certainly did have a way with words)

Helps if I actual post the whole thing :(

[Xocet_00]

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

- Winston Churchill

In Canada ...

[s20451]

It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see

Wrong on two counts.

In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.

In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[rainman_bc]

Nothing wrong with spending on national defence. Participating in a war in Afghanistan is not, IMO defence as we were never an Afghan target until we involved ourselves.

National Defence is important to protect our borders. We have the money and investing in military is a good thing

Just the Conservatives being the Conservatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Conservatives in Canada basically mirror the Republican Party of the US. They claim to be "conservative", even though their actions and words would not fit that label. This is a good example of that habit. True conservatives would never support censorship of any form. Instead, they would be suggesting legislation that would be the complete opposite of this: they'd be ensuring the freedom of ISPs and Internet users to freely express any idea. But that's not how the Conservative Party works. Instead, they come up with this tripe.

They're a joke to Canadian society. Then again, the alternatives really aren't any better. The Liberals are corrupt, the NDP would accelerate this process with their drive towards political correctness, the PQ doesn't give a fuck about the non-Quebec part of the country, and the Greens are stumbling. What Canada needs is a truly conservative party, not just a clan of angry liberals who call themselves "Conservative".

Re:ATTN: SWITCHEURS!

[Aladrin]

Hah, no worries. I know better than to feed the trolls, but I posted my comment anyhow. Chalk it up to being sick and tired. Literally. (Been working extra hours to get this freaking project out.) I am (horrifying) reinstalling Windows at the moment to test on IE6 because that VM got corrupted. -sigh-

Shrug....

[Timotar]

Who is John Galt?

Re:The Bible is a government publication.

[arthurpaliden]

Please note that the bible as we know it today is publication that was created as a result of various 'government projects' initiated by various governments down through the ages starting in 553 ad, with the councel of Nicea in Constantinople.

Unethical IT consultants

[Anonymous Coward]

... plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".

I work for a content filtering company whose filtering technology the Australian government recently evaluated for a program of voluntary filtering paid for by the government (proposed by the Labor party, I believe). My bosses would probably leap at the chance to provide filtering at the ISP level (forcing it on customers) as well, but I would jump ship once that happened, and so would many of my colleagues. There are likely fewer unethical ones than you think.

Scandinavia allready has this madness :-(

[SplatMan_DK]

Such madness is allready in effect in Denmark, where ISP's have been forced to deny their customers access to the russion MP3 music store "AllOfMP3". Not surprisingly, this step was forced by the music industry (IFPI). - Jesper

Write to her, it's free!

[Stavr0]

Joy Smith, MP
424 Confederation Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6

Re:Write to her, it's free!

[patchvonbraun]

I've sent an e-mail to Ms Smith, and to my local MP, Scott Reid.

It's a private-members bill, so it's unlikely to get any airtime, but it helps
    to nip this stuff in the bud.

Re:Write to her, it's free!

[Reed Solomon]

Thanks, she's my MP, and I voted for her after she said she agreed with me on not enacting new IP/Copyright legislation. Well, I'm a very elloquent speaker, and I hate when anybody tries to censor me, Conservative or no, so I'll have to give her and the party a piece of my mind. I will be writing. And if she doesn't take my opinion seriously, I'll just have to look into the Green party's stance on IP/Copyright.

Re:Write to her, it's free!

[Mobkey]

I wrote to my own MP, another Conservative member. I figured it would be better than getting a reply about how I don't think of the children, or some other bullshit.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[ergo98]

The new Conservatives are like the US Republicans little brother

This is a private member's bill, and despite the fact that it came from a Conservative MP, the same sort of nonsense has come from Liberals and the NDP. Indeed, this is the sort of bill that usually comes from a Liberal (because they're all about talk and no action, and everyone with any brains knows this won't ever lead to action).

A little anti-gay marriage rhetoric, some Kyoto bashing, tax cuts for the wealthy, increased military spending and an increasing desire to use it.

I am disturbed by the ignorance of some of my fellow Canadians are.

The Liberals did NOTHING to achieve Kyoto targets, despite having a majority party for over a decade.

Nothing.

Being pragmatic about Kyoto, and actually talking about the reality of it is quite a bit different than "bashing" it. Personally I find such honesty a lot more acceptable than the rhetoric and lip service we'll-say-what-gets-us-voted Liberal policy.

Increased desire to use the military? You mean like how the conservatives sent us to Afghanistan? Oh, right, that was the Liberals. Oh, maybe it's that we're in a new, offensive capacity? Oh, wait, the Liberals sent us in as front-line special forces and head-exploding snipers.

Hrmm...now I'm confused.

