Quotulatiousness

November 23, 2010

Wendy McElroy: This rumour has “legs but no body”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:19

After reading one of the several stories about the TSA considering (or already having) an exemption from the invasive “pat-down” for Muslim women, Wendy McElroy tried to find the truth of the matter:

“Sexual assault” and “child molestation” are just some of the accusations leveled at the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) revealing scanners and full-body pat-down procedures, which were introduced on November 1.

At long, long last, the public is saying no to the savaging of personal liberty.

But a bizarre attack from a different direction should cause concern for at least two reasons. First, the particular accusation against the TSA is almost certainly incorrect and could dilute the credibility of other criticisms. Second, the attack seems rooted in anti-Muslim fears and feeds back into them.

The rumor: The Department of Homeland Security may exempt Orthodox Muslim women from the sexually invasive scanners and physical exams that others must undergo as a prerequisite of air travel.

On what evidence is the rumor based?

November 21, 2010

Iowahawk: Comply with me

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour, Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:17

November 18, 2010

Another Helpless excerpt

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:09

I picked up my copy of Helpless yesterday at the no-longer-accurately named World’s Biggest Bookstore in downtown Toronto. It appeared to be the only copy, and was well-hidden in a corner of the Canadian Political Science section, on the next-to-bottom shelf, partly hidden by other books. I’m sure that’s just a co-incidence.

The third in the series of excerpts being run by the National Post. This is a question from Detective Sergeant Roger Geysons, who was president of number 3 branch of the Ontario Provincial Police Association:

“Are OPP members allowed on DCE? Can you provide to our members written direction?”

OPP deputy chief Chris Lewis answered.

“We’ll address that,” he said. “This is actually news to me that this was still an issue. There is obviously a communication issue.”

Then Lewis delivered a bombshell: “Short of somebody having a kid kidnapped and running onto the DCE, we’re not going to go onto that property. It’s just a recipe for disaster, and it will set things back there.”

Lewis also confirmed that the Aboriginal Relations Team (ART) was still calling the shots — which meant, to those in the know, that the occupiers were still running the show.

“There may be times that we have to go on there,” Lewis said, “but at the same time, we’ll do it and negotiate that through ART [to] the leaders in the First Nations community.”

He also said that the OPP would respond to calls — meaning emergencies — on the Sixth and Seventh lines, but general patrols would not take place in that area because “they [Six Nations] can’t control all the people in their community . . . So it’s a commonsense issue, and certainly, we’re not saying we will never go on there, but we really have to be very selective of when we do and how we go about it.”

Another fan of Christie Blatchford’s Helpless

Filed under: Books, Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:47

Father Raymond J. deSouza points out that the actions of the OPP in Caledonia have ended up hurting peaceful native and non-native Ontarians:

If you are pressed for time, abandon this column now and immediately read the excerpt in these section from Christie Blatchford’s new book, Helpless. In that book, she details how two-tier justice came to Caledonia, Ont., in 2006 — immunity for native Canadians; and neglect, contempt and harassment for the non-native victims of crime. It is a scandalous tale, simply told.

[. . .]

Lest anyone think that Blatchford’s book is an attack on native aspirations, consider who suffers the most when lawlessness is permitted in native communities: the natives who live there. Not enforcing the law in native communities puts out a large welcome mat for organized crime and corruption.

[. . .]

Yet Blatchford’s book is not about native issues. It’s about the failure of the provincial government and the OPP to enforce the laws — even after a judge issued an injunction to end the illegal activity. Moreover, it’s about the OPP’s abuse of power. The most disturbing pages are about Julian Fantino, then OPP commissioner and now Conservative candidate in a federal byelection, who came perilously close to using police force to restrict the liberties of a free citizen with the temerity to protest the OPP’s policy of non-enforcement in Caledonia.

I noted with disgust that the federal Conservatives had not only nominated Julian Fantino for their candidate in the byelection, but were being quite open about protecting him from questions on his conduct of the Caledonia affair. If I’d ever considered voting for a Conservative candidate in the next federal election, that alone would make me reconsider.

November 17, 2010

“My plan is to make you guys look like a bunch of assholes”

Filed under: Books, Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:50

More of Christie Blatchford’s Helpless from the National Post series of excerpts:

“We’ve been sitting there pretty much most of the morning looking for ya, just because we wanted to have a couple words with ya.” He added that police had “some concerns today for you and the safety of the community,” and “it’s our belief that if you or anybody else attempts to erect flags or ribbons directly across from Douglas Creek Estates, that it may cause a confrontation, and we can’t let that happen, and we won’t let that happen.

