Posts Under Politics Category
Google’s doing it:
Wikipedia is doing it:
(and causing quite the uproar on Twitter, I might add)
Reddit, Craigslist, Boing-Boing, WordPress, and thousands of other smaller sites are also doing it.
And so am I, even though I’m Canadian.
The Stop Online Piracy Act might be an American bill, but it has very, very bad consequences for everyone, everywhere. Essentially, SOPA would allow intellectual property owners (Hollywood, essentially) to more or less destroy any site (homeland or foreign) they have a copyright claim against.
And then there’s PIPA, SOPA’s little sister, which seeks to make websites – not users – responsible for pirated content.
“Internet policy shouldn’t be set by Hollywood.” – Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
What does this mean, exactly?
It means say goodbye to a free, open internet.
Right now, if I upload copyrighted content to YouTube, I’m held accountable. With PIPA, YouTube becomes accountable for what *I* uploaded. Doesn’t seem fair, does it? And while the big sites – Facebook, YouTube, etc – have the means to deal with these kinds of copyright claims, many smaller sites don’t.
And under SOPA, if a torrent site hosted in a foreign country is offering movie downloads, the production company can (among other things) demand Google remove them from the search index, demand financing to the site in question is pulled, and tell ISP’s to block the site.
Yeah, as in Rogers/AOL/Insert-ISP-Here can decide what YOU, as a consumer, and as an internet user, are ALLOWED TO SEE AND ACCESS.
Sounds pretty big brother-ish, right?
What’s worse is the consequences this can have beyond torrent sites or streaming video content. Those pushing this bill through are claiming it’s only aimed at these sites that are pirating software, movies, and creative content.
What they’re NOT telling you is that the bill can – and very likely will, if passed – extend beyond those boundaries and start affecting us, as internet users, and start affecting “the little guy.” Basically ANY site the powers-that-be decide infringes on a copyright can be pulled – and just because I’m Canadian doesn’t mean I’m untouchable – that’s the problem, actually. This bill would be essentially be granting the American Government control over foreign hosted content, and, according to Google, “turn the internet into a police state”.
I have to agree.
What I am disappointed with, however, is that Google chose to only blackout on the American site. Though we as foreigners don’t have a direct say in this – I mean, I don’t have an American representative I can contact – but if passed it WILL be affecting us (and our daily internet habits). People – all people, whether American or not – need to be aware of how bad this bill really is. It’s going to allow the American government extraordinary – and worse, loosely defined – power to control the content and information available to us online.
It will essentially, and effectively, kill the internet.
Overly dramatic? Maybe, but maybe not.
I’d rather not find out.
I’m only just scraping the surface of this entire issue – for a more in-depth (but still easy to follow) look at the issue, check out this Gizmodo post, visit Wikipedia’s Q&A about why they’re blacked out, or checkout the SOPA Blackout page.
And, of course – consider joining the blackout and showing your support via Twitter, Facebook, or Google+.
Untitled by Martinho on Flickr
Things have gotten interesting over at the Occupy Toronto camp in the last day or so– really interesting, in fact – especially for a political nerd like me. I love politics and law, and I especially love everything about constitutional law – I took a bunch of law-related classes in my undergrad (and actually had, for all purposes, intended to go to law school – I sort of “fell” into multimedia, journalism, and communications before writing the LSAT) and I took a few constitutional law classes as well.
I even have a t-shirt from my Political Science department that has a sports-jersey style to it:
NOTWITHSTANDING
33
Hilarious, right? If you got that, you’re as big of a nerd as I am.
Anyway, like I said – things are getting interesting. Specifically, in relation to legal developments surrounding the Occupy Toronto movement – and I’ll be watching the court system over the coming days very, very closely.
Untitled by -- brian cameron -- on Flickr
Yesterday morning, Mayor Rob Ford and the City of Toronto delivered eviction notices to the Occupy Toronto protesters (who have set up a tent city and have been camping in St. James Park downtown for the past 31 days) – basically saying “vacate the park by 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, please and thank you”. Well, that didn’t sit too well with the protesters – who thus planned a party (I wish I was kidding) and said “well, we’re not listening to the law, and we’re not leaving”. I’ve heard they’ve since removed (and burned) all eviction notices and have replaced them with signs reading something to the effect of, “The Charter is our permit!”