And wait, don't I recall the Liberals preparing to go on a military spending spree to buy themselves out of the mess they created? Why yes, I do.

As for the "anti-gay marriage rhetoric" -- yeah, those damn Conservatives believe in a democracy, and allowing each riding to voice an opinion. Damn them! So they've banned gay marriage, right? Oh yeah, not even close.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[guidryp]

"National Defence is important to protect our borders."

I agree. But the recent plan to purchase 100 tanks is not to defend our borders. It is to carry the fight in Afghanistan.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[Curtman]

Participating in a war in Afghanistan is not, IMO defence as we were never an Afghan target until we involved ourselves.

Actually it is. NATO has a requirement that if one of our allies is attacked, and wants us to join the fight, we have no choice in the matter. If we didn't honour our obligations and join the US in Afghanistan it would be very bad for our national defense. Iraq has never attacked the US, so we had a choice in that one.

It's the weekly speeches about how Israel is so great and wonderful and just, combined with the increase in military spending that scare me. Steven Harper is a nut job with far too much power already.

How Private Member's Bills (Don't) Work

[dmatos]

Some backbencher dude drafts up a bill, and puts it on the docket. It goes to the end of the queue for things to be discussed in the House. Two years later, it's still number 218 on the list, and it's election time. After the Federal election, the docket is wiped clean. If mister backbencher dude does get re-elected, he's more than welcome to submit the bill again.

What does this gain him? Nothing but a sound bite. Next election campaign, you see "I tried to clean up the Intarwebs to protect your childrenz." Odds that this bill will even get a first reading? Zero.

Jeremy Reimer a canadian does not help canuck reps

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeremy Reimer does a good job of that for you and he is a canadian.

See here, regarding his being caught impersonating others online on his forums, being caught for email harassment and being kicked from his hosting provider for his website as well (ontop of posting libellous photos he created of others and a blatantly ripped off tune from southpark as well, further evidence of his inability for originality as well as plagiaristic nature), here:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=190#feedbackAnchor

As well as a miserable showing on technical issues in the field of computer science and he is supposedly some technical author for arstechnica.com. I saw him avoid technical issues and try to bring in help in the form of the short fat scum named Jay Little who claimed to be an exchange expert and was shot down on a crucial point regarding exchange server no less.

Reimer the charalatan and liar has no degree in computer science, and not even an A+ certification (much less an MCSE), and above all no professional hands on experience as a network engineer or a software engineer (and yet he plagiarized Englebarts words on a "history of the GUI" termpaper). Reading Reimer's derivative drivel (bad in & of itself) is like reading about riding a bike from someone who has never done so himself because he lacks experience in that area.

Not all canadians are jackasses like you state, but Jeremy Reimer definitely is.

Ruling

[coren2000]

I like the word *ruling* It makes Canada sound like a tribal nation lead by warlords. All Hail King Harper, may his rule last 1000 generations! P.S. "governing party" would be a more correct term, and "minority governing party" even better than that.

Re:Ruling

[swordgeek]

Even better would be "minority party in power, but not really government."

Harper's government is an embarassment. The sooner the liberals get back in the game, the better.
But I digress.

Re:Ruling

[coren2000]

According to the wording of this article, Harper is your RULER, and MASTER. Now Bow down!

P.S. Please not Stephan Dion... the guy is a weeny.

They want their hands around the throat of the net

[moxley]

This is so ridiculous; I am (as I think most slashdotters are) opposed to any form of censorship, especially state mandated censorship.

Aside from the obvious wrong of trying to restrict ideas and content, the other point that I think can be made which shows how wrong this is - is the following:

Who decides what is inappropriate content? The standard is in the eye of the beholder:

I am sure that there are a lot of people who find nudity, sex, art, controversial discourse, etc. beautiful; (as I do), and find a lot of what many organized religions (and the other things these people use as their personally defined self-righteous "moral" authority) to be profane and harmful, especially when used in the political/governmental sphere - as do I.

An argument can be made that children shouldn't watch porn (and violence is worse IMO) and I agree with this, but this is something that the parents or guardians are responsible for. Don't attempt to take away freedoms and discourse by claiming that you are protecting children or "cleaning up the net."

So we can then see that this isn't about protecting anyone from anything - this is about controlling ideas, controlling possibilities and getting a handle around the internet - I think governments have realized that the net is one area where these masses actually have organizing potential that is difficult to squelch - they don't like not being able to control it.

There is also the obvious political side too IE promising some political bullshit which is impossible to deliver - because even if they get away with this the technological libertarians (not the political party per se, I am referring to those in our community who will use their skills to protect the freedom of the net) - will use encryption and/or hopefully develop tools to try to circumvent most of these restrictions.

