Anyone who has dared to question these measures has been branded as “soft on crime.” But last week, the spin stopped working. The online-surveillance bill does not just put criminals in Conservative crosshairs – anyone with an Internet connection is now a target. And so, when Vic Toews asked Canadians to choose between the Conservatives and child porn, we chose the latter.
But behind the backlash is an inconvenient truth: We rarely stand up for civil liberties, except when our own are at stake. The vast majority of us don’t see ourselves as potential criminals, and so the impact of mandatory minimums seems remote, at best. When we are trying to get the bad guys off the streets, the thinking goes, who are judges to stand in the way?
Except that is exactly what judges are supposed to do. Last Monday, for instance, within hours of Toews’s child-porn pronouncement, Madam Justice Anne Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional one of the mandatory minimum sentences imposed by the Tackling Violent Crime Act of 2008.
The Prime Minister’s reaction was telling: “Canadians believe that the courts have not been tough enough in dealing with gun crime,” he told the House of Commons on Tuesday. “This government is determined to make sure that we have laws that can deal with serious gun crime.” In other words: laws that keep judges from judging.
But a free society needs judges like Anne Molloy: strong-willed jurists who defy political pressure. They are the ones who step in when our freedom, if not our individual self interest, is at stake. But the Conservative war on judges rejects this basic democratic principle. Instead, the government believes the judiciary should have little leeway in sentencing, and no leeway at all when police want private information about our online activities. All Canadians – not just criminals – will eventually pay the price.
The online-surveillance bill is the symptom, not the sickness. To protect our privacy, we must end the war on judicial discretion. Want to tell Vic Toews everything? Tell him this: Our judges are not standing with child pornographers when they protect our civil liberties.
The article lauds a judge for refusing to follow mandatory minimum sentencing laws (full story here) yet you see time and time again here on CP where people post about some criminal sentence where the perpetrator gets off with a "slap on the wrist".
So which is it? Are the laws too hard, too soft, or maybe, just maybe, the laws should be crafted so that some official who has heard all the evidence (as opposed to a few sentences filtered through a journalist, editor and publisher in a newspaper) and knows the laws, who can decide on an appropriate sentence? You know, like a judge.
It seems like everyone wants to be "tough on crime" until they find themselves in a grey area. And I think there are a LOT more grey areas than most people recognize.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
The article lauds a judge for refusing to follow mandatory minimum sentencing laws (full story here) yet you see time and time again here on CP where people post about some criminal sentence where the perpetrator gets off with a "slap on the wrist".
So which is it? Are the laws too hard, too soft, or maybe, just maybe, the laws should be crafted so that some official who has heard all the evidence (as opposed to a few sentences filtered through a journalist, editor and publisher in a newspaper) and knows the laws, who can decide on an appropriate sentence? You know, like a judge.
In the case of people like the 24-time drunk driver, it is more likely the maximum sentences, rather than the minimum sentences, that need to be increased.
Increase judicial discretion and you run the risk of sentences unfit for the crime. Decrease judicial discretion, and you guarantee it.
The funding is a no-win scenario. If passed, either Ottawa props up it by charging taxpayers or ISPs will begin spiking rates as they'll get no compensation for their upgrades.
Yup. And meanwhile organized crime and child pornographers up their encryption, usage of freenet, tor, vpn's to other jurisdictions and so on creating a cyber arms race with the only winner being a small number of IT companies.
Legislation like this can cause subtle changes for the worse. We have a lot of great discussions on these forums. Sometimes they are even about important matters. Would we get as wide a range of opinion and provocative ideas if everyone knew in the back of their minds that everything they said might be linked back to them?
I really like what Zerohedge writes on Anonymous speech in their manifesto:
"our method: pseudonymous speech...
anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.
...responsibly used.
the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority
though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't."
It seems like the police wrote this bill for their benefit and lobbyists are writing other bills.
My money is the war on terror agenda from the USA is shoving this down our throats. That or else its the music/movie lobby trying to get us through the back door...
Yup. And meanwhile organized crime and child pornographers up their encryption, usage of freenet, tor, vpn's to other jurisdictions and so on creating a cyber arms race with the only winner being a small number of IT companies.
It's a huge issue for sure...law can't catch up with the tech savvy. This image was written for gaming and its DRM, but it's pretty transferable to many other fields in reference to laws:
Teows didnt answer me, but the office of Bob Rae did
Quote:
On behalf of Liberal Leader Bob Rae, I would like thank you for your email regarding Bill C-30, the Conservative legislation that will allow Vic Toews and Stephen Harper to creep your Facebook and read your emails.
#
It’s unacceptable for the Conservatives to paint this as strictly an issue of pedophilia and child pornography; Canadians deserve an honest debate on something this serious. #This is a complex bill that contains numerous provisions requiring scrutiny and careful examination at Committee.# A proper balance must be struck between the privacy rights of Canadians and public safety.
#
Privacy is a fundamental freedom enshrined in our Charter and Canadians have every right to be worried about heightened surveillance of their online activities.# Liberals are seriously concerned about the lack of judicial oversight in this bill relating to subscriber data, and that forcing ISP and telecomm providers to have the capacity to trace all communications in their system could create a very slippery slope. #After all, this is a governing party that has proven itself willing to violate online privacy before – like with its Facebook creeping activities during the last election.
#
The Liberal Party will be proposing several amendments to Bill C-30, including adding the requirement that there is judicial oversight before law enforcement can access personal subscriber information.# In addition, we are calling for open and transparent hearings on this legislation.# If you would like to support these proposals you can sign our petition.
#
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Leader of the Liberal Party.
#
Yours sincerely,
Colin McKone
Office of the Liberal Leader
The Following User Says Thank You to Pizza For This Useful Post:
The Canadian Independent Music Association is seeking changes to the enabler provision that would create liability risk for social networking sites, search engines, blogging platforms, video sites, and many other websites featuring third party contributions. If that were not enough, it is also calling for a new iPod tax, an extension in the term of copyright, a removal of protections for user generated content, parody, and satire, as well as an increase in statutory damage awards.
...
For example, ADISQ is asking the government to add a requirement for Internet providers to disclose customer name and address information to copyright owners without court oversight. Meanwhile, CIMA wants takedown with no due process and unlimited statutory damages.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
"Corporatocracy is an imprecise pejorative term describing a situation in which corporate bodies interact with sovereign power in an unhealthy alignment between business and political power.
It describes an elite, sometimes termed the "1 percent", which maintains ties between business and government, sometimes by lobbying efforts or funding political advertising campaigns, or providing bailouts when corporations are seen as too big to fail, for the purpose of controlling government and dictating policy to serve its financial interests.
It is a negative term, likened pejoratively to cancer, fascism, and Orwellianism, perhaps because, according to this view, business-government ties are seen as secretive, lacking transparency and accountability.
The term has been used to describe what some see as economic exploitation, and has been used to explain bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as generalized complaints such as the plundering of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.
It has been used by critics of globalization, sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank or unfair lending practices, as well as criticism of free trade agreements which, according to these claims, move high-paying jobs overseas.
Corporatocracy is viewed as anti-democratic or opposed to democracy or used to describe situations in which democracy has been manipulated negatively, sometimes resulting in a passive citizenry and subservient media."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
