If only this were some sort of April fools joke. No doubt Harper et al consider this yet another reason to keep pushing unbridled dictatorship on us (did you know Lawful Access was back on the agenda again?) Now that I think of it, why isn’t the federal government designated a terrorist organization under these terms?

Along with terrorism and organized crime, “embarrassment to the Canadian government” was considered one of the threats facing security forces at the G8 and G20 summit meetings in Ontario 2010, according to newly released military records.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/10/embarrassment-to-the-canadian-government-considered-security-threat-at-toronto-g20-summit-documents

To be exact, he wants to bring back the death penalty.

The problem with this, aside from the fact that it is murder, is that it’s been shown time and again not to work as a deterrent.

Another problem is that this is being proposed by a man who has publicly stated that he doesn’t respect the law if it doesn’t meet with his own agenda. This is also the man who thought that a curfew for teens would somehow prevent them from going out and gunning down people.

A few of the other fantastic ideas emanating from that greasy melon Mammoliti calls his head include:

• Raging against licensing rub-n-tugs in the city while enthusiastically backing prostitution and hailing the benefits of gambling for single moms (not to mention Celine Dion coming to town!)
• Creating an open discussion page on Facebook in order to figure out how to ban Communists from any involvement at City Hall.
• Skulking around the annual Pride parade with a video camera, on behalf of Toronto’s Jews, in order to record the presence of the contentious Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group (deemed “hateful” because they criticize Israeli state policies).
• Pushing for increased police powers to arrest panhandlers and have them forcibly committed to hospitals and other institutions while simultaneously encouraging those same panhandlers to camp out in front of Queen’s Park to encourage more money to deal with the problem from the province. Or maybe this was his attempt to garner more provincial powers for the city?
• Pushing for bylaw officers to be equipped with guns in order to fight graffiti (on-the-spot capital punishment?).
• Removing basketball hoops from a neighbourhood because they attract crime and drug dealers.

You may remember Ford’s spat with the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale a little while ago. It started with Dale poking around behind the Mayor’s house, investigating the veracity of an application to extend his Rotundness’ property  in order to add another fence.

Another fence, on top of an already solid six-footer because, to quote the big man directly:

“Our primary concern is the safety of Douglas and Stephanie, our two young children, having a secure area to play. The addition of this parcel of land to our property would allow us to install a better security fence that will help to enhance the safety of our children.”

…

“We have a number of safety concerns, as we have encountered youth encroaching on our property late at night on a number of occasions.”

The entire thing, in other words, is based on Rob’s concern for his children’s safety. All those pesky teens are making him jittery.

And now, in light of this past weekend’s shooting at the Eaton Centre by a man not too long out of his teens (in which a young teen was killed), here’s what Fordo had to say:

“Let’s just continue living our lives like we do every day — go out and have fun and take it from there,” Ford said at police headquarters. “It’s been a terrible couple of days but this is definitely, like I said before, the safest city in the world.”

So apparently when it comes to Ford’s part of town, those no-good teens giving him the stink-eye pose a clear and present danger, so much so that he applied to put up double fences on public land, but when it comes to a public murder in a busy downtown shopping centre, it’s suddenly the safest city in the world.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of self-serving hypocrisy. It’s yet another example of Rob Ford looking out for Rob Ford, lying and deceiving Torontonians the whole way.

The elimination of the Land Transfer Tax is actually a Ford election promise, unlike his push for subways, so that part of his ongoing bluster on the subject is true. The rest, however, including his recent assurance to have it eliminated by the end of his term, has been just one long pile of growing bullkaka.

For starters, shortly before he was elected he made a speech to the Toronto Real Estate Board promising that the LTT would be completely gone by the end of 2012 … “guaranteed!”

Ford blamed the Ontario government’s impending election for delaying the changes beyond his first year.

A little over that first year later, speaking in front of the same group, he vowed to have the LTT reduced by up to 25% by the end of 2012.

“I can’t say we’re gonna wipe it out this year, but it might be a quarter this year, a half next year, or — you know, but we’re gonna do it piece by piece. You’re gonna see a portion of the land transfer tax, I don’t know how much right now, be gone by the end of next year,” Ford said.

