[Section 15] Farewell Jason

Jason Cherniak is retiring from political blogging in order to pursue progress in the backroom.

Though some celebrate his departure, I do not.

Jason has contributed a lot to the Canadian blogosphere, and though I did not always agree with him, I nevertheless have welcomed the diversity he has added to our corner of the Internet.

His last blog post is one that I can agree with. Now is not the time to find the Liberals another leader. Maybe Dion is not the man for our times politically, but I sense that he can grow into his role as opposition leader and build a successful team which will move the Liberal Party forward. The goal of the Libs should now be to progress in Ontario and Quebec, and keep Harper and the CONs constrained to constant minority status, at best. Trust me: The CONs will not maintain party unity unless they can achieve a majority in then ext few years.

Jason still backs Dion, and he wishes to be part of that force of change. From my own experiences working in the dark rooms of another political party, I can say that one dedicated volunteer toiling in obscurity can make more of a difference than even the most outspoken blogger.

Best of luck, Jason.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/15/2008 11:04:00 AM

[Section 15] Secret Whitehouse memos endorsed torture

CIA Tactics Endorsed In Secret Memos: Waterboarding Got White House Nod

The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public.

But it's okay because Jack Bauer agrees with it.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/15/2008 10:58:00 AM

[Section 15] Some surprising results

Gerard Kennedy won in Parkdale-High Park! I really thought that he was going to lose to incumbent NDPer Peggy Nash. I really didn't expect Kennedy to win. Congrats!

Garth Turner lost to a Conservative parachute candidate -- and campaign -- packing hefty amounts of central party cash. I'm sad to see him go. They really poured it on. I hope he tries again next election.

I was expecting more NDP breakthrough in Toronto, but instead they've constricted to just two ridings. That being said, nationally, the NDP have done well.

As for my my former green party, not so good. No seats, a modest gain in support, but little to show for a good debate performance. The theory that being included in the debate would really help the Greens seems to not be true.

I really think that the Greens have emerged as one of the spoilers in this election, serving to fragment the vote without gaining traction for worthy green causes.

Most of all, I save my criticism for the Liberals. It's not really Dion's fault -- not yet, anyway. He stood up to an incredible barrage of negative, vitriolic advertising. For a while there, it seemed as if Harper was the opposition, not the government. The Liberals have to define themselves better. Mostly shut out west of Ontario, they are no longer a truly national party, and seem to have no central message, no strong myths to draw upon. Changing leaders likely will accomplish nothing.

Still, last I checked, the Liberals made gains in Quebec. People should notice that.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/15/2008 12:06:00 AM

[Section 15] HaRPER PREPARES $225 BILLION BANK BAILOUT

According to the Calgary Herald, Harper is prepared to purchase up to $225 billion more of our banks' investments.

The bailout would consist of buying more mortgages, essentially making Ottawa a significant public owner of the commercial mortgage market in Canada.

Somehow I don't think this was originally part of Harper's alleged plan to rescue Canada -- not that he ever actually had one. As the article points out, this represents an abandonment of Harper's free market principles.

In truth, there's little else to do as the rest of the world is doing the same. The question is, how much is really necessary?

This isn't a free lunch. To do this, the federal government has to head off to the bond market and raise the cash. Obviously, this costs money in interest payments. We then hope that the mortgages purchased will provide us sufficient return to at least break even over time.

It is most unfortunate that these Conservatives don't understand that spending a liver of such grand amounts on child care and the environment also represents important return-yeilding investments.

*Sigh*

Oh yeah, VOTE! I did.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/14/2008 06:40:00 PM

[Section 15] The Globe and Mail Endorses... Harper!

What a sad, sad piece of reasoning. Read it for yourself here.

While acknowledging some of Harper's failings, the Globe thinks he can still grow into the job. Yes, he's a lone wolf. Yes, he's the one responsible for parliament not working. Yes, his climate change plan is completely inadequate. Yes, he distrusts the federal government as an force of domestic policy. Yes, most Canadians do not trust him. Yes, he is prone to savage attacks upon his opponents.

But he's the best man for the job?

Gee, and here I thought we're voting for a party to form government, not just a leader. How about a rundown, Globe editors, of the proven talent available in the Conservative Party? People like Flaherty, Baird... Oh, right.

The Globe criticizes Dion's Green Shift, and then is critical of the Liberals for not growing into the 21st Century. Editors, make up your mind.

I think the Globe is the institution failing to move into this century.

I wonder what they are going to say when they finally notice the deficit Flaherty and Harper have built this past year? it's at $20 billion, and counting...

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/09/2008 08:26:00 PM

[Section 15] Afghanistan in a "downard spiral" report to say

A US report slated to come out next month is supposedly to say that Afghanistan is in a "downward spiral" with the tide turning towards the Taliban.

Assembled from American intelligence agencies, the report claims that the Karzai government is drowning in corruption and is ineffective.

The heroin trade, which accounts for an estimated 50 per cent of that country's economy, makes political and economic recovery impossible.

Just a few days ago, the departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, went on record saying that a military victory over the Taleban was "neither feasible nor supportable."

Meanwhile, Canada is looking to be $18 billion in the hole for its Afghanistan venture, an amount wildly beyond what we had been lead to believe. Harper has claimed costs to be set at $8 billion.

H/T to Rolling Back the Tide of Extremism, One Post at a Time

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/09/2008 02:30:00 PM

[Section 15] ...A significant lack of fiscal transparency...

From the government which promised us transparency and accountability, and instead gave us stealth, smoke, mirrors and obfuscation, we learn that not only is the Afghanistan war effort way over budget, we really can't tell by how much.

A lack of federal government "fiscal transparency" has masked the true cost of Canada's Afghanistan mission, but it could cost taxpayers at least $18.1 billion by 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed Thursday.

Although the report cites a range of $13.9- to $18.1-billion to 2011, several relevant departments - including Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency, the military's two main partners in Afghanistan - refused to give Page's office additional figures.

Officials said the true cost would be significantly higher but they couldn't say by how much.

"Although there are costs incurred due to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, it is important to note there are no Afghanistan mission-specific appropriations by Parliament for the various departments," the report stated.

"That makes is impossible to isolate the total amounts of money appropriated by Parliament, specifically for the Afghanistan mission."

"There is a significant lack of fiscal transparency due to the current system of financial reporting," the report stated.

The auditors in Page's department relied primarily on the publicly available spending estimates that are tabled in Parliament each year, as well as consulting with international allies such as the United States and Britain to help them crunch the future costs of paying soldiers and diplomats, depreciating the cost of their equipment and future health care.

The Defence Department tried to co-operate, but their numbers didn't add up.

"We have two sets of figures for DND's actual incremental spending," the report stated, citing the $2.72 billion it reported to Parliament up to end of 2009 compared with the $4.61 billion that its internal books revealed to Page's office.

The report said part of the discrepancy could be, in part, due to the lag time departments have in reporting to Parliament, which can range up to 18 months.

In addition to Foreign Affairs and CIDA, the Correctional Service of Canada and Veterans Affairs all declined to share internal data with Page's office, which was established this past spring to bring a greater degree of oversight to public spending.

CIDA's departmental performance reports "do not provide annual spending in Afghanistan for individual projects," the report stated.

The Canadian government has earmarked $1.9 billion between 2001-2011 for development spending in Afghanistan.

"VAC (Veterans Affairs Canada) does not report basic financial data specific to the Afghanistan mission, although Canada's involvement in the Afghanistan mission is a major project and the death, disability, medical and stress related payments are fiscally material."

This is a far cry from the $8 billion Harper claimed.