They keep coming back, how to stop them?

[phorm]

As per a comment under the actual article:

I believe this is the same bill that has been tabled many times by various MPs of various parties. Chris Axworthy (NDP) tabled Bill C-396 in 1997 and Peter Stoffer (NDP) introduced Bill C-234 in 2002.

This is something I've noticed as well. The same bullshit gets brought up repeatedly, and shot down. This is particularly true of internet censorship/monitoring laws, and those in regards to copyright issues.

Sometimes bad laws even sneak through, but are shot down in the courts. But regardless of how they die, like a hydro they always seem to get re-introduced.


Is there anything that could be done, or rules/laws in place that state when a particular bill/law/whatever is killed, it will stay dead for good (or at least for a defined period of time)? Having to kill them off constantly is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

But but

[Anonymous Coward]

we get our modern sensibilities from the Enlightenment! /sarc

OT: Your sig

[mdielmann]

Live with your dad, eh? :D

Violence against women

[zoomshorts]

Strange, in as much as she is a woman, AND women ALLOW exploitation.

Remember, women control 90 percent of the money and ALL of the pussy.

Methinks she protests too much. I am all for voteing women out of the
whole political process. They are too wishy-washy and confuse fact with
their own fantasies. Plus they fight like girls.

But that is just me.

Canadians mad?

[mcneely.mike]

Mad? Mad? We have Terrence and Phillip on our side. And Ike! Call us mad will you. Where YOU from? We will invade your country tomorrow, what with our naval ship and our helicopter, eh! Call us mad. Yo'r granny!

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the Frontline/World where they showed what some of the Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been up to?

I particularly liked how they set up an armed camp at a village, did some favours for the villagers to gain their confidence, and then packed up and left.

They knew the Taliban would take revenge on the village for 'helping' the NATO forces, and the Canadians have not even gone back to see what revenge was taken.

Classic.

That is exactly the kind of thing that turns the locals against the people who come to 'liberate and protect' them.

I'm for it

[DynaSoar]

Let's hear it for this valiant public servant who seeks to save us from the evil, the nasty and the braindeaded and boneheaded out there on the net. Watch how he backpedals when he discovers himself to be among those items to be blocked when people deem e-Zealots to be a danger to their freedom as well as their peace of mind. Faced with the prospect of losing the re-election advantage to be had from being highly visible on the net, he'll cave in like a Chinese coal mine.

"Last I knew, a radio had two nobs." -- George Carlin.
Right you are, George, and a browser has a back button.

Haha hmm...

[post.scriptum]

She probably caught her husband looking at porn.

Re:what's happening - The conservatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hrmm...now I'm confused."

We already knew that.

From the original blog...

[Anonymous Coward]

Written by Danny Doucette on 2007-04-20 07:04:25

I wrote a lengthy email to Mr. Peter Stoffer last month about some similar issues. I received an email from his secretary saying that "Peter always responds by phone as he does not access the internet/email and has no computer skills." I wasn't aware at the time that Mr. Stoffer introduced C-234 in 2002. I'm glad that my computer-scared MP is spending his time trying to regulate the internet with poorly-worded legislation.

No, it's a knee-jerk, zero-clue, dangerous idea

[_.- thimk! -._]

Good grief.

If you're trying (unsuccessfully) to be sarcastic, perhaps you should start using <sarcasm> tags.

If you're not, how naive can you possibly be?

'Good ISPs' versus 'Bad ISPs'? Do you also think there are 'Good Telephone Companies' and 'Bad Telephone Companies', some of whom sell telephone service to criminals, and some of whom who don't, and that if you applied the same logic to regulating those telephone companies that the 'legitimate' telephone users will change companies to 'Good' providers if you prosecute the telephone companies directly if someone plans or commits a crime while using one of their phones? Do you think the same thing should be done for whatever company built the phone?

Do you think there are also 'Good Car Rental Companies and 'Bad Car Rental Companies', or 'Good Supermarkets', and 'Bad Supermarkets', and that the people who run them should be held responsible for what all of their customers do, too?

Even if attempting to mandate censorship and then make the service providers responsible for content posted by customers was a good idea -- it's not, it's instead a monumentally bad one -- do you even have a remote concept how impossible it would be to actually monitor and audit the content of every web page posted by every user of the internet? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be so monumentally confused as to think there's any merit whatseover to what's been proposed.

The only result of this madness would be that you'd put everyone out of business, and effectively destroy an entire medium of communication. The only providers that would be likely to remain in business for a while would be those who would censor anything even remotely controversial, claiming they had to in order to protect themselves, out of fear of being closed down completely.