Granted we’re not exactly at the end of 2012 yet but Ford is already backing down on even this revised plan (once again revealed in front of the same Toronto Real Estate Board meeting), saying that he’d like to have the process of repealing the tax started by the end of his term in 2014. And in typical Ford fashion, he wants people to “get in councillor’s faces” in order to get his way.

“Folks, you must get in the councillors’ faces,” Mr. Ford said. “As we succeed in reducing costs, we can begin to phase out that terrible land transfer tax, which I never supported and I am adamant to get rid of. I’d like to start doing that before this council term is up.”

To reiterate:

2010 – Rob Ford “guarantees” to have the LTT eliminated by 2012, maybe 2011. Blames MPs, elections for possible delays.
2011 –  Rob Ford cuts back on his “guarantee”, now claiming to have the LTT reduced by about 25% in 2012.
2012 – Rob Ford completely reneges on his “guarantee”, vowing to hopefully set something in motion on the LTT by the end of 2014 (much like many of his other plans). He invites constituents to get in councillors’ faces, presumably because he blames them for his inability to gain traction on the issue.

This, according to Ford-backing tabloid Toronto Sun, is considered “tackling” the LTT. Hmm…why is it still walking then?

The group is called Re:Sound, and here’s just a smattering of the bullshit they’re peddling (from their website):

You may not be aware that you need a licence to use music in your business, but it is your responsibility to get the right licence(s) if you are playing music in public. Licences are also required by public and commercial broadcasters.

Not entirely true. There is at least one exceptions in the Copyright Act where you can “use music” in your business without being harassed by yet another copyright goon squad:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-48.html#docCont

In respect of public performances by means of any radio receiving set in any place other than a theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainments to which an admission charge is made, no royalties shall be collectable from the owner or user of the radio receiving set, but the Board shall, in so far as possible, provide for the collection in advance from radio broadcasting stations of royalties appropriate to the conditions produced by the provisions of this subsection and shall fix the amount of the same.

In other words, if you are playing music through a radio or over a web station, the station is already paying tariffs so you don’t have to. But what does that matter? They can claim that you owe them cash even if you’re just playing music over a boombox while having a picnic in the park with friends:

G. PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS

Application

1. (1) This tariff sets the royalties to be paid for the performance in public or the communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances of such works in the repertoire of Re:Sound in parks, streets and other public areas.

Interestingly, there are a series of stipulations in Canadian copyright law called “fair dealing” which exempts people from being harassed. Funny how Re:Sound makes no mention of these:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that “these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights.” In particular, the Court gave a “a large and liberal interpretation” to the notion of research, stating that “lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research”.
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a “non-copyrighted equivalent of the work” available to the user? Was the dealing “reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose”?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work “in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work – one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? “Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”

When I mention “yet another” copyright good squad, that’s because this new body is looking to charge people for the same thing that an already existing group, SOCAN, is doing:

Re:Sound and SOCAN are distinct organisations that represent different groups and as such, both are required to be compensated.

But while it’s claimed that these are two “distinct organizations”, the law gives them right to squeal on you to each other:

(2) Re:Sound may share information referred to in subsection (1)

1. (a) in connection with the collection of royalties or the enforcement of a tariff, with SOCAN;

Just like that, the Intellectual Property mafia come along and double your monthly “protection” fees.

And just like any other organization in who’s debt you are simply for existing, they’re ready to charge you interest until you cough up the dough:

Interest on Late Payments

7. Any amount not received by the due date shall bear interest from that date until the date the amount is received. Interest shall be calculated daily, at a rate equal to one per cent above the Bank Rate effective on the last day of the previous month (as published by the Bank of Canada). Interest shall not compound.

Particularly troubling is the section of the Copyright Act that says that bodies like Re:Sound are required to compensate artists if they happen to be collecting tariffs for their works, even if they don’t represent them and have no claim to the copyright:

Claims by non-members

• 76. (1) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in paragraph 31(2)(d) is, if the work is communicated to the public by telecommunication during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Royalties that may be recovered

  (2) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in subsection 29.6(2) or 29.7(2) or (3) is, if such royalties are payable during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work or other subject-matter is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Exclusion of remedies

  (3) The entitlement referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is the only remedy of the owner of the copyright for the payment of royalties for the communication, making of the copy or sound recording or performance in public, as the case may be.