What a mess. Perhaps Finance Minister Flaherty can clear this up?

Oh, right. Deficit Jim, who has the country $20 billion in the hole so far this year, and yet denies it, isn't about to tell us anything truthful, is he?

For the record, the quote which is sure to haunt Flaherty after this election is

In responding to the worsening global financial crisis that has slowed economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, "we'll do what we have to do, so long as we remain economically prudent. We're sure not going to run a deficit ... We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt."

Asked if running even a small deficit would be bad in these difficult times, Mr. Flaherty said flatly: "Yes, it would be."

Reported October 8, in the G&M.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/09/2008 12:24:00 PM

[Section 15] Conservative candidate no-show for kids at elementary school

Jilian Saweczko, stealth Conservative candidate for Parkdale-High Park is by no means a contender.

She has no chance to defeat the capable Peggy Nash, the riding's NDP incumbent. That job is up to famed Liberal Gerard Kennedy. [My prediction: Peggy takes it by 2-3 points.]

My kids' school invited the candidates to individually present at a time of their choosing.

The Green candidate showed up.

The NDP candidate showed up.

The Liberal candidate showed up.

But the Conservative candidate did not.

She was "too busy" to show up at a time and date of her own choosing.

Saweczko has failed to show up for other events as well. According to The Star

The Conservative candidate, Jilian Saweczko, was a no-show at an all-candidates debate on CBC's Metro Morning on Sept. 24, and then a coffee-house chat on CTV. She has not responded to numerous interview requests from the Star. On her website, she has said she'll fight to tackle crime, improve the environment and strengthen business.

My daughter remarked that she was disappointed and wouldn't vote for Harper if she could.

Way to go, kid!

See harpocracy.ca for a large listing of Conservative stealth candidates.


---
Note: Sorry I've been away from this space. Life's been throwing me some interesting curve balls of late.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 10/09/2008 10:18:00 AM

CZ Terms of use

I've shared a document with you called "CZ Terms of use":
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgkbk6xx_34fqq55mdt&invite=md2h3g

It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above.
---

That was a lot of work to figure out.

Please vet, comment, circulate, etc... I'm going over the privacy statement this morning. Most important: Did I miss including anything a lawyer may not realize needs to be in because he does not know all aspects of the company?

I think we need to use the exact legal name of Carbonzero, which I believe may be a numbered company.

Obviously, legal should; review.


--Mark

[Section 15] Section 15 on Morgentaler and the Order of Canada

"I guess my preference, to be frank, would be to see the Order of Canada be something that really unifies, that brings Canadians together." -- Stephen Harper, speaking against Morgentaler being named to the Order of Canada.

Some people say that the Order of Canada should not be granted to people who have supported divisive issues.

Given the man's service to Canada, I think it would be divisive to NOT grant him one.

Just a thought.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/08/2008 01:41:00 PM

[Section 15] You no longer have to believe what someone else says you meant

That title describes what the Supreme Court of Canada wisely ruled last week in a landmark libel ruling.

I realize people have waited a week to hear my opinion on this case, given my known outspoken stance on Canada's backwards libel laws. For those people who have waited this long, I apologize. My God, there could be dozens of you!

Had the SCC ruled against the defendant, our libel laws would have become even more restrictive. Instead, the SCC has finally recognized that were are not sheep, that we can discern the difference between fact and opinion, that we may reasonably have different perspectives of what the opinion meant, and that the editorialist is not responsible for them even if they are defamatory, unless he was malicious. The editorialist still must believe in what he wrote, and that what he wrote is based on interpretation of facts, but he does not have to believe any and all innuendos other argue to be there.

I realize this is confusing for many people. When we hear the claim of "Libel!" we tend to think that something horrible has been said. I believe this is due to our proximity to the US, where libel law is quite permissive when involving public figures, and has been since the 1960s. In actuality, you can be successfully sued for libel in Canada for writing what seem to be the most innocuous things. And, given that you are considered guilty until proven innocent, and that damage is assumed to have happened, that's not a good thing.

As I have said many times before (see label Libel Reform), Canada's libel laws are quite backwards. We trail most other Western nations in this regard.

To make my point, consider this following piece of fiction as if it were true. Also, assume that the author has any facts right.

"Jane Doe is a backroom operator in my political party and is known to wield a lot of power and to be behind several controversial decisions. From the membership's perspective, there is little accountability and no transparency. We are now in the post-Adscam age. People are expecting political parties to be more open and accountable. We, as members, need to know more about the influential activities of senior people in the party."

In Canada, could Jane Doe sue for libel and win? Oh, yes. Jane Doe could argue that even though the opinion expressed is based on fact, an innuendo of the piece is that she was involved in criminal or unethical matters similar to Adscam. As that is untrue, and is clearly defamatory, it's libellous. Pay up!

Now, a judge could also rule that the speech is protected as fair comment. But the point here is that a judge could also rule for the plaintiff. Either way, the legal bill would be large, and, in Canada, even when you win and are awarded costs, you still end up paying for half your bill as costs awards do not cover all of your expenses.

And yet, is not the opinion, based on fact, reasonable? Do you not see that it is opinion? Are you not free to disagree with the opinion, or even ignore it?

Canadian libel law has been treating us like stupid peasants. We are not slaves to other people's opinions, and we do not need to be protected from them. Likewise, the subjects of needed public discussion have to accept that there's going to be published dialog asking questions about them, and speculating. Up until now, they have been protected by a libel law granting them almost aristocratic status. Criticize them, ask questions about them, speculate about them, and, unless they gave leave, they could libel chill your words right off the paper or computer screen they are written on.

Well, with this new ruling, that's gotten harder to do.

The ruling text is available here.

As I read the ruling, the legalese that jumped out at me was this (bold emphasis is mine):

Simpson's argument on this point therefore runs as follows. Although the trial judge found Mair had an honest belief in the comment Mair subjectively thought he was making (that Simpson is a bigot), there was no evidence that he honestly believed the innuendo imputed to his words by the trial judge (that Simpson "would condone violence toward gay people"). On this view, if Mair had simply sworn that he honestly believed that Simpson condoned violence (leaving aside the debate about the ambiguity of the word "condoned"), he would have had a good defence. However, Mair undermined his own legal position (so goes the argument) by persisting at trial in talking about Simpson's alleged bigotry and intolerance with the result that he was never asked in chief or cross-examination about his honest belief in the pleaded innuendo that Simpson condoned violence. He stuck to his belief that "Kari Simpson is not a violent person." It seems to me that defamation proceedings will have reached a troubling level of technicality if the protection afforded by the defence of fair comment to freedom of expression ("the very lifeblood of our freedom") is made to depend on whether or not the speaker is prepared to swear to an honest belief in something he does not believe he ever said.

My lawyer in the Crookes matter, Dan Burnett, was the lawyer representing the defendant in that case. Canoe.ca had this to say from Burnett:

Vancouver media lawyer Dan Burnett says the Supreme Court of Canada decision revives the law of fair comment and clearer freedom of speech.

"If you give the public credit to understand an opinion when they see it or hear it, they know they can size it up for themselves and why wouldn't you have a wide-open debate and permit some opinions even if they're uncomfortably extreme?" said Dan Burnett, who represented the radio station at the appeal.

Burnett said the ruling will create a more objective approach toward defamation or libel actions in the courts.

He said the court has removed the notion of fairness being the test for fair comment in media opinion pieces.

"Those kind of lead to censorship," he said. "It's a very welcome decision."