Now, I believe in the right to assemble and protest as much as the next person – but setting up a camp in public space does not sit well with me. The city wants the Occupy Toronto protest out for a number of reasons – bylaw violations, disrupting the neighbourhood residents enjoyment of the park, the effect on local businesses in the area… you get the idea.
Technically, the Occupy Toronto protest has been violating a number of city (park-related) by-laws since the occupation of St. James Park began over 30 days ago, including 608-3 conduct, 608-7 encroachment, 608-9 access, 608-10 campfires and barbecues, 608-13 camping and lodging, and 608-14 tents and structures.
To expand a list of the specific bylaws they’re violating (according to my interpretation) click here.
Basically, what happened next was this: while most protesters were planning a party (I wish I was kidding) and meeting to discuss “what now?”, a small group went to the courts to get an injunction – based on a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge – and succeeded.
The occupiers are arguing that evicting them from St. James Park (and other occupy movements across Canada from their respective locations) is a violation of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which outlines our fundamental freedoms as Canadian citizens in section two:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Justice David Brown granted them a stay of eviction, meaning a) the City and police may not forcibly remove the protesters, tents, or other structures, and b) the protesters may not grow their operations by adding more bodies, tents, or structures.
The hearing is scheduled for Friday, when the Occupy Toronto lawyer and city lawyer will present their cases to the courts, and the Justice Brown has promised a decision by suppertime Saturday.
So, the question remains: is there really a valid Charter challenge here? And whose rights supersede whose? Do bylaws trump the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or does the Charter trump the law?
Personally, I don’t think there’s a real Charter challenge, nor do I think the Charter trumps these particular bylaws.
Section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
And, in my opinion – the bylaws outlined above are such reasonable limits. No one is telling the Occupy Toronto protesters they may not protest, and no one is saying they may not protest IN St. James Park – they are simply being told they can’t LIVE in the park.
As a sidebar, in other cities, there’s been issues with protesters overdosing on drugs (in fact, there was a non-fatal incident of a similar nature in Toronto) and in Vancouver, someone actually died at the protest. With the harsh Canadian winter fast approaching, it’s no wonder people are concerned about the well-being of the protesters on top of the other aforementioned issues.
But, on the flip side – it seems in Vancouver a group of homeless activitists won the right to sleep/camp in parks in 2008, though I’m unclear as to whether or not that is still the case.
Also, in terms of the American protests and their evictions – I’ve seen numerous tent cities set up in the USA, particularly across from the White House, and they’ve been there for decades (presumably) without issue. So, do they have some sort of special consideration, or permit – or does the government turn a blind eye? Or are they arrested, and then return to continue the protest? If anyone has any insight into this, I’d love to hear it.
Untitled by Martinho on Flickr
What makes me nervous about this is the fact it’s a challenge to the Charter – while I agree it’s time the protesters stop camping in St. James Park and look at other options, I also don’t like the fact it’s come this far. A successful Charter challenge by Occupy Toronto would open a whole other can of worms in terms of bylaws, citizen rights, and whether laws of the Charter – in other similar and non similar instances – supersede City laws.
One thing is for sure – like I said earlier – I’ll be watching very closely as this unfolds in the coming days.
Click “read more” below to see the Toronto Municipal Code Parks by-law as it pertains to this protest.
Read more »
The theory is this: in 1998, the province downgraded Highway 7 from a provincial highway to a regional road for a number of reasons, including the opening of the 407 (aka my favourite thing ever, except for the cost).
More traffic lights were added, the speed limit was lowered – but the “highway” moniker was kept. Now, York Region is building a bunch of junk (okay, not junk – bus lanes, bike lanes, highrises, etc) along Highway 7, and officials think the word “highway” doesn’t match anymore.
So they’re holding a contest to rename it.
It’s going to cost more than $250,000.
Yes, a quarter of a million to rename a small piece of a long highway that runs through Richmond Hill, Markham, and Vaughan – but will still be called “Highway 7” in other areas.
And, honestly – who actually thinks people will refer to Highway 7– sorry, [INSERT NEW NAME HERE] as it’s new name? The Skydome became the Rogers Center in 2005, and really, who calls it the “Rogers Center” besides newscasters, sports officials and, uh, Rogers?
According to news reports, a few contenders include Avenue 7, Gridlock Way, and Bottleneck Boulevard.
Wait, Avenue 7?
Yes, there’s a good idea – lets waste TWO HUNDERD AND FIFTY THOUSAND dollars to change the word “highway” to “avenue”.
