Oh Canada! "Free Speech Areas" to be defined for 2010 Olympics

I read this, thought about it, and after a while, wondered why nobody else picked this up.

Read it on the CBC!

I am sure they'll be near the arctic circle, if they don't arrest people for applying for a "permit to protest." Add to it the recently filed lawsuit against the RCMP going by known protesters' houses and telling them "we're watching you" and this is taking on a whole new dimension. Tasering with abandon is nothing new, but the subtle intimidation has eluded authorities in Canada for some time. Now they're brazen enough to flaunt it on the CBC.

Jokes aside, this paints a frightening picture of the "authorities" and their opinion on what criticisms they should face.

Yikes - more rumblings from the (gun) control crowd

From her AP soapbox, Deborah Hastings once again makes her point for gun control, stating that since the murderers responsible for the latest shootings had permits (to possess, not carry), we're all guilty by association.

She knows so little about the reality of firearms legislation that she confuses the license to possess (required in New York state, for instance) and a license to carry (called a CHP or CCW license). That right there says this is not her brain talking.

She acknowledges the other side of the argument with one sentence and one fragment:

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts. Whether they have a gun permit or not. (sic)

That's right. That is the main argument here. People are still getting shot in Britain, SE DC, Canada, Mexico, New York City, and Detroit, and in far greater numbers than anywhere you accuse of weak gun laws. Whether proof of "need" is necessary, as in Canada, or an outright ban like DC, Mexico and Britain, it does not work. Kids are still getting shot, and violent crime decreased at lower rates after the law changes than it did in the USA during the same period, in terms of number per 100,000 of population.

And don't give me that "90% of guns are traced to the USA from Mexico" line.

Since you don't want to read Fox news, I'll quote them too:

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

Do the math.

So what's the solution? Banning guns did not work. More guns do invite more accidents, just like more cars do. Maybe licensing people to exercise their first amendment would be a start.

Another Reason I left Canada: Bill C-61

Canada currently imposes a "fine" on all digital and analog media purchased, ostensibly to compensate artists for copyright infringement you'll do with that media. If you use your CDs for a more legitimate purpose than fair use, you paid the fine anyways.

Obviously, you're guilty, proof being irrelevant. This is akin to gasoline having a surcharge added for the speeding ticket you're expected to get.

This has backfired on the music industry. If you're on the side that states that the sales have fallen because the music industry hasn't made all much worth listening to in recent years, rather than piracy, you'll applaud this: Canada's RIAA arm got a serious smackdown about two years ago when the defendant successfully argued that no further damages were due because the fine for the crime had already been paid. That meant that because of the media reimbursement/fine/tax, copying music and video had basically been legalized.

Of course, copyright holders could not let this stand, and so had their henchmen in parliament propose a draconian addition, currently called bill C-61. Hon. Minister of Industry Bill Prentice deserves to lose his seat for this. Here is the summary - you'll note similarities with the US DMCA:

• Circumvention of encryption, no matter how trivial (like xor 81), is now a federal offence (called a felony in the US)
• $500 fine (not clear if it's a minimum or a maximum) for each copyright violation (so a Youtube posting will average $20,000)
• Unlocking of cellphones counts as circumvention of encryption (even if a provider locks your personal cell phone)

The issue, as always, is the fine print, usually skipped by the press. Critics who watch out for this sort of thing argue that the search and seizure rights granted by the bill and others on the books it refers to effectively make Canada a police state, like it isn't already (ask me about September 2003 at Vancouver International Airport one day).

Protests are cropping up all over the place, according to the CBC.

What's really missing from the debate are the following points:

• The new bill would empower distributors, who are the copyright owners (artists surrender this to get distributed), so it does not help artists, and thus does not help creativity.
• Security through Obscurity would also take over the Canadian technology market - it's okay for your bank to use XOR 81 encryption, since it's "illegal to circumvent." Tell that to your ID thief in Russia, and see if he cares. He's thankful his life was made easier.
• Security companies, those that nudge vendors to make their software more secure, now face legal penalties like they do in the United States. Point out another flaw in Internet Explorer, go to jail. There. Microsoft's happy.

Feel safer already?

The point is, the criminals on the networks don't care about this, and they are outside the reach of Canadian law. But the folks whom you trust to keep the people with your information honest will see jail if they tell the people with your information that they're not being responsible.

Good work, Canada!

Gun Control and Thoughtcrime

Well, Orwell's back in Canada. After the horrific shooting in Montreal on September 13, 2006, the gun control BS meter has hit another all-time high. (link)

Here are the facts as admitted in the press:

• The murderer, Kimveer Gill, had his PAL (firearms license).
• The weapons used were all registered.

All this implies that he passed all the background checks and other stuff needed to buy the weapons.

To be clear, my heart really goes out to the families and the victims. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and being killed by a person who has become insane is a terrible thing to happen. But whether this is by firearm, bow and arrow, bomb, or butter knife, there will always be someone crazy enough to do this stuff. I understand how tempting it is to argue that "had guns been banned, this would not have happened" but the addition to that I would make is "this way." The insane man would have found another way, perhaps by looking up how to make explosives, or by getting a sword and getting up close and personal. The casualties would have been similarly horrific. If that were to happen, there would be no outcry to ban chemistry books or things with sharp edges, would there?

Now there is chatter from both sides. The pro-firearm lobby states, correctly, that none of the laws passed since the Lepine Massacre in 1991, also in Montreal, helped protect the victims. In fact, firearms related murders spiked in 2005 (link to Statistics Canada), and that trend is set to continue. What changed? Firearms registration became mandatory. Hmmm.

With the easy access to firearms afforded by proximity to the United States, any criminal wishing to get a firearm has little trouble getting one. The due diligence exercised by the US states themselves is pretty good (having gone through this myself a few times), but is about as water tight as legal firearms ownership is in Canada.

Yes, losing someone to firearms is bad. So is losing a friend to a drunk driver. But there, you blame the driver. Why is peoples' logic so flawed when it comes to firearms?