What exactly did the defendant say? This is what he said on the air (words spoken over radio are consider libel not slander) that sparked the lawsuit:

I really hate to give Kari Simpson any more publicity, something she soaks up like a blotter, but she's become such a menace I really think something must be said. … Now I'm not suggesting that Kari was proposing or supporting any kind of holocaust or violence but neither really — in the speeches, when you think about it and look back — neither did Hitler or Governor Wallace … Whether she realizes it or not, Kari has by her actions placed herself alongside skinheads and the Klu Klux Klan. … Kari Simpson is thank God permitted in our society to say exactly what she wishes, but the other side of the free speech coin is a public decent enough to know a mean-spirited, power mad, rabble rousing and, yes, dangerous bigot when they see one.

Simpson was at the time an active citizen organizing people to oppose children learning in their schools anything about alternative lifestyles.

Like my example above, although the author was not claiming that Simpson was or would condone violence, a judge had determined that defamation could be seen to be done by innuendo. As the innuendo was different from the author's stated belief, the legal argument at that time was that the author had thus published a defamatory opinion he did not believe in.

Now, thanks to the SCC, such tortured reasoning is no longer possible.

(To read about the state of fairs before this decision was made, please go over to TheCourt.ca and read what they had to say about this case last year.)

As this ruling widens the fair comment defense, it may have a positive impact for the defendants in the upcoming Crookes Openpolitics libel suit.

I am not sure how much it affects the Liberal's defense against Harper's libel suit. I still think issues concerning privilege should and will dominate those proceedings.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/03/2008 11:04:00 AM

[Section 15] Harper Using Another Lawsuit to Possibly Attack Liberal Fundraising

In what I can only call an addition to a scandalous, concerted effort to discourage accountability, Harper has added to his defamation lawsuit a million dollar claim for Misappropriation of Personality (wouldn't that just be petty theft?). Though details are at this time lacking, this is most likely a claim concerning Liberal Party fundraising.

Harper is also seeking an injunction, though we don't know what precisely for. If the tort concerns Liberal fundraising -- and I think that likely -- then the injunction would be to prevent his likeness being used by the Liberals in any fundraising context.

"Misappropriation of personality" -- What the heck is that, you ask? Well, it is a common law tort, which, to be met in Ontario, requires that

(1) There is an element of commercial exploitation of a person's personality.
(2) The person is clearly identifiable in the medium used and to their respective communities.
(3) The person does not consent to the use of their personality.
(4) Damages; either emotional or financial losses are proven.
(from Krouse v Chrysler)

I have no idea how narrow or broad of an injunction Harper is seeking. I suspect that in the least this is over that audio clip that has Harper saying that Chuck Cadman was offered "financial considerations" -- a phrase Harper himself has repeatedly refused to explain, and one he desperately does not want played over and over again in Liberal election ads in the likely coming Fall election.

Such things can be covered by this tort. Fortunately for democracy in Canada, there is a public interest defense applicable:

[17] More broadly, it also seems clear that in articulating this tort the court must be mindful of the public interest. In Krouse, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal explicitly stated at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R.:

Progress in the law is not served by the recognition of a right which, while helpful to some persons or classes of persons, turns out to be unreasonable disruption to the community at large and to the conduct of its commerce.

[18] While not explicitly offering any principles that ought to guide the development of this tort, the court at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R. did warn:

The danger of extending the law of torts to cover every such exposure in public not expressly authorized is obvious.

(From Glen Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd., 1998)

It is interesting that we are not seeing a large press conference rollout by Harper this time around. The last attempt by the Conservatives to present positive spin with this lawsuit was, at best, a partial catastrophe. This time, they seem to be handing out sparse details.

I would put little stock in the theory that Harper tried to bribe Chuck Cadman if it wasn't for the mounting evidence that Harper plays so dirty. After spending millions of dollars defaming Dion with advertisements, circumnavigating our electoral laws with the in-and-out scandal, stifling the press, suing the Liberal Party for reporting on Hansard contents, and, currently, fostering a national unity crisis to combat Dion's Green Shift, I think that Harper honors only the acquisition and maintenance of power, and will do whatever it takes.

His torts against the Liberal Party are nothing less than attacks upon our very freedoms.

We, the voters, are quite well qualified to determine if the Liberals stepped over any line here.

One thing, for me, is sure: Harper certainly has.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/03/2008 07:59:00 AM

[Section 15] Harper Using Another Lawsuit to Possibly Attack Liberal Fundraising

In what I can only call an addition to a scandalous, concerted effort to discourage accountability, Harper has added to his defamation lawsuit a million dollar claim for Misappropriation of Personality (wouldn't that just be petty theft?). Though details are at this time lacking, this is most likely a claim concerning Liberal Party fundraising.

Harper is also seeking an injunction, though we don't know what precisely for. If the tort concerns Liberal fundraising -- and I think that likely -- than the injunction would be to prevent his likeness being used by the Liberals in any fundraising context.

"Misappropriation of personality" -- What the heck is that, you ask? It is a common law tort, which, to be met in Ontario, requires that

(1) There is an element of commercial exploitation of a person's personality.
(2) The person is clearly identifiable in the medium used and to their respective communities.
(3) The person does not consent to the use of their personality.
(4) Damages; either emotional or financial losses are proven.
(from Krouse v Chrysler)

I have no idea how narrow or broad of an injunction Harper is seeking. I suspect that in the least this is over that audio clip that has Harper saying that Chuck Cadman was offered "financial considerations" -- a phrase Harper himself has repeatedly refused to explain, and one he desperately does not want played over and over again in Liberal election ads in the likely coming Fall election.

Such things can be covered by this tort. Fortunately for democracy in Canada, there is a public interest defense applicable:

[17] More broadly, it also seems clear that in articulating this tort the court must be mindful of the public interest. In Krouse, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal explicitly stated at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R.:

Progress in the law is not served by the recognition of a right which, while helpful to some persons or classes of persons, turns out to be unreasonable disruption to the community at large and to the conduct of its commerce.

[18] While not explicitly offering any principles that ought to guide the development of this tort, the court at p. 240 O.R., p. 30 D.L.R. did warn:

The danger of extending the law of torts to cover every such exposure in public not expressly authorized is obvious.

(From Glen Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd., 1998)

It is interesting that we are not seeing a large press conference rollout by Harper this time around. The last attempt by the Conservatives to present positive spin with this lawsuit was, at best, a partial catastrophe. This time, they seem to be handing out sparse details.

I would put little stock in the theory that Harper tried to bribe Chuck Cadman if it wasn't for the mounting evidence that Harper plays so dirty. After spending millions of dollars defaming Dion with advertisements, circumnavigating our electoral laws with the in-and-out scandal, stifling the press, suing the Liberal Party for reporting on Hansard contents, and, currently, fostering a national unity crisis to combat Dion's Green Shift, I think that Harper honors only the acquisition and maintenance of power, and will do whatever it takes.

His torts against the Liberal Party are nothing less than attacks upon our very freedoms.

We, the voters, are quite well qualified to determine if the Liberals stepped over any line here.

One thing, for me, is sure: Harper certainly has.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 7/03/2008 07:59:00 AM

[Section 15] Does Harper think The Economist to be crazy?

It's Harper who must be crazy.

Harper's very much on record calling Dion's Green shift crazy:

"Mr. Dion's policies are, as I said, crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy. " - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, June 19, 2008

And yet, what's the cover editorial of the latest issue of the Economist about? Read the conclusion for yourself (emphasis mine):

The best thing that rich-world governments can do is to encourage the alternatives by taxing carbon (even knowing that places like China and India will not) and removing subsidies that favour fossil fuels. Competition should do the rest—for the fledgling firms of the alternative-energy industry are in competition with each other as much as they are with the incumbent fossil-fuel companies. Let a hundred flowers bloom. When they have, China, too, may find some it likes the look of. Therein lies the best hope for the energy business, and the planet.