In other words, if these organizations are collecting tariffs on your music, you can demand to be paid for that “service”. However, that’s all you can do. So, the organization can collect money on music that they have absolutely no rights to, and you, as owner of the music, have no other remedies. Read that section again if you don’t believe me.

It’s a messed up way of claiming the right to collect money on your music without claiming direct ownership over it — though the difference is the same if the law claims you can’t restrict someone from collecting money on your own works.

To put it another way, the very “crimes” that these organizations are supposed to be preventing are what they are basically being welcomed to engage in — by law. And if it so happens that you don’t know your music is being milked by Re:Sound for the benefit of their “partners”, too bad. And even if you do, too bad. They get to charge money for all music everywhere, and you’d better like it. You might get paid … eventually.

Of course, if it turns out you underpaid the copyright mafia, they reserve the right to get all up in your business and force you to cough up and pay at any time for a period of up to 6 years back; and, of course, if they ripped you off, there exists no provision to protect you in the same way:

Records and Audits

4. (1) A person subject to this tariff shall keep and preserve, for a period of six years after the end of the year to which they relate, records from which that person’s payment under this tariff can be readily ascertained.

(2) Re:Sound may audit these records at any time during the period set out in subsection (1), on reasonable notice and during normal business hours.

(3) Re:Sound shall, upon receipt, supply a copy of the report of the audit to the person who was the subject of the audit.

(4) If an audit discloses that the royalties owed to Re:Sound during any reporting period have been understated by more than ten per cent, the subject of the audit shall pay the amount of the understatement and the reasonable costs of the audit within 30 days of the demand for such payment.

Do you suppose you get to charge Re:Sound interest if it turns out they’ve been charging people for playing your music for years without your permission?

And if you don’t think that the copyright goon squad will play nice and fair, there are plenty of recent examples demonstrating that they have absolutely no intention of doing that.

Originally posted at: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3527

There are still people out there who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Stephen Harper and his greasy conservative cronies like Rob Ford are good for the economy — that they solve the economic messes left behind by their predecessors and, through tough budget cuts and austerity, will reverse the course of those freewheeling pinkos that left the holes under which we struggle.

Except it’s not true.

It’s not even close to true.

In fact, it’s the exact opposite of the truth — Harper and Ford directly caused the budgetary deficits they calculate today, either through deception or through massive amounts of irresponsible spending. Everything they accuse their opponents of doing is precisely what they themselves are doing. And they’re two-faced, deceptive assholes about it to boot.

In the case of Ford, his term started with a hefty $350 million surplus left over by David Miller. Oh, you didn’t know? Well, you wouldn’t if you bought into Ford’s lies and didn’t bother to read any news at the time. A year after taking office, Ford was running a $774 million deficit and blaming it on his predecessor. Ford’s administration has managed to cut the losses he created to yet another surplus totaling $90 million, and it’s expected to be about the same as that left by Miller when he left by the end of this year.

In other words, Ford’s “deficit” was a complete and utter lie he used to justify his ravenous cuts to city infrastructure and his attacks on unions and public services.

With the case of Harper, the situation is a bit worse. In the Prime Minister’s case, what started as a $12 billion surplus left over by a stingy Paul Martin has now been deflated to a $33.4 billion deficit last year. At present, that deficit is running at $23.5 billion and is expected to grow before year’s end. But just like Ford, Harper is using the crisis he created to cut jobs, services, and any semblance of what makes Canada great.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: both Ford and Harper directly, willfully, and purposefully created economic crises in order to push through their destructive agendas on the Canadian population; everything from social programs to old age benefits to employment.

These so-called “leaders” are straight up criminal scammers who won’t rest until they’ve subjugated the populace to the whims of their corporate masters (no doubt they, like banker crony Tony Blair, will benefit from their collusion).

The mega-banks that, through fractional reserve banking, create money out of thin air (this is no exaggeration), to lend out to governments who play ball, which in turn tax citizens and subject them to austerity in order to pay back these made up loans. Did you know that that same money could’ve been borrowed from the Bank of Canada at 0% interest? Seems sensible, then, to borrow that cash from banks at a much higher rate of interest while giving them the legal authority to lend out money they don’t even have (how else do you lend out $1000 when you only have $50?).

Doesn’t it?

Yet this is precisely the program that both Harper and Ford subscribe to, at one level or another.