You want an example of how this would work out? How about something like this already in action, based upon the private policies of a single uber-company? How about something that should be simple, like getting pictures printed at WallyWorld*?

I know professional photographers who've had their negatives returned unprinted (they just wanted some quick samples), having been told that printing them would "violate copyright", because "obviously they were too good, so they had to be copyrighted". Never mind that in this instance they actually would have been copyrighted, but that the copyright owner was who had asked for the prints. I also know people who've had their photos destroyed, and been threatened with "being reported to the police as pedophiles" because they happened to take pictures of their own children playing in the tub. We're talking 'cute one-year-old in a bubble bath playing with their rubber duck' type pictures.

That is the sort of witch hunt that legislation like this would encourage. That is what you're calling a 'good idea'...

Any nonsense like this is simply a proposal to return to the dark ages. State-mandated censorship is ALWAYS a bad thing. Period.

If you're concerned about hate-mongering, violence, or pedophilia, don't confuse the perpetrators and the media they may choose with the media themselves. There are already plenty of laws that address the real concerns directly.

There are no good reasons to single out one particular medium (in this instance, the internet) to have it's own special laws and restrictions, and a lot of very good reasons to oppose any such regulation. It's at best unnecessary, and at worst, actually creates a blunt instrument that's easy to corrupt and abuse to promote fascism and excessive governmental control over free expression. Even worse than that, really, it would cause an artificial 'chilling' effect on free expression by mandating that low paid, over-worked people in the private sector, having no accountability or oversight, and no training in real issues of free speech would be put in charge of censoring other people's ideas.

To me, that sounds like worst idea I've heard of in a very long time...

Private Member's bill or not...

[iamghetto]

...I'd recommond every Canadian to go to here:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Main MPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Find their member of parliament and tell them that they will not tolerate motions like this under any circumstance.

Lieberal Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lieberals were Canada's "Ruling Party" only for the last 13 years before the Conservatives, who've hardly been in a year...

Hell hath no fury like a lieberal out of power!

Censorship.

[closms]

Censorship is a word that causes many slashdotters to see red. I agree that an open Internet is a good thing. But where do you draw the line on obscenity issues. I don't want to see child prostitution shops set up in my country (I am Canadian) even if they are tucked out of the way. Neither do I want some obscene material on the Internet (personally, I don't want to see any obscene material on the Internet, but I also believe in supporting democracy because morals are relative and subjective, so the majority _must_ decide), so how is it that some laws against obscenity are "ok" censorship (i.e., no child-porn stores or child prostitution shops) but other kinds of censorship is "bad" (i.e., blocking a child-porn website).

I think a big part of the debate that needs to be discussed is what is the nature of the stuff that is being censored. Certainly big brother shouldn't get too big that freedom of speech is lost, but then anything goes isn't a good idea either.

(of course the Canadian strategy seems to be make everything legal but tax is to death.)

Re:They want their hands around the throat of the

[Luthair]

Unfortunately the members of a fringe party (Reform) flooded a "similar" (Progressive Conservatives) party and forced a merger, a lot of (religious) nutjobs.

what a joke

[Dretep]

This bill should be thrown out quicker than a used tampon.

Oh well, so much for that.

[davmoo]

I used to seriously think about moving to Canada, as the US falls deeper and deeper in to the bullshit.

But then it changed from "Canada" to "The People's Republic of Canukistan".

Re:Oh well, so much for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to seriously think about moving to Canada, as the US falls deeper and deeper in to the bullshit.

But then it changed from "Canada" to "The People's Republic of Canukistan". Yes, by all means, form your opinion of a country based on one minor politician trying to get attention.

Re:Oh well, so much for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're that shallow, stay home please.

I sent the following email to Joy Smith...

[Anonymous Coward]

..at leila@joysmithmp.ca, w/a cc to my own MP, Conservative John Baird (http://www.johnbaird.com/) at bairdj@parl.gc.ca :

You make a mockery of the sacrifices your parents' generation made in battling tyranny, during WWII, with this bill.

I realize that sentiment means nothing to you. I'm not worried for now though: the truth is you are a nobody backbencher and, as a result, your bill doesn't stand a snowball's chance. In the meantime, you may want to reassess the what and why of your efforts.

Sincerely,

A 30-something young person (with a house, car, and family) that will NEVER vote conservative so long as you continue on with this neo-fascist agenda,

K.M.
Ottawa West-Nepean

Might I suggest that all Canadian Slashdotters do the same?

unclean it with this

[talledega500]

this is an easy proxy. http://www.mysecureisp.com/ take that canada