Harper, of course, knows that Dion's Green Shift plan is a reasonable idea. He's just shooting down tax shifting because if Dion can sell it, Harper will never sit in the PM's chair again.

I guess Harper must be cancelling his subscription about right now.

H/T Sober Second Thoughts.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/29/2008 09:25:00 PM

[Section 15] JPL's Climate Change Machine

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has placed an interactive climate change application online. It lets you view changes in the Arctic polar cap, sea level changes over the Pacific, CO2 emissions and the changes in average global temperature.

Play with it!

Here's a few images I grabbed.



Yes, that's our northern polar ice cap melting. The red outline is where the ice cap was at the end of summer, 1979. The ice cap seen is its extent at the end of summer, 2007.

It is believed that the ice cap may completely melt by the end of this summer (CTV).

I am sadly amused by denialists who claim that thickening ice during the winter 'proves' global warming to be a sham.

The temperature record from 1990 to 2007 is shocking:



--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/29/2008 01:09:00 PM

[Section 15] Beehive killoffs accelerating

Our bees are dying.

One out of three commercial bee hives in the US were lost last year due to mysterious circumstances.

Colony collapse disorder is what they call it, and there's no answers in sight. First blamed on mites, speculation has moved on to new bacterias (or revisiting old), GM crops, climate change, and, for all I know, space aliens.

The point is, not enough is being done. We depend on bees for the pollination of our crops. It's time to get a move on.

See McClatchy for more.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/27/2008 11:12:00 AM

[Section 15] Libertarians as Anarchists

In a comments discussion over at Runesmiths blog, I said:

True libertarianism is about having THE PORTION YOU ARE DUE. The brand of libertarians you are dealing with are interested in whatever they can steal.

Don't expect them to debate rationally. That's not what they are trying to do. These guys have the mindset of robber barons and con artists. Caveat emptor applies.

I'm not in the green party any more, but quite a few greens are libertarians who woke up. They figured out that social and environmental debts and deficits damage liberty as much as fiscal ones.

...A lot of these 'libertarians' aren't. They actually espouse many anarchistic beliefs.

For example, a typical libertarian would blow your head off for dumping garbage on their land (trespassing and vandalism). So why should they accept a coal plant upwind dumping mercury on their land? Or human-induced climate change altering their land?

Since their much-loved political and social philosophy can't deal with these realities (that is, they fail to account for externalities), they go into a state of denial. To admit that these externalities must be dealt with is to admit that their simplistic philosophy is wrong.

Those libertarians who recognize the problem, but still don't want to adjust their behaviour, are actually moving away from libertarianism into the open arms of anarchy.

I'll be expanding on the themes I raised above on another date. Be on the lookout for a future post named

My Name is Mark Francis, and I am a Libertarian

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/25/2008 03:34:00 PM

[Section 15] Glee!

Black loses U.S. appeal

I'm sure he'll keep appealing. In the meantime, glee!

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/25/2008 01:20:00 PM

[Section 15] Dear Ed: Reduce emissions or lose business

Never mind the Liberal's Green Shift plan, there are significant forward-thinking groups which are actually refusing to buy tar sands oil. Another one announced today:

U.S. mayors have become the latest group trying to reduce the use of gasoline made with oil from Alberta's oilsands. A resolution has passed at their annual conference in Miami that urges cities to forbid the use of such gasoline in municipal vehicles.

Get with the program, Stelmach.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/23/2008 03:03:00 PM

[Section 15] Stelmach hits the nail right through his thumb

From the CBC:

'My greatest fear is for those on fixed income, because your heating costs will go up. Just visiting your grandkids, you know, the fuel for the car will go up.'—Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach

Ignoring for the moment that Dion's Green Shift will not be taxing gasoline further, Stelmach is arguing by default that it's wrong to up the cost of carbon-polluting fuels, but that it's fine to make those precious grandkids spend their renewable resource-poor lives paying for the ills of previous generations.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/23/2008 01:21:00 PM

[Section 15] Liberals to also Implement Cap-and-Trade

With all the focus on the Liberal's release of their new carbon tax shift policies, one could be forgiven to think that there's no intent by the Liberals to introduce a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system in Canada, as pushed by the NDP and (sort of) by the Conservatives.

In fact, the plan is to get one rolling, but as it will take a few years to accomplish any significant emission reductions using cap-and-trade, the carbon tax shift is the logical one to implement first, as it is far easier to get up and running.

Yes, Jack Layton, you disagree. I know. But without the US having a cap-and-trade system in place (last week's attempt to legislate one failed), and with the EU's system still in some disarray (here and here), there's not yet much of a reliable international emissions market to plug into. Yes, I do think that the EU will succeed in implementing one.

The Liberal Green Shift plan can be read here (pdf).

Here's the relevant section (page 22), explaining that cap-and-trade is still in the works:

A year ago, the Liberal Party introduced the Carbon Budget, a strong cap-and-trade plan to put a price on carbon, boost green investment, and create a carbon market. A Liberal government will work with other jurisdictions, including the United States, to establish a solid cap-and-trade system as stronger carbon markets develop. We will continue to be guided by the principles of the Carbon Budget: absolute emission reductions, increased investment in green technology, and harnessing the power of the market to fight climate change.

However, more than two wasted years of Conservative government, combined with the message of urgency coming from scientists, means that we must put a price on carbon as soon as possible. Since a cap-and-trade system will take several years to build, we will start with a broad-based, revenue neutral carbon tax that can be implemented quickly and simply, that will cover approximately 75 per cent of domestic emissions.

So, cap-and-trade under the Liberals will be done as well.

The NDP are transfixed on only having a cap-and-trade system. That party needs to take a second look at a carbon tax shift. Social democrats in Europe have embraced it along with a cap-and-trade market. Why not the NDP?

The carbon tax shift is not about creating an alternative to cap-and-trade. It's about implementing a parallel policy that has the capacity to put more control over economic forces in people's hands. It's about kick starting industry to sooner adopt carbon emissions reduction strategies, which will only benefit Canada as it enters the emerging global carbon emissions trading market at a later date.

---
Addendum:

The Conservatives, of course, favour a greenwashing system, which allows for emissions to actually increase -- the famous 'intensity targets', a PR spin first introduced by US Republican spin doctor Frank Lunzt. (Behind the link, you'll find him recanting his earlier 'work.') Until the Conservative recant intensity targets themselves, they have no substantial policy to add to the debate.

Muzzling Baird, or at least sending him to an anger management class, would be a decent start.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/20/2008 07:15:00 AM

[Section 15] The Green Shift Dot CA

The Liberal's Green Shift plan is now online at TheGreenShift.ca

The policy explanation is in a pdf here.

I'm in for a $200/month savings. It's hard to tell how much the carbon tax will erode it; however, as a low carbon emitter, I hope to reap some benefit here.

I don't even have time for writing down my complete first impressions, but will say that this seems to be a good plan. As for the PR battle, we'll see soon enough who wins: The NDP, who seem to want to adopt an approach which has so far failed in the EU; or the Conservatives, who have no plan, and who will just continue to lie, lie, lie about everything.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/19/2008 01:00:00 PM

[Section 15] Renaming the WikiMinister

The Edmonton Journal, via Michael Geist, has suggested a new moniker for Minister Jim Prentice, who is apparently in charge of dismantling our Fair Use rights: The WikiMinister.

