REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Thread Tools
Old 04-28-2013, 03:07 PM   #1
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: n zone
Posts: 2,593
Thanked 1,798 Times in 571 Posts
the slow and painful death of freedom in canada

Less than a generation ago, Canada was a world leader when it came to the fundamental democratic freedoms of assembly, speech and information.

In 1982, Canada adopted the Access to Information Act -- making it one of the first countries to pass legislation recognizing the right of citizens to access information held by government, and as recently as 2002, Canada ranked among the top 5 most open and transparent countries when it came to respect for freedom of the press.

Fast-forward a decade, and we've become a true north suppressed and disparate -- where unregistered civic demonstrations are inhibited and repressed, rebellious Internet activities are scrutinised and supervised, government scientists are hushed and muzzled, and public information is stalled and mired by bureaucratic firewalls.

In the 2013 World Press Freedom Index -- an evaluation done by Reporters Without Borders on the autonomy of a country's media environment, Canada came in at a paltry 20th, putting us behind liberal-democratic powerhouses such as Namibia, Costa Rica, and the Western Hemisphere's new champion of free media -- Jamaica.

So what the devil is going on?

According to page 8 of the report, this uneasy drop "was due to obstruction of journalists during the so-called 'Maple Spring' student movement and to continuing threats to the confidentiality of journalists' sources and Internet users' personal data, in particular, from the C-30 bill on cyber-crime."
Yet perhaps more distressing than the consistent during Quebec's Maple Spring has been the abrupt confiscation of the right of citizens in the province to spontaneously demonstrate and protest in public spaces -- seen recently at the totalitarian debacle known as the Anti-Police Brutality Protest, where over 250 people were arrested for failing to register with authorities before assembling.

Passed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people to register the details of any demonstration with the police at least eight hours before it begins. Anyone who does not comply with the law faces a fine from $1000 up to $125,000 depending on his or her involvement and leadership in the protest.

Not to be outdone by Quebec's anti-demonstration legislation however, the federal government decided to continue the trend with Bill C-309 -- criminalising the act of covering one's face during any sort of display of civil disobedience. And as opposed to the customary fine, the bill carries with it a penalty of up to five years in prison.

But don't worry -- it's for our protection.

Speaking of our "protection," Bill C-30, or the Lawful Access Act -- proposed by the Harper government in February of last year, attempted to grant authorities the power to monitor and track the digital activities of all Canadians in real-time.

This internationally-condemned Orwellian "cyber-crime legislation" planned to force service providers to log and surrender browsing information about their customers upon government request as well as permit the remote access to any personal computer in the country -- all without the need of any sort of warrant.

And while Bill C-30 has been tabled for the time being, Bill C-12 -- which similarly authorises the warrantless acquisition of customer information from ISPs, email hosts, and social media sites on a voluntary basis, looks poised to creep in and achieve many of Bill C-30's initial objectives by reducing the need for warrants, and gradually circumnavigating safeguards that protect our personal information online.

Of course we've all had the rhetoric jammed down our throats -- these adjustments to a citizen's right to public assembly, defiant anonymity, and digital privacy are the necessary sacrifices we must be willing to make in order to shelter ourselves from half-heartedly articulated illusory threats such as "terrorism" or "extremism".

But the undemocratic stifling doesn't stop here either. Even our taxpayer-funded government scientists -- the last line of defense against ignorance and uncritical thinking, are increasingly coerced into suppressing unwelcome findings.

According to a report by researchers at the University of Victoria titled Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, "the federal government has recently made concerted efforts to prevent the media - and through them, the general public - from speaking to government scientists, and this, in turn, impoverishes the public debate on issues of significant national concern."
When Canadian scientists are permitted by their handlers to speak to journalists or international colleagues, they are forced to regurgitate pre-approved party findings that rest neatly within the confines of official government policies -- regardless of what the yields of their research and expert opinions may actually be telling them.