Face palm.
Oh, and did I mention it’s already been dubbed “York Regional Road 7″ by the region?
Double face palm.
So, why is this (apparently) a good idea?
Well, according to some guy who swims in hundred dollar bills Steven Kemp, director of traffic management with York Region, “Highway 7 will not be the road that people use to travel through the region. It’s the place that people will go.”
Which, obviously, warrants spending $250,000 on a name change.
Guess I’ll need to buy new road maps.
“Remembering Jack Layton at Nathan Phillips Square” by Jackman Chiu (lewolf011) on Flickr
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world” –Jack Layton, August 20, 2011
I’ll be the first to admit I’ve never really been a fan of the NDP, nor of Jack Layton’s politics – in fact, he infuriated me on many occasions, causing debating, yelling, anger, eye rolls, and venomous comments; including a declaration of hatred at one point a few elections ago.
But before I get criticized by writing that so soon after his death, let me explain: that, in my opinion, is a sign of an excellent leader. Someone who can cause anger and spark debates; someone who can get me (and others) riled up in a discussion about our countries politics, someone who can get us to care even if we’re not necessarily caring about the issues while on the same page.
Moreover, he managed to get a number of younger voters – my generation, and even younger – riled up and excited about politics, and in an aging society where it very often seems my peers don’t care; that says something about his charisma, charm, and dedication to the job, to Canada, and to us as Canadians.
And although I disliked his politics, at times, I couldn’t dislike the man behind them. I have so, so much respect for someone who can be in the limelight, as Layton was, and face criticism and defeat with such dignity, grace, fearlessness, and dedication to his beliefs. Jack Layton was not a man who would waiver when the public voted against, spoke against, or even ridiculed, at times, what he stood for – and even though I might not necessarily agree with WHAT he stood for, I can certainly respect the fact he remained grounded in his beliefs.
“Thank you, Jack” by Lemur277 on Flickr
Jack Layton was – and even in death, remains – a phenomenal leader, someone who was capable of bringing people together (whether in debate, in alliance, or simply in a common love for Canadian politics); and this holds true regardless of where you stand on partisan lines.
I think the outpouring of sympathy, grief, condolences, and shock at his passing – from all parties, people, and countries, even – speaks for itself.
And regardless of my personal political beliefs, I will say this: Canada is much poorer today, having lost such a strong, dedicated political leader.
{{ More Travel Stories || About Postcards || Travel Bucket List }}
The crowd at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
The boy and I took a somewhat impromptu trip to Washington, DC on Halloween weekend to attend Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and Stephan Colbert’s March to Keep Fear Alive. Although we couldn’t see much from where we were (we moved locations about 5 times, and finally gave up to sit and drink some water), and it was hard to hear at times, it was an overall great experience.
Me at the Rally
We met some people from all over America who were in attendance (and a few Canadians, as well) – who were all there for the same reason. They wanted to see some semblance of sanity restored to American politics. “Just because we don’t agree politically doesn’t mean we have to hate each other, or disrespect each other,” I overheard one man say.
And, from a Canadian perspective – I agree. Some of my closest friends don’t share the same political ideologies as I – hell, my own boyfriend and I are placed on opposite ends of the political spectrum – but that doesn’t mean we yell, or hate, or disrespect each other (well, except maybe in a heated debate on occasion ;). So why should America settle for a system where radical activists – on both sides – take things too far?
“I can’t control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.” -Jon Stewart
You can view Stewart’s (rather passionate!) final speech at the rally on YouTube.
One American asked us why we, as Canadians, were there (besides the obvious reason that, come on, it’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert! ;). Whether we like to admit it or not, American politics play a huge part in our lives… both as Canadians, and on an international scale. It’s hard to be a leader in global economics, policy, and culture and NOT have your politics seep over into other parts of the world. So yes, even though I am Canadian – and even though I did largely attend the rally for fun, and because I have a huge crush on Colbert (shh, don’t tell the boy!), I also do care a lot (perhaps more than I should!) about American politics.
And, a little more on the light hearted side: Buzzfeed has the 100 Best Signs at the Rally (my personal favourite, although I didn’t see it there, is #7… my nerdiness is seeping out! ;)
You can check out my photos (as posted on Flickr) below.
(Oh, and PS: Our Mountie & Moose Halloween costumes were a TOTAL hit :)