Employees under Prentice appear to have been favourably editing Prentice's wiki entry, of late, as previously reported by Michael Geist.

I have to respectfully disagree with this proposed moniker. Wikis are a good thing, relying considerably upon -- you guessed it -- copyright Fair Use. May I suggest a few better titles, suitable for a Fair Use-denying, wiki bending front bencher? How about

The DISEMBLERMINISTER
The DISINFOMINISTER

Any more ideas?

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/10/2008 03:24:00 PM

[Section 15] Five feet of bigotry

Kathy Shaidle, of the blog Five Feet of Fury, and one of the defendants named in Richard Warman's libel suit, has posted a truly bigoted rant against Muslims.

I won't link to her blog. I refuse to up her site ranking. But I have posted below two screen captures covering the whole post.

Her distilled bigoted rant? 9/11 was really bad, so all Muslims should accept hatred. And, oh yeah, all Muslims can't build, let alone fly, air planes. And you're lucky things haven't gotten worse for you here in Canada -- Yet.

And so on.

I'm not shocked. This has been clear about her for a while. I just wonder how many people are reading her blog, nodding their heads?






--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/09/2008 11:07:00 AM

[Section 15] Religulous

Bill Maher takes on religion the world over in this coming movie. Directed by Larry Charles director of BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN.

Looks great so far... unless you're religious. If you are, I suggest you otherwise pray for my soul. Don't expect any improvement, though.



--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/08/2008 09:59:00 AM

[Section 15] Please finish the following sentence:

"I swear, if the liberals abstain -- yet again -- in order to avoid an election, I'm going to..."

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/07/2008 02:16:00 PM

[Section 15] Harper, drop the lawsuit: G&M OpEd

An op-ed in today's Globe and Mail by lawyer William Caplan presents an argument hardly supportive of the Liberals, yet still calls for Harper to drop his libel suit against the Liberal Party, citing the House as being the proper place for the dispute, and calls the move to squash the tape recording a strategic flop.

I have a few qualms about how Caplan presents the manner, but no problem with his conclusions: this stuff belongs in the House, not buried in a courthouse. We, the people, are not served by sub judice.

So, what in Caplan's piece bother me? A number of things.

Harper still refuses, despite repeated questioning, to explain what he meant on the tape by "financial considerations." This is not the action of a person worried about their reputation, and has kept the rest of us wondering what went on. I'm prepared to believe that Harper knew nothing about a bribe as it may have happened, but until he answers that question directly, I'm still wondering. Indeed, I'm wondering more and more.

The Canadian public does not flock to the Liberal Party website for news (nor to the Conservative website, thank God -- is it run by stoned frat boys?). Any damage done to his reputation was done by CPAC, CBC, CTV et al. running the contents of the Question Periods later reprinted on the LPC website. Suing the Liberals over the contents of a clearly partisan website largely repeating some exchanges of a Question period or two already broadcast all over Canada is just plain silly.

And there is legal precedent in Ontario, admittedly a little remote from this case, which supports politicians repeating libel outside the House without legal penalty.

And I don't think that Cadman's credibility is seriously damaged by his not bringing the matter of the bribe up off of his deathbed. What he said then was for private consumption. Who would want to spend the last few months of their life embroiled in scandal?

And Harper has admitted being told of the bribe attempt by Donna Cadman, years ago. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing, other then to swear to Cadman's widow that it wasn't true (how would be know for sure?). The CPC actually issued a press statement indicating this. I was amazed they admitted it.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives publish crap like this and this, not to mention those defamatory television ads, all quite actionable under Canada's libel law. Not that I advocate such suits, but, trust me, I know libel law. It can be done.

This is a public matter, and the people should decide, not a judge.


Thank you, Mr. Caplan, for reminding us how democracy works best.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 05:32:00 PM

[Section 15] Harper's transit tax rebate inefficient

After cancelling all kinds of carbon-reduction programs, one of the replacement programs harper introduced was the transit tax rebate, which granted some tax deduction for purchasing transit passes.

Although the idea isn't a bad one (greens have pushed for it), the plan was viewed not as beneficial as other potential endeavours. Many pointed out that public transit needs improving and expansion, so why not use that money (estimated at $200 million) on transit funding... or a thousand other worthy projects? And why cut great programs like Energuide (since somewhat restored) when there's this much money around?

It wasn't lost on some of us that this rebate would be made known over and over again to each and every Canadian by the government, transit systems and even your accountant/tax filer. To me, that seemed to be the real clincher: Though argued to be inefficient and not that effective, its ubiquitous result would portray Harper as both a tax fighter and a green politician.

Well, the naysayers have been verified. The rebate program is woefully inadequate and is very expensive for what carbon reductionss we get out of it?:

...figures in the new plan estimate that it will be six times weaker, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming, than what the government had estimated in its last review from August 2007.

Matthew Bramley, the director of climate change policy at the Pembina Institute, calculated that the new estimates for the public transit incentive program translate into a cost of $7,419 per tonne of reduced emissions or about $35,700 for each car that is taken off the road. The average Canadian produces about 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year, according to Statistics Canada.

This always was more about Harper greenwashing himself than anything else.

The article also exposes other failures of Harper's 'green' policies:

The new plan also estimates that regulations requiring more biofuels content in gasoline and diesel will result in a reduction of about 1.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2010, even though the government had estimated last year that the regulations would be three times more effective.

The phase out of incandescent light bulbs is estimated to result in an emissions reduction of four million tonnes, according to the new plan, which is 50 per cent less than the reduction estimated in 2007.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:38:00 PM

[Section 15] Introducing the ECO wiki

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has started up a wiki. Though sparse in content, I'm told a lot of content in on the way.

Though public access, it cannot be publicly edited. The idea is for the various analysts within the Commissioner's office to post their work as it becomes available, to be read by informed stakeholders. Though not the intended target, intelligent bloggers (not the other kind) intent on finding news before it happens may find this a useful resource for environmental issues in Ontario.

So far, last year's annual report is up. It alone is an eye opener.

I've added it to my sidebar.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:05:00 PM

[Section 15] US Cap and Trade Senate bill defeated

I had mixed feelings about this bill. It failed. Oh well.

From TorStar:

WASHINGTON–Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.

The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.

Nice as it sounds, the proposal fell short of what is necessary, but would be superior to what is in place now: nothing! The economic impact argument was a red herring -- the expected costs would constrain the US economy by only a few months over a period of decades -- if you buy into that premise. The costs of global warming exist whether you count them or not.

Missed by many, though, was that buried in the bill was an allocation of subsidy for building nuclear plants. The subsidy amount? Try $544 billion -- that's right, BILLION.

$544 BILLION. For. Nuclear.

Despite how this is being reported, the bill was being squeezed from both sides. Organizations, such as NIRS we're opposed to this bill, though they favour carbon reduction.

Read more at Common Dreams.

Not in attendance were notable senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, though they supported the bill with letters.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 01:42:00 PM

[Section 15] test

test

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/03/2008 10:52:00 AM

[Section 15] Democracy at work?

From the Wise Law Blog, a glimpse of American democracy at work:

Florida... Under the compromise, Mrs. Clinton is to receive 52.5 delegates, John Edwards 6.5 delegates, and Mr. Obama to receive 33.5 delegate votes - all of which will receive one-half value. Unpledged superdelegate votes also are reduced to only one-half weight.

Is this good? Bad? Is this even in English?

It's no wonder people are claiming there's irregularities and favourtism going on. The system is impenetrable.

