Freedom of speech, what a lie.

[bjre]

[ quote ] All arguments must be submitted in writing and will be sealed. Any related documents will also be kept out of the public domain. Public discussion of the arguments is also forbidden under the ruling.

“Bureaucracies feel the information they have belongs to them, when in fact the information belongs to the public.”

“The horrors of Canada are well hidden,” Coralee Smith told the Star. “What’s going on behind closed doors with the Correctional Service of Canada is horrible.”

[ /quote ]

http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/government/article/856262--coroner-limits-probe-of-teen-s-prison-suicide?bn=1

What is the meaning of Freedom? Is that means strong people can bully weak people freely, but weak people have no right to talk about that?

Edited September 3, 2010 by bjre

[Shwa]

[ quote ] All arguments must be submitted in writing and will be sealed. Any related documents will also be kept out of the public domain. Public discussion of the arguments is also forbidden under the ruling.

“Bureaucracies feel the information they have belongs to them, when in fact the information belongs to the public.”

“The horrors of Canada are well hidden,” Coralee Smith told the Star. “What’s going on behind closed doors with the Correctional Service of Canada is horrible.”

[ /quote ]

http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/government/article/856262--coroner-limits-probe-of-teen-s-prison-suicide?bn=1

What is the meaning of Freedom? Is that means strong people can bully weak people freely, but weak people have no right to talk about that?

The bureaucracy has a duty to protect any information it collects and release it with the consideration of all parties involved with that information. For a child advocate lawyer to say something like the "...the information belongs to the public." Well that is idiotic and even the most half-baked lawyer is aware of privacy laws.

I presume that the seal is to protect potentially innocent people from accusations and lawsuits from others that are acting on partial or incomplete information. I believe that once the investigation is completed, the information will be released for public scrutiny.

[Moonbox]

What is the meaning of Freedom? Is that means strong people can bully weak people freely, but weak people have no right to talk about that?

In Red China, General Secretary tell people what to think and speak.

[bjre]

In Red China, General Secretary tell people what to think and speak.

I can not expect you give any better opinion. Who can expect a frog in a well give a big picture of the sky.

[bjre]

The bureaucracy has a duty to protect any information it collects and release it with the consideration of all parties involved with that information. For a child advocate lawyer to say something like the "...the information belongs to the public." Well that is idiotic and even the most half-baked lawyer is aware of privacy laws.

I presume that the seal is to protect potentially innocent people from accusations and lawsuits from others that are acting on partial or incomplete information. I believe that once the investigation is completed, the information will be released for public scrutiny.

The bureaucracy use the privacy laws to hide horrible things so that they help interest groups, who are as the sponsors for the elections, to rob more money from tax payers. They make most investigation a impossible task by take advantage of the laws.

[William Ashley]

I've seen the corrections system from the inside, and I've seen "the other side" of policing.

Two things though.

1. Government administration documents ought to be their own if they would interfere in the privacy of other individuals OR

in the identity of individuals.

Eg. what if someone mentioned in a corrections report with privy information about a case that was sealed or a later pardon was granted or the case was overturned, or the person exhonerated. What if there is a publication ban regarding something in a given

file. What if it pertains to the safety of a facility.

2. I think there should be total public transparancy of what the government is implementing, what they are doing and detailing it when it is time expedient (statute of limitations on classification of government files)

There are only two ways - 1. You declassify everything 2. You protect your system.

1. Is clearly the answer that would satisfy the public in terms of access to information

2. Is based on people who feel that others might take advantage of information.

Is national security really self pervasive - or does it require safegaurds.

The justice system is horrendous that is why I advocate changes that will remove most of the problems with the justice system that I experienced firsthand by seeing it in action.

Documents that are "secret" shouldn't even exist in the public mind.

Atleast they arn't lying to you.

This is a reason why HUMANINT and critical reasonining is so important.

Knowing the system is rotten ain't gonna change it, changing the system is going to change it.

As far as the twisted public mind goes - a lot of people arn't humanitarians they are twisted, to them a rotten system is sufficient. Take a look at the legislation that exists - the legislation just isn't comprehensible except in a soceity who like to deprive people of their assets and freedom for at times mistakes, this is very old. While restitution is good things like speeding tickets and fines don't make much sense when no harm was done. If I could understand the rationality of putting someone in jail for a week for shoplifting it would make sense - it might make more sense to have them do something meaningful rather than socialize with other legal miscreants unless you are promoting criminal soceity..