What's even more concerning is that in a recent study by the Center for Law and Democracy -- which classifies the strength and effectiveness of access to information laws in 93 countries, Canada ranked an utterly humiliating 55th, thanks in large part to the bureaucratic red tape that smothers requests for access to public records.

So perhaps it is time for us Canadians to wake up and smell the suppression -- no longer are censorships solely the purview of tin-pot dictators in far away regimes.

These seemingly gradual erosions to the freedoms of assembly, expression and information in Canada are all very real -- just last week, Parliament actually struck down a bill claiming that "public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making."

And I have the sinking suspicion that whichever party is in power, these rights will continue to decompose unless the citizenry is willing to vocalise this as a major election issue. After all, even in democracy new governments seldom willingly return rights and freedoms back to the people once in office -- power can be just too enticing.

One day it's the right to spontaneously demonstrate, next it's the right to wear a mask well doing so, then Internet privacy, scientific inquiry, public records, and so on as the vice compressing freedom and civil disobedience slowly tightens on us all.

But then again, this is Canada. That sort of thing could never happen here, right?
Adam Kingsmith: The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada

Thoughts? Opinions? pretty shitty considering our next federal election is two years away, and the conservative party is doing well in other aspects of the gov't, and im not sold on the liberals or ndp
Sid Vicious is offline  
Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
This post FAILED by:
Old 04-28-2013, 05:55 PM   #2
The Lone Wanderator
Graeme S's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
The Ben Franklin quote sums it up nicely:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
The sad truth is that people are getting less and less willing to confront themselves and their own opinions, rather thinking "well it must be someone else's fault that they're not getting what they want/should have" or what have you.

Ignoring hooligans and assholes (which I'd really rather do when it comes to a topic like protests), the reason for violence and uprising in these kinds of clashes is because of the way that people are ignored when their opinions are brought up. More and more people are getting shouted down or tied up behind paperwork when their views are perfectly valid.

This is something that came up in the election thread: FPTP rather than STV in voting. The six-odd percent of people who voted for the Greens in the last federal election were shut out. In the provincial election two(?) cycles ago, there was nearly 40% popularity for the NDP, and yet there were only two NDP seats granted. The silencing of a sizable minority will always result in them wanting to rise up.

And while it's all well and good to say "well if they wanted to have a voice they should have worked harder" (I'm looking at you, Ulic) that isn't the spirit of the principle behind our system. The idea is that anyone who has a voice and a reasonable amount of people who support them should be invited to the table to discuss how things should happen.

Of course, part of the problem with this is the way that things have been spun in the past decade or so. A victory for one side is automatically a defeat for the other. "The Liberals like the budget. That MUST automatically mean that it's terrible for the NDP and Conservatives". Compromise is a loss, and nothing but getting everything you want is a win. And this is something that I think has bled North from their two-party oppositional system. As Grid has mentioned in the election thread before, our system was not designed with the same majority-rule checks and balances, because the expectation was always that even if people are on the same party they would occasionally have differences in opinions either because of personal preference or constituent input.

I personally find it quite disappointing that a party leader can muster his party to all vote for a certain issue--even if the MP's constituents are solidly opposed, it doesn't matter because the Party Leader says so. Disappointing, but I suppose an extension of this whole issue. From the top to the bottom, it doesn't matter where you are, unless you've got power, you have no voice unless someone who does have power tells you that you can.
Graeme S is offline  
Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-28-2013, 06:26 PM   #3
Even when im right, is still right!
Yodamaster's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 1,312
Thanked 1,453 Times in 457 Posts
I'll protest whatever I want wherever I want with as many people as I want at any time, and I'll wear any mask I fancy as well.

The lack of care for the decay of freedom is disgusting, and so are the people that enact it. The political system is a joke and so are the people who run it, people who would restrict me "for my own safety".

They can go to hell.
Yodamaster is offline  
Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-28-2013, 07:00 PM   #4
Need to Seek Professional Help
SB7's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: vancouver
Posts: 1,081
Thanked 4,458 Times in 435 Posts
SB7 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc. cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of