See, if you and I started lending out money we didn’t have and then expected to be paid back — with interest — we would be jailed for fraud. When the Prime Minister and his buddies do it, it’s represented by their scumbag compatriots as just the best thing for Canada since sliced bread. Oh, and by the way, the taxpayer will be responsible for all debts by the Canadian government. And if you don’t like you debt bondage, it’s off to jail for you!

What a sick sick joke.

In a par for the course example of Conservative scumbaggery, Ted Opitz, MP for Etobicoke Centre (incidentally where staunch conservative Rob Ford lives), is trying to force the results of the last federal election to go his way by taking it to the Supreme Court (following George Bush’s example, no doubt).

When it turned out that the election was extremely close in that riding (26 votes, to be precise), Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj went to the Ontario Superior Court which ended up throwing out 79 votes because of “clerical errors” by Elections Canada staff.

When this type of thing happened in the past, by-elections were called because none of the rulings were subsequently appealed. In this case, however, Opitz has been dragging the process out for over a year and, despite the ruling by the Superior Court, he continues to sit and vote in the House of Commons.

Seems pretty simple; if Opitz is so damn sure he won, it shouldn’t be a problem to put that certainty to the test with a by-election. Instead, he wants judges to simply appoint him to office and, despite current legal rulings, continues to exercise his illegitimate power over the people of Canada.

That’s the Conservatives for ya!

I should go on record as saying that politics on campus isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s not a bad thing to expose students to politics, and it isn’t a bad thing to get them involved.

What is bad, however, is when the exposure is done in a duplicitous way such that the students are bamboozled into thinking they’re putting their support behind something they’re not, or worse, if they’re lied to outright.

And using leaked documents from WikiLeaks.org, The Ryerson Free Press recently demonstrated that this is precisely what Conservatives have been busy doing at universities across Ontario (and probably elsewhere), sometimes even misdirecting funds or working with federal funding to try to crush student groups they don’t like.

The leaked materials were posted on WikiLeaks.org over the weekend and add to the growing body of evidence that the Conservative Party has a strategy for interfering in campus student unions. In early 2002, the campus press first learned of a secret Millennium Leadership Fund that the party’s campus wing used to fund candidates in student union elections. Now it appears that strategy has evolved into a campaign to falsely obtain student union funding and destabilize student clubs with a social justice mandate.

Among those present at the workshop were Member of Parliament for Kitchener-Waterloo, Peter Braid and his campaign manager, Aaron Lee-Wudrick. Lee-Wudrick is heard on the recordings providing advice on how to siphon money from students’ unions through “front organizations” that would work to further the goals of the Conservative Party.

…

OPIRGs are campus organizations that are usually funded through a dedicated student levy to coordinate campus campaigns on human rights and social justice.

…

While Lee-Wudrick and O’Connor’s plan to cancel WPIRG’s (Waterloo OPIRG), funding failed in 2002, they boasted that it paved the way for another attempt in 2005, and expressed hope of success in the future.

They also identified student unions, campus radio stations and the Canadian Federation of Students as potential targets of a campaign to eliminate each organization’s funding. “Part of the objective here is to bring people into the Party. That’s a good thing,” said O’Connor. “Young liberals will help you out…and they’re some of the strongest allies on student issues,” he added.

During the workshop, student Conservatives were also coached on how to set up “shell groups” as a way to advance a partisan agenda on campus.

“Yeah we had a front group like that: the Campus Coalition for Liberty. It was really just a front for the Conservatives, but it gave us like two voices.” said Lee-Wudrick.

He added: “Don’t think that the Party doesn’t like that, because they do. They’re things that will help the Party, but it looks like it’s an organically-grown organization and it just stimulated from the grassroots spontaneously. They love that stuff… Remember all of the Rallies for Democracy … that’s just an example of how big those things can get.”

…

In 2002, a secret Millennium Leadership Fund of the youth wing of the Progressive Conservative Party was exposed by the Western Gazette in an article called “Tories plot to infiltrate student government.”

The article referred to an email leaked in March of 2002 in which then OPCCA President Adam Daifallah boasted to fellow party members about Millennium Leadership Fund recipients who were successfully elected that year at Queen’s University, the University of Waterloo and the University of Windsor. According to the Gazette, the Millennium Fund was largely paid for by senior Progressive Conservative members and supporters.