Some people in Jail didn't do anything worth being in jail - take for instance someone who overstays a visa (at $200/day to the tax payer) - why the heck is someone who overstays a visa kept in the country for an extra month for processing? How does feeding someone their wrong diet and KNOWING IT, fit within waiting for a trial to occur due to not having funds for a surety? Why are people who arn't even found guilty yet mistreated on the same grounds.

Why even require a petty 500$ non deposited bail for someone? It is absurd -when the person faces up to an additional 2 years in jail as a result of any breach, is 500$ really going to make it less enticing vs. the 2 years in jail already on the table?

People don't see the whole picture, only a piece of the puzzle. And not everyone has critical reasoning capacity wired into their thought process.

Records and reports arn't always accurate either. Misinformation and false information isn't unknown.

People and groups of people with common interest arn't above lying to save their buts.

Just who is the audience.

There is a lot of potential for abuse under the current system. Abuse that would be criminal and tort - the system has the ignorance of those things built right into it, if not giving legal immunity giving a veil of silence to effect it. The justice system has that built into it as part of their self corruption. Politicians do nothing to prevent this by implementing legislation and safegaurds against it to adequettely address those issues. Its the hidden law of human rights abuse sanctioned by turning a blind eye. Ignoring the rights of all classes of people due to twisted notions of justice - justice that while corrupt allows pervesion even against the innocent. Also criminal influences in the justice system are also not unknown. The system is corrupt from top to bottom. Yet that is what the people want - people who won't fret from torturing someone to see if they know something. It is just an expression of the perversion of the social mind. People vote for these people anyway.

So what would it matter? If you knew what they did? How would that change the situation? Did torture reports by George Bush stating the CIA tortured people and had secret location - did admitting to commiting war crimes have any difference - the list of "wrongs" on the moral sense go.. but really what effect has this had with 30% of people supporting Steven Harper and 30% of people poled so said supporting someone who wants to continue the war past 2011. But hold on... the war isn't a problem, but someone who is being held in jail suddently is?

People have their lines that can be crossed but I have the sense the public doesn't respond - as these events are just unfortunate isolated incidences. THEY ARN'T. Laws getting broken inside prisons every day of the year is not unbelievable. People get killed in the war - but what are the options? What rights are canadians suppose to have with a NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE in existence.

The protections on that basis turns parliament into the police state. That is it right there though... why is it that Canadians can't set limits on abuse of power, or set expectations on treatment of persons -- currently Canada doesn't even meet international human rights standards (not saying the other nations do either). And are Canadians outraged.. no, most people I've encountered are fighting wars in their minds not trying to create a society by rule of law, they are doing it by rule of force.

That is just the bottom line. What do you expect.

these arn't soilders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics

Edited September 3, 2010 by William Ashley

[Shwa]

The bureaucracy use the privacy laws to hide horrible things so that they help interest groups, who are as the sponsors for the elections, to rob more money from tax payers. They make most investigation a impossible task by take advantage of the laws.

No they don't. The privacy acts are there to protect the personal information collected by the government including taxation information, employment insurance or immigration information and any information collected through the course of an investigation. Period. There are limits on which information is exempted from disclosure and disputes of those limits are governed by several levels of public advocacy, including the ability to take the government to court.

[William Ashley]

No they don't. The privacy acts are there to protect the personal information collected by the government including taxation information, employment insurance or immigration information and any information collected through the course of an investigation. Period. There are limits on which information is exempted from disclosure and disputes of those limits are governed by several levels of public advocacy, including the ability to take the government to court.

No need to take the government to court if you compose the majority of parliament unless the government opts to be in contempt of parliament (effectively exercising dictorial power - something that is highly undemocratic)

Something the conservatives have done a number of times...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament

The power to find a person in contempt of Parliament stemmed from Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 in which "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed... shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof." [1]

Rarely has Parliament invoked its power to find a person in contempt. The most recent example involved RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George who was cited for contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee over the Income Trust Scandal.[2] She was ultimately found in contempt but was not punished further than the motion itself.[3]

See also Parliamentary censure in Canada

Basically they could kick the conservatives out of parliament -- they would still be government until removed though. (Any of the conservatives obstructing that is)

I'm geussing the PM would call up the GG and ask for elections if he was removed from the commons.

Understand cabinet, council and the PM need not be MP's nor sitting in the house but usually are.