Of course, Clinton's ongoing march of the dead isn't helping any.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/01/2008 08:58:00 AM

2008 Budget, June-Dec (Google Docs)

I've shared a document with you called "2008 Budget, June-Dec":
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=ptyQNn5QTvZsxDhslQddrew&inv=markfrancis228@gmail.com

It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above.

your gmail account login, should you ever need it, is

gnatt@rogers.com
natchacha


---
Note: You'll need to sign into Google with this email address. To use a different email address, just reply to this message and ask me to invite your other one.

[Section 15] Who's afraid of Elizabeth May? And, is she reading my blog?

The Conservatives, that's who.

Going further than my previous post, Elizabeth May knocks the ball out of the park refuting the Conservative's latest nasty press release:

...the second release from the Alliance Conservative Republican Party of Canada this week. This one was low even by Harper standards. At least I was in good company. This release attacked me as well as one of my heroes, Senator Romeo Dallaire, and two Liberal MPs who happen to be friends of mine, Garth Turner and John Godfrey.

The drive by smear of my reputation attacked my love of country. It claimed I had said Canada had the worst government on earth. The Harper lackeys claimed this showed "shocking ignorance of the deplorable human rights situations faced by other people around the world." I am quite well aware of shocking human rights situations. We held a press conference last week decrying the human rights abuses of the government of Colombia and urging that Canada not proceed with a new trade pact with Colombia. What I said at the Global Greens Congress in Sao Paulo (and anyone can see it on YouTube was part of a speech on climate change, setting out the response of governments around the world to the climate crisis:

"I am ashamed to admit that the Canadian government is now the worst in the world."

At this point, thanks to Prime Minister Harper's repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, his government's fraudulent climate plan and his zeal for ever-expanding operations in the Athabasca tar sands, our government is the worst in the world. We are the only nation among over 165 that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to have an official government policy violating our international commitments. We are now under investigation by the United Nations for violating rudimentary reporting requirements.

What is galling about being attacked is that I believe Canadians are the most blessed people on earth, living in a beautiful and wealthy country, one that prizes community and shared well-being. I am fiercely loyal to Canada and regard receiving the honour of being an Officer of the Order of Canada as the greatest of all honours. (By the way, none of the other leaders have received the Order of Canada). Having received it, I stand on guard for Canada. So the gall of these nasty little minions in issuing a press release attacking my love of country began to raise my ire.

May goes on to quote the same Harper speech from 1997 that Mike from Rational Reasons pointed to in my previous post's comments, just above Jim Bobby's comment that he was going to get in touch with May over this...

Hey! Wait a minute...

Anyway, May thinks she's under attack because she's viewed as a risk. After all, she is running against Peter MacKay next election, and is a threat to his seat.

Will the Minister of Defense lose his seat to the first Green to ever make it to Parliament? I hope so...

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 05:16:00 PM

[Section 15] Conservative Party libels on its website

The Conservative Party, which is funding Harper's libel chill lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, has put out a press release pushing some blatant lies.

I'll address one here. (For another, Garth Turner takes care of the slur against him. And again.)

Here's an excerpt from a speech by Elizabeth May delivered in Sao Paulo recently, which the Conservatives picked on:

...climate impacts have real impacts on global security. The US Department of Defence (the Pentagon) actually did a study researching a "plausible scenario for abrupt climate change." Its conclusions appeared in Fortune magazine in early 2004. They chose to study the stalling of the Gulf Steam in 2010.

The study concluded that the impact of that, with colder temperatures in Europe, changing rainfall patterns, causing increased drought, food insecurity, increased numbers of environmental refugees, would constitute a great threat to global security than terrorism.

What has been the response of governments to this threat? I am ashamed to admit the Canadian government is now the worst in the world. The Stephen Harper government has repudiated our legally binding Kyoto targets and is working to increase Greenhouse gases from the Athabasca tar sands.

And the Conservative's take on May's bolded statement? From their press release

Then there was Mr. Dion's deputy leader and 'Red-Green' alliance partner Elizabeth May. Already on the hot seat for labeling those who disagree with her as being worse than Nazi appeasers, Ms. May went even further and told an international audience that:

"I am ashamed to admit the Canadian government is now the worst in the world" (The Toronto Star, May 8, 2008)

Ms. May's comments not only disrespect her own country, they also show a shocking ignorance of the deplorable human rights situations faced by other people around the world.

Obviously, the CPC is deliberately misrepresentating May's comments.

You would hope that they've at least keep their lying on topic.

This is very brave behaviour from a party which is suing the LPC for reprinting the contents of Hansard.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 01:04:00 PM

[Section 15] Liberals want a jury to hear Harper's libel chill case

The CBC reports that the Liberals have filed their statement of defense in response to Harper's ill-advised libel suit against the LPC. The LPC wants a trial by jury, and is calling this vexatious suit a "fundamental attack on the freedom of political expression."

More from the CBC:

"The reports were published in good faith and in accordance with the Defendants' legal, moral, social and profession duties to engage legitimate public debate," the statement of claim says.

According to the statement of claim, the Liberals "expressly" deny that the words are defamatory of Harper, but if they are, then they are "true or substantially true."

As well, the Liberals deny Harper has suffered damage to his reputation and reject the damages he's seeking as "excessive, exaggerated, remote."

But they add that if Harper's reputation was damaged, then he brought it upon himself for refusing to answer questions about the controversy.

Don't be thrown by the multi-level arguments. This is normal in both statements of defense and claim.
I predict that a jury will not only acquit the LPC, they will debate how much spit to pour in Harper's eye.

If you actually read what the LPC site published, you'll find commentary and Hansard content which had already been broadcast all over Canada by CPAC and the major networks, television stations and newspapers. There was considerable re-publishing of the content on blogs as well. Commentary in newspapers and on television was not favourable towards Harper, who, to this day, has deliberately failed to be held accountable in the Cadman affair by refusing to answer key questions.

To sue the Liberals over content already more thoroughly broadcast all over Canada by the media is not only ridiculous, but is transparently a strategic attempt by Harper to silence his critics. This is libel chill at its lowest temperature, designed to freeze public discussion of a ruling Party scandal, which, if the allegations are true, could wound the Conservative as deeply as Adscam wounded the Liberals.

We do know that Harper was told by Donna Cadman herself some two years ago about the bribe allegation, and that Harper did nothing about it. Our PM has known for all that time about a likely attempt by his Party to bribe a sitting MP and did nothing. We also have a recording where Harper demonstrates some level of personal knowledge about offers made to Cadman.

Given Harper's refusal to answer questions, and the fact that he clearly had personal knowledge of offers being made and that a bribe allegation existed, he simply can't have any basis for crying foul when the opposition tries to shine some light in our interest. The Opposition is here to serve us in part by exposing, or trying to expose, flaws in government. That check against the abuses of government needs privilege to act – privilege which Harper is trying to intimidate into disuse with this vexatious lawsuit.

Canada's libel laws are quite backwards. Other English-speaking countries have long since amended their libel laws to prevent abuses just like this one, and, indeed, this case may be the very one which will lead to common-law changes to allow for scrutiny of public figures without the implied threat of a tort.
We can only hope Harper fails. Otherwise freedom of expression in this country will be eroded to the detriment of us all.

Except those in power with something to hide.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/14/2008 03:50:00 PM

[Section 15] Crookes lawsuits are not dismissed

The news of Crookes' cuberlibel suits demise is, sadly, greatly exagerated.

It was recently announced that the BC Court of Appeal repeated the finding of a lower court and threw out part of one lawsuit. This eliminates Yahoo as a defendant, and affects several other defendants. It does not, however, end any of Crookes lawsuits as he is suing over a great many things.

