Shwa

Oh, you edited that just in time! I was going to make a joke about static shocks and wool socks.

Not quite. They may own the hardware, but they are only licensed to operate it. The Telecommunications Act says,

The Charter does not specify limitations to freedom of peaceful assembly except, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified." So now the 'reasonable limits" will get the test and it will be a very important test which could affect how and why people communicate their issues. Nope, that is backwards. The City has to convince a judge that the eviction notice is a "reasonable limit as prescribed by law." There has to be a balance struck but the bias must always be towards the rights as prescribed in the Charter. Yep, because the Charter does not prescibe limits to the freedom to peaceful assembly, etc. So there are protests (strikes are a good example) at private companies all the time. However, preventing people from going about their work, business, etc., could be construed as a reasonable limit. One right can't interfere with another. I heard Stephen LeDrew say that people in the neighbourhood of St. James had "the right to enjoy their park." Well, no they don't, there are no such rights. He also said that "businesses had the right to do business." Neither of which were prevented by the Occupy movement. So if there is a reasonable limit it will be something along the lines of health and/or safety and the City will have to demonstrate cause.

Their books are "open" like any other reporting government agency or department (well, except for CSIS) and does it really matter if people know what is given to them? Even if they don't know, they STILL said the same levels or more. That indicates they are perhaps looking at the quality and see a lacking.

Ontario has TV Ontario, same sort of setup as PBS, but provincially focused. They even showed 'Doctor Who' before it was cool. Bunch of hipsters. However, the CBC is regionally focused with a national mandate. No provincial station could do that very well.

Who said I "don't believe in history?" I didn't. Are you reading into something that isn't there Michael?

I have been using this theme to reply to some MLW posts for months now: Old Man Yells At Cloud Here is another one, a favourite:

Once again, the CPC seems to have an idea of what Canadians want: Majority backs public funding for CBC, poll finds Interesting demographic: Of course, it didn't stop there, despite Brian Lilley's ( ) reply, the G&M fired back nicely with a little bit of historical information. (something Lilley is allergic too) Money can’t buy love: Why every government hates the CBC

But where do you draw the line Boges? Or do you allow the state to trample people's rights because of convenience, cost effectiveness or expediency? Today it is peaceful protest that is inconvenient, where will you be when it is freedom of the press or freedom of expression? Or perhaps the freedoms are allowed providing they match a particular ideology or religious view? You have to remember that the Charter of Rights modifies all other existing laws and bylaws, not the other way around. The Consitution isn't found unlawful, but others laws can be found unconstitutional. You should be thankful you have the privledge of living in a nation where we have such fundamental and explicit freedoms even if you do no agree with those that exercise them.

Well, for one, Mayor Ford is seen as 'unfazed' by any attack from Anon, so there would be no terror involved. Plus, I don't think anyone at the City of Toronto would be terrified if their website went off line for a couple of hours or someone hacked a funny message into the content. So where's all the "Cyber Terrorism?" More like Cyber Hyperbole if you ask me.

So you are of the school that would suppress or oppress people and sort it out in court later?

‘Anonymous’ threat doesn’t faze Mayor Ford They do, but sometimes they don't. However, I wonder if Mayor Ford is thinking about the ramifications of having all his email exposed on the Internet? No doubt the IT folks at the City have hardened their systems. But if Anon has already done the hack and are just waiting for the opportunity.

Puh-leaze. "Winterization" of a park as reason for denying the freedom of peaceful assembly. Gimme a break. Perhaps the medium is the message. A famous Canadian said that. Would you deny people their democractic rights, also guaranteed in the Charter, to winterize a park? So you are saying yes, a little bit of inconvenience is worth trampling on people's constitutional rights. Thought so.

Well, do you consider a cut rate on arms to be a form of "foreign aid?"

Just so I am clear, you are saying that if some Charter Rights are "too expensive" they shouldn't be maintained? Really? So income disparity and consitutional rights aren't worthy of attention or discussion? Do Charter Rights only apply where there are multi-thousand people protests? It depends on the reason for evicting them which ought to be reasonable and demonstrable reasons. But if it is avoid inconveniencing a few people, I am there.

Then let me ask you a question Boges, should the costs of Charter rights be factored in when maintaining them?

Any of them.

Can't answer the questions, eh? Thought so.

If only 500 people were left to stand up for your Constitutional Rights, would you support them? Tell me something Boges, since this is an important question: should city bylaws and provinicial laws and such be able to modify your Constitutional Rights?

In what context?

Quick question: from whom does the government borrow and what is the form of the loan?

Adding fuel to the warmth of the oil drum... Hacker group Anonymous threatens cyber attack if city evicts Occupy Toronto Anon has been threatening a lot lately, but have they actually done anything or are they riding the reputation of some old news? Then again, if they do decide to have a go at the City of Toronto it goes to show that there are some people highly invested in ensuring that the Occupy movement in Toronto continues according to their own timetable.

Oh there was a point alright. I just have a problem with your sullying the reputation of a good word. I was replying to the point you had made, which I had italicized for clarity. Experts have always been interpreting or providing expert facts since the dawn of "history." Gawd, look at the big deal with the Church when people wanted to start interpretting the Bible for themselves. And I say: don't believe everything you read. Who's "we" and why are you including me? I dunno Michael, that sounds like a cynical impression of humanity. I believe that a smart person won't willy-nilly believe what they say and post BS on an internet forum and leave it at that. A smart person. I happen to believe that most people are smart enough. It's going on the list once I have done my priroty projects. However, without prejudicing the read, authors always gather the facts that support their narrative. If you really want to have fun, read the guys who criticize the method of narrative. To a degree, yes, you're absolutely right and I see progress in that regard. However, we can't pander to morons or dumb shit down 'cuz ol' Rufus der dunt unnerstan da innernet. And what I am saying is that in the Newspaper Era there was less serious and in-depth news and opinion compared to today. Even with the crud out there, people can - and do - develop filters. Of course not, but I think we have to recognize the pitfalls of any - and every - "history" that we come across. History is not developed as an altruistic past-time for the benefit of humanity, like immunizations or potable water projects. Hence the saying, "The victors write the history." (not entirely true, but you get the idea).

Puh-lease. There was no "thesis" in the news story, are you kidding me? LOFL! Lilley was misprepresenting the facts in order to arouse the morons amongst his readership. When has it ever been otherwise? Now maybe you can defend stupidity and/or intellectual laziness on behalf of others, but Lilley is a journalist, a writer for a large media corporation. There is no excuse for him, since he is an interested party. On the one hand, he has his "thesis," but on the other hand, we can't have specialists interpreting the facts for us. Good God, what the hell are you really saying? There are far more news organizations, providing far more in-depth information on a far wider variety of subjects than ever before in human history. That there are more amusing news hooks, doesn't remove the fact that there are far more serious news stories, videos, blogs, etc. We know more about ourselves and our government that any previous generation and this has come because we have demanded it. Feel free, but the thread hasn't drifted that much. Lilley's articles pander to the lowest intellectual denominator of the literate news consumer. The result is a lot of noise that the rest of us have to put up with. I am not about to blame the government for that - are you? If democracy was all that was considered. But out form of democracy doesn't exist in a vacuum and it can't rationally be looked at as if it does. At least not for very long or when you want to make larger generalizations about it. Did I say that all of history is "subjective BS?" Nope. However, I challenge you to prove me wrong on what I stated, that historians pick and choose their facts to construct their preferred narrative. History isn't science.

Which is as meaningless a thing that can be said in defence of reality.