As I watched Diane Finlay’s (Human Resources Minister), announcement on EI reforms being pushed by the Harper regime, it became increasingly obvious that what they’re doing is pushing the corporate yoke on Canadians even further, and at the same pushing them into abject poverty and servitude.

It’s no exaggeration to say that with every announcement, every proposal, they demonstrate their complete subjugation to mega corporations and banks, and almost exclusively at the expense of you and me, the regular citizen.

The details revealed yesterday pretty much match the announcement made today, and it’s pretty terrifying what they’re putting into place. One of the major pieces of this is that Canadians will now be forced to take work that fits their skill set (paraphrased), and is within 70% to 80% of their average income.

So let’s say you were working an office job, or are in seasonal work, and find yourself laid off. You’ve been paying into the system (more money than you’ll ever be able to collect — heaven forbid YOU should benefit from your own labour!), and now need some assistance. The government will now require you to take a lower-paying job if it fits your skills (you can flip burgers, can’t you?), and is within 1 hour of your home (extra commuting doesn’t cost you any more, does it?).

Now you’ve got your lower-earning job, potentially farther away, and it doesn’t matter if you were living on the borderline of debt. So if you can’t make your monthly payments on your credit card or loan or whatever, you’re kinda fucked. Government says, “too bad”, it’s what you deserve for being laid off (if it’s in your control you get no benefits at all).

But it gets worse because your average income is now lower. While you may have been earning $60,000 last year, because of these changes you’re now earning $45,000 a year so your average income is now $52,500. Now if you’re laid off again (and I’m sure we’ll be seeing a dramatic increase in this — the government will see to it), you have to take a job that pays around $39,400.

Repeat this for a number of years and pretty soon the government will expect everyone to work for minimum wage. Typically it’ll take about 9 to 10 years to halve someone’s salary, especially if they’re dependent on seasonal work in provinces that have few other alternatives. And even in provinces that do, this is a great incentive to drop salaries — eventually, the government will force people to work for a pittance so why not?

Using that $60,000 per year example, that would take about 30 years. Here’s the math (note that each year we take the average pay):

Year 1 – $60,000 x 75% = $45,000
Year 2 – ($45,000 + $60,000) / 2 x 75% =  $52,500
Year 3 – ($45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 3  x 75% = $39,362
Year 4 – ($39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 4  x 75% = $37,052
Year 5 – ($37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 5  x 75% = $35,199
Year 6 – ($35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 6  x 75% = $33,732
Year 7 – ($33,732 + $35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 7  x 75% = $32,527
…

Year 30 – $22,836

So after 30 years of service to the corporate economy, you can expect to be getting close to minimum wage (if unchanged from today).

This assumes, of course, that the average income is calculated since the beginning of this system. If the term is limited, say 5 years, the income shrinks more quickly. And what about those “penalties for repeat users”? That hasn’t been fleshed out but you can bet it’ll make the slippery slope down to serfdom even faster.

In any event, no part of this will benefit workers or their families unless they happen to luck out with generous companies (how realistic is that?).

In the meantime, we can likely expect the Harper government to bend over backwards for banks (who are already robbing us blind), and huge corporations who will undoubtedly benefit greatly from slave labour.

Just a short blurb from my other blog; straight from Ontario’s green fields to your dinner table!

Doesn’t matter that most experts believe that pesticides are not the ideal solution. Doesn’t matter that most weed varieties are not “Roundup” (a Monsanto pesticide) glyphosate-resistant – a chemical which, according to Health Canada “is acutely toxic to rats via the oral or dermal route at doses as low as 3800 mg/kg”. Doesn’t matter that researchers are already discovering 2,4-D resistant weeds growing in fields. Doesn’t matter that 2,4-D doubles the chance developing leukemia, and is linked to sterility, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and other health effects according to the Ontario College of Physicians. Doesn’t matter that Health Canada banned the product for “aquatic” use. Doesn’t matter that prior to 1995 it was banned outright but under pressure from the US and OECD, and relying heavily on studies from the chemical’s manufacturers, and even making a reference to the very same College of Physicians report mentioned above, it’s now a-okay!

Read the rest here: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=2986

…then please spread. You don’t have to link back to me, just let people know what Dow, Monsanto, and other chemical companies are trying to do to our food!