The lawsuit in question, Crookes v. Holloway et. al., does involve me, and the ruling does help; however, the claim that a wiki I helped manage had a link to a link to a site he objects to remains. The principle defendant, Kate Holloway, is still in the case. She has launched a counter-suit against Andy Shadrack, a former Green Party of Canada councillor, political organizer, and federal GPC candidate.

All of the other lawsuits also remain, with the very important Crookes v. Openpolitics up for trial this Fall.

The defendants continue to need your help. Please donate using the PayPal button on the right sidebar.

What this partial dismissal is about

Crookes was claiming that Yahoo was responsible for the content of a private Yahoo group named GPC-Members. He was also claiming that all of the moderators were responsible for the content, even though content moderation was passive -- that is, posts were not approved before posting.

The judge did not rule on any of the above.

What she ruled was that Crookes had failed to prove that the alleged libel was ever published in BC. As easy as it is to bring forward a libel case in this country, plaintiffs are still obligate to satisfy the court beforehand that certain key criteria have been met, including the issue of whther or not the material was actually published in the jurisdiction in question.

As Crookes failed to present any evidence that anyone in BC viewed the private material, the entire claim involving the GPC-Members group was thrown out.

Crookes himself was not a member of the group, and only knew of its content from a third party, presumed to not be a resident of BC.

Crookes can appeal this to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), however, it is not likely that the SCC would even hear the case. Most appeals to the SCC are denied a hearing.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/12/2008 11:35:00 AM

[Section 15] In and out: Not just about moving money around

If you don't yet understand the Conservative In and Out scandal (where have you been?), go read Cherniak's In and Out in 30 Seconds, then come back.

Now, Aaron Wherry over at Macleans has been doing the thankless task of reading the entire search warrant, and typing up the interesting bits for us to read. Here's one of interest:

From page 50:

"I note, in reviewing one such ad (Appendix 9), that the official agent for Mr. Don Gillis, the Conservative Party of Canada candidate for the electoral district of Cardigan (Prince Edward Island), is mentioned in the 'tag line' of the ad ... as having authorized media buy advertising. Mr. Gillis is not one of the 67 candidates identified as being part of the media buy. The Gillis campaign did not report to Elections Canada having financially participated in such advertising."

You see, if the media buy was not authorized by the local candidate, then the CPC can't argue that the media buy for that candidate was not for the central campaign, which is central to their argument.

From page 54:

"Based on the comments of Ms. Dixon (paragraph 75), I believe the alteration was carried out by the Conservative Fund Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada because it did not appear to conform to the appearance of the invoices issued by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada or Conservative Fund Canada ... with respect to the purchase of media airtime during the 39th federal general election."

And from page 23:

"As an example of the invoices filed with Elections Canada, I showed the representatives of Retail Media an invoice in the amount of $39,999.91 (Appendix 23) filed by the candidate for the electoral district of York South-Weston, who was one of the 14 candidates (paragraph 37) contacted by Elections Canada for additional information subsequent to the filing of Candidate's Electoral Campaign Returns following the 39th federal general election. Upon viewing the document, which bears the letterhead of Retail Media, Ms. Dixon speculated that this invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of the invoices sent by Retail Media to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy."

From pages 55-56:

"Executives of Retail Media did not recognize the one invoice shown to them ... as coming from their company."

Do those read like developing allegations of forged invoices?

Now, this is just a search warrant, so we shouldn't make conclusions... except that there's a lot to wonder about here, which doesn't fit so neatly into the CPC's story that this was all aboveboard.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 10:33:00 PM

[Section 15] Leader-Post wrongly claims Crookes cases 'dismissed'

The Leader-Post, in writing about Kate McMillan's legal problems, has mistakenly claimed that the Crookes cases have been dismissed.

That's news to me!

I have responded with the short letter below.

April 21, 2008

Dear Editor,

Regarding Karen Brownlee's piece "Sask. blogger caught in legal bind" published April 21, as one of the defendants in the many Crookes lawsuits, I am in a position to correct the erroneous claim that Crookes' lawsuits have been dismissed. All of Crookes' lawsuits remain before the courts in BC. All that has happened so far is that a few defendants have managed to have themselves removed from the suits. Yahoo demonstrated that Crookes failed to prove that the private material was published in BC, Warren de Simone was dismissed from the very important OpenPolitics.ca case as he was found to not be a publisher, and a service provider (Domains by proxy) has seemed to have settled.

All the cases remain, with the critical OpenPolitics.ca case going to trial this October. If the OpenPolitics.ca case is lost, it is possible that providers will be held responsible for user generated content they did not have a hand in authoring. Such a finding will threaten every blogger, every wiki author, and every service provider in Canada. Even those abroad are at risk as you do not have to be a Canadian citizen or even be living in Canada to sue here.

Canada's libel laws are desperately out of date, and unless those fighting against Crookes receive financial support, our laws may become even more restrictive, just in time for Kate McMillan to spend her donated largess on a lost cause.


Mark Francis
Defendant, Crookes v. Holloway et al.
http://Section15.blogspot.com

Please donate to the OpenPolitics.ca case following the instructions on the sidebar.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 01:17:00 PM

[Section 15] Intrepid Wingnuterer agent chases Conservatives down fire stairs

The Wingnuterer managed to get one of its many agents into the Sunday "In-and-Out" briefing held by the Conservatives. Disguised as a balding fat white guy, the agent was able to deeply infiltrate the gathering.

This recording is of what happened after the Conservatives left the room, heading for some fire doors.

Wingnuterer Agent: Hey! Where are you going? You're splitting from your press conference!

Random Conservative: Quick! Someone yell fire!

Conservative Chorus: Fire! Fire!

Wingnuterer Agent: There's no fire! You guys are falsely yelling fire in a crowded room!

Conservative Spin Doctor: The room is not crowded because we have left it. We are also not in the room. And FREE SPEECH!

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: Don't make us sue you for libel. Don't print any of this!

Wingnuterer Agent: But it's true!

Conservative Chorus: HA HA HA!!!

Wingnuterer Agent: Doesn't that door say 'Fire exit only'?

Conservative Spin Doctor: We did yell 'Fire', you know, though not in a crowded room. And we weren't in the room. So we can use the doors.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: The 'Fire exit only' rule doesn't apply to conservatives, and, besides, all the political parties are using it.

Wingnuterer Agent: But the only ones using this stairwell are you guys.

Conservative Spin Doctor: That's because your coverage is unfair. You should be watching this door all the time to ensure not only conservatives are using it. Until you do that, you'd best not publish anything.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: We would hate to have to cut your access to the Hill.

Conservative Spin Doctor: And YOU are using the stairwell. You are clearly a Liberal Party mole. So it would be defamatory to say only conservatives are using the stairwell.

Conservative Spin Doctor: We'd hate to sue you for libel.

Wingnuterer Agent: Grunt! What are you doing?

Conservative Chorus: We are shutting the fire door behind us.

Wingnuterer Agent: But I'm trying to get through!

Conservative Spin Doctor: You should not be using a fire door.

Wingnuterer Agent: You did!

Conservative Spin Doctor: Yes, but we yelled 'Fire', you didn't.

Conservative Spin Doctor #2: And you clearly aren't conservative, so you can't use the door unless there's a fire.

Wingnuterer Agent: But you yelled 'fire'!

Conservative Spin Doctor: Yes, but you didn't, and you clearly don't believe us. So we can use the door and you can't.

The door slammed shut. When our agent got the door open, there was no one to be seen. Only an intense smell remained – the stink of fear.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/21/2008 10:30:00 AM

[Section 15] Bruce reactors restart to go overbudget

The cost to repair two nuclear power reactors in Ontario at the Bruce reactors site has -- surprise -- mushroomed.