The PC and cabinet subcompontent of the Privycouncil are seperate organizations from parliament (parliament is sort of a subcomponent of the PrivyCouncil the GG is sorta the Canadian head of the PrivyCouncil - but stuff rarely gets to that point as it is the innerworkings of the state you eventually run out of onion layers to peel.) It depends whether you are a royalist or parliamentarian (tory or whig perhaps)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_(British_political_party) - parliament ought to have final say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Tory_Party -- monarch ought to have final say

I'm clearly a tory but I woulnd't identify myself as a Canadian Conservative given the current CPC.. nor as a historical grit as I favour a stronger better managed and more enlightened monarchy, rather than a republic or independence. I am somewhat of a loyalist (oddly I even have UEL and orange order in my family past. None the less ... most Canadians are grits or gritted tories akin to reformers less so than the old tory cadre.

Clearly though I diverge from my family past in that I'm a very libertarian person socially. (this is where it flips in that I also beleive in equality. thus the dilema of a monarchy as a notion of equals - although peerage ain't exactly recognized as a totality for the population of Canada -due to the other parts of the constitution aside from the charter granting equality rights. "equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions" or more sane perhaps EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW - this would raise the qeustion of the crown itself as being seperate from the monarch and that everyone would have equal protection and benefit of the crown. )

none the less I have no idea how Canadians actually identify themselves due to the mishmass of canadian political identity. maybe I just don't see the picture myself yet on what the parties stand for beyond a few prominent issues that even the parties don't completely fit in on. It sorta goes like this

Conservatives - global business liberals - government and business empowerment NDP - pro labour

bloc pro - quebec green - pro green???

anyone that can add to this feel open to pm me to give me a better idea.

Edited September 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

I can not expect you give any better opinion. Who can expect a frog in a well give a big picture of the sky.

But any frog can say whatever they want on forums like this. Including you.

[Shwa]

No need to take the government to court if you ... anyone that can add to this feel open to pm me to give me a better idea.

You got all that from a response to someone who doesn't have a clue about Canadian privacy legislation? Whoa.

[bjre]

You got all that from a response to someone who doesn't have a clue about Canadian privacy legislation? Whoa.

Canadian privacy legislation? It is always when victim want to discuss, the organization who take tax dollars always want privacy to hide their ugliness.

[Shwa]

Canadian privacy legislation? It is always when victim want to discuss, the organization who take tax dollars always want privacy to hide their ugliness.

Like I said, "no clue." Which you just proved. Thank you.

[William Ashley]

You got all that from a response to someone who doesn't have a clue about Canadian privacy legislation? Whoa.

The last line was in reference to the political parties hard stances or doctrine policy objectives - I have no idea what they are beyond what I stated near the end. I understand legilsation quite easily - as much as it is demonstrated in often poorly structured and vauge acts and rulings. Sadly the lay and clarity have still been lacking after hundreds of years in availability of the law to the people. Another thing I think needs to change in the administration. Customs is no more upheld, redress is barred, and the common law burried. It was there at one point it is unfortunate that classism is still being enforced even after the barrieres of class were socially removed in equality. Unfortunately judges still exercise based on unconstitutional law and errored judgements - so says me.

look at this, and this is just the upper point of this mess.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/StatutesByTitle/W.html

You'd think a better catagorizatoin method would have been developed rather than alphabetical. Such as relating to the areas of government they pertain and type of law.

Maybe if they wern't only working three months of the year and reading the same bills for 4 of the last 5 years something might get done that actually does a public service instead of moves pieces around.

Edited September 6, 2010 by William Ashley

[ToadBrother]

The bureaucracy use the privacy laws to hide horrible things so that they help interest groups, who are as the sponsors for the elections, to rob more money from tax payers. They make most investigation a impossible task by take advantage of the laws.

Why are you still here? Why aren't you back in that paradise, China?

At any rate, yes, these laws will be abused, but I doubt to the extent that you suggest they are.

[ToadBrother]

Canadian privacy legislation? It is always when victim want to discuss, the organization who take tax dollars always want privacy to hide their ugliness.

Privacy laws, by and large, prevent an organization from saying anything. Not to worry, if it's bad, you go to court, and a judge can lift that veil with little more than a wave of a pen.

[Sir Bandelot]

I can not expect you give any better opinion. Who can expect a frog in a well give a big picture of the sky.