The original costs were estimated at $2.75 billion (back in 2005), and now the costs are estimated at $3.1 to $3.4 billion.

That's a 13% to 24% cost increase from the original estimate.

The project is 60% complete, which means there is still time for the true costs to rise even more, which, keeping to the trend, could bring overruns to 18% to 34% of the original estimate.

Nice work.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/19/2008 10:21:00 AM

[Section 15] Don't like democracy? Sue for libel

Ever wonder how democracy can be subverted by libel law? Look no further: A group of lawn care professionals is about to sue an unnamed municipality for libel over a bylaw which affects their business.

I found this press release:

Lawn Care Companies Seek Damages from Activists and Municipalities

MONTREAL, April 18 /CNW Telbec/ - MREP Communications is a consulting
services firm that provides support through a network of companies in North
America and the EU on environmental policy and communications.

A group of lawn care professionals has asked us to review current and
pending bylaws that restrict or prohibit the use of registered lawn pesticides
in Canada. Our current focus is the by-laws in Ontario. We have just completed
the first phase of a three-part systematic review of these municipal bylaws in
Ontario and are looking forward to comparing our findings with those of the
Ontario Government's review. However, to-date, there has been no response to
our request for a meeting.

At this point, the onus on the lawn care professionals and related
industries is the mitigation of damages caused by these bylaws that prevents
the operation of their trade.

...Entrepreneurs, second and third generation family-run businesses have
been adversely affected by conjecture and rumor. These companies will no
longer tolerate any additional losses created by municipalities or activists.
The industry has taken a stand of zero tolerance for libel, slander of goods
and cyber bullying by activist or individuals.

Activist groups have indicated they will be targeting other aspects of
our industry, including golf, agricultural, forestry, aquatic and
industrial-site uses of pesticides and fertilizers.

On April 25, 2008, the first lawsuit for defamation and slander of goods
against a municipality will be filed. We will target municipalities that feel
they have to damage our reputations or educate the public by malicious
falsehoods in an effort to support their bylaws or influence provincial
policy.

It's not that I'm saying they don't have a claim under our crazy libel laws -- I have no idea.

I am saying that if there is a problem with any bylaws, this is not the way to fix things in a democracy.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/19/2008 12:19:00 AM

[Section 15] Strengthening democracy through lawsuits

H/t to Liberal Catnip, for letting us in on these pieces of fatherly advice.


Want to change these out-of-date libel laws? Donate to the OpenPolitics.ca libel defense fund. See the sidebar for details.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/17/2008 06:16:00 PM

[Section 15] Donate here to fight for Free speech on the Internet!

As promised, I have posted a Paypal link for those to donate to help the defendants in the Crookes v. OpenPolitics case. That case goes to trial this October, and is incredibly important to us all, as it deals with the liability of publishers, even when absent, for the posts and comment of others on a wiki.

Kate of Small Dead Animals is facing similar, if not the same, issues, as a defendant in the Warren lawsuit. Support Kate if you like, but the OpenPolitics case is likely to hit trial first.

You can also donate to my court case (Crookes V. Holloway) through the Cambridge Green Party Association by cheque.

Kate at SDA has just noticed the Crookes lawsuits.

More to come.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/14/2008 12:03:00 PM

[Section 15] How to support the Defendants against Crookes

There is no defense fund as yet, so if you want to donate, send me email and I will get back to you.

Email: markfrancis AT gmail DOT com

If you want to learn more about the Crookes cases, and libel law in general, please click on the Libel Reform label below and start reading.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 4/13/2008 09:53:00 AM

[Section 15] Michael Geist event in Toronto: E-Publishing & The Law

Michael Geist: E-Publishing & The Law

    The Canadian Journalism Foundation Hosts March 6 Event

   TORONTO, Feb. 22 /CNW/ - On March 6, Dr. Michael Geist will discuss the
legal issues that are impacting everyone from the seasoned blogger to the
average internet user, followed by a Q&A moderated by Sally Armstrong.

   <<
   What:  Anyone who blogs, comments, sends e-mail or otherwise publishes
          electronically is subject to the laws of defamation and libel,
          according to University of Ottawa Law School professor and
          internationally renowned expert on law and the Internet, Dr.
          Michael Geist. The Internet and new technologies have ushered in a
          seemingly unlimited array of possibilities for access to
          knowledge, creativity, and public participation. Dr. Geist will
          highlight the role that the Internet is playing for new creativity
          and knowledge sharing, while identifying the business and policy
          challenges that this creates for journalists and journalism.

   Who:   Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and
          E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has written numerous
          academic articles and government reports on the Internet and law
          and was a member of Canada's National Task Force on Spam. He is an
          internationally syndicated columnist on technology law issues with
          his regular column appearing in the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen,
          and the BBC. Dr. Geist serves on the Privacy Commissioner of
          Canada's Expert Advisory Board and on the Canadian Digital
          Information Strategy's Review Panel. Moderator Sally Armstrong is
          a veteran journalist and author of Veiled Threat: The Hidden Power
          of the Women of Afghanistan.

   When:  Thursday, March 6, 2008
          6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

   Where: MaRS Discovery District, CR-3
          101 College St at the SE corner of College & University.
   >>

   Join The Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF) on Thursday, March 6, for
this event, which is free of charge and open to the media and the public.
Seating is limited. If you plan to attend, please register at info@cjf-fjc.ca
or visit our website www.cjf-fjc.ca/programs.htm to register online.

   About the Canadian Journalism Foundation

   Established in 1990, The Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF) is a
not-for-profit organization that exists to contribute to the achievement of
excellence in Canadian journalism. Better journalism means a better-informed
citizenry and an improved democratic process. Through leadership seminars,
panel discussions and other activities the Foundation builds bridges and
fosters open, informed dialogue between leading public and private
organizations and the media.

For further information: Heather McCall, Program Manager, The Canadian
Journalism Foundation, Phone: (416) 955-0630, Email: hmccall@cjf-fjc.ca,
www.cjf-fjc.ca 

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 2/22/2008 01:36:00 PM

[Section 15] My empty protest

Speaking today with Zorpheous, I confessed to having the worse case of writer's block ever as an explanation as to why I have not been blogging. Where once I managed multiple posts per day on two blogs, I now do nothing.

This block is unlike any other I've had before. It's not that I lack anything to say, it's that I'm afraid to write for fear of falling once again under the shadow of Canada's backwards libel laws.

This is not a creative block, it is truly a block of stone hard fear.

You may recall that I am being sued by Wayne Crookes. Well, as I approach the one year anniversary of the lawsuit, I have little to report. A good hunk of the claim has been thrown out, but that is, last I heard, under appeal.

I am unable to pay for any legal bills. The LibelChill.ca site I put up to gather donations broke due to a server crash, and I just didn't have the time to put it back together. It seems not worth it as the donations I received after all that work were quite small.

People need to realize that Canada is not America -- you can most certainly be sued for libel in Canada for writing well-researched posts, or simply for stating opinions regardless of the level of public interest. You can most certainly be sued for writing the truth, and unless you have the tens of thousands of dollars required to defend yourself, you will find yourself publicly retracting that truth.

I try to write, but everything I publish concerns politics, and writing about politics often requires me to criticize people. Our libel law basically says that any negative comment about a person is libelous, unless, under reverse onus (guilty until proven innocent), the author can prove what they wrote is defensible.

And so, despite my many concerns about the direction of this county, and of our global society, this space now sits empty.

Consider that a political statement.

--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 1/07/2008 02:14:00 AM