“We will allow you to raise flags and ribbons, just not across from the Douglas Creek Estates. Okay, and anybody that — anybody that attempts to do that, to raise those flags and ribbons in that restricted area, will be arrested for breach of the peace.”

McHale, of course, asked, “So have the natives been arrested for putting up their flags?”

“They have not,” Cowan replied.

“Why?” McHale asked. “You said ‘anyone.’ Your words were ‘Anyone who tries to put up flags will be arrested for breach of the peace.’”

“That’s today I’m talking about,” Cowan replied.

Around and around they went, with McHale pressing his point and Cowan’s only answer for it that, when natives put up their flags, it was “a long time ago.”

“And I’m not here to comment on that,” Cowan said. “I’m just telling you what our plan is today, and that’s what my purpose is.”

“Well,” McHale said, “you know what my plan is.”

“What is your plan?” Cowan asked.

“My plan is to make you guys look like a bunch of assholes,” McHale said, “and you’ve done a great job [of helping achieve that]. The media will be here, and it will be quite clear to all Canadians across this country, because they will see the native flag. The cameras will show the native flag. And you’ll be there, and your officers will be there, saying, ‘If you put up a Canadian flag, we will arrest you.’”

Treat the VIPs like ordinary air travellers

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:34

Mark Hemingway thinks that it would be a salutory lesson to the VIPs, politicians and high mucky-muck bureaucrats if they had to travel the same way everyone else does:

Two weeks ago, my wife flew alone out to Colorado with our two young children. Unaware that the TSA had instituted new and incredibly invasive new security procedures, my wife called me distressed after getting frisked by the TSA. Or as my wife put it, “in some cultures I would be married to my screener by now.” She was joking, but make no mistake — my wife was incredibly disturbed by how intimate a security pat down she received.

So here’s my not-so-modest proposal: If the President’s Homeland Security department is so adamant that this is the absolute best way to prevent terrorism, I think the President and his family should voluntarily submit to one of the new invasive pat down procedures. I know the Obamas don’t fly commercial at all these days, so they should probably get a pretty good idea what the rest of us are putting up with.

The cop says, “Your guy grabbed his crank. That ain’t right.”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:29

Penn Jillette has an airport incident with those lovely folks at the TSA:

They sent a guy over and I said that I’d like to register a complaint. I insisted on his name and badge number. I filled it out with my name. The supervisor, I think trying to intimidate me, asked for my license, and I gave it to him happily as he wrote down information. I kept saying, “Please get the police,” and they kept saying, “You’re free to go, we don’t need the police.” I insisted and they got a higher up, female, supervisor. I was polite, cold, and a little funny. “Anyone is welcome to grab my crotch, I don’t require dinner and a movie, just ask me. Is that asking too much? You wanna grab my crotch, please ask. Does that seem like a crazy person to you?” I had about 4 of them standing around. Finally Metro PD shows up. It’s really interesting. First of all, the cop is a BIG P&T fan and that ain’t hurting. Second, I get the vibe that he is WAY sick of these federal leather-sniffers. He has that vibe that real cops have toward renta-cops. This is working WAY to my advantage, so I play it.

The supervisor says to the cop, ‘He’s free to go. We have no problem, you don’t have to be here.” Which shows me that the Feds are afraid of local. This is really cool. She says, “We have no trouble and he doesn’t want to miss his flight.”

I say, “I can take an early morning flight or a private jet. ” The cop says, “If I have a citizen who is saying he was assaulted, you can’t just send me away.”

I tell the cop the story, in a very funny way. The cop, the voice of sanity says, “What’s wrong with you people? You can’t just grab a guy’s crank without his permission.” I tell him that my genitals weren’t grabbed and the cop says, “I don’t care, you can’t do that to people. That’s assault and battery in my book.”

The supervisor says that they’ll take care of the security guy. The cop says, “I’m not leaving until Penn tells me to. Now do you want to fill out all the paper work and show up in court, because I’ll be right there beside you.”

The supervisor says it’s an internal matter, and they’ll take care of it. “If you want to pursue this, we’re going to have to go through the electronic evidence.”

I say, “You mean videotape? Yeah, go get it.”

She says, “Well, it’ll take a long time, and you don’t want to miss your flight. We have no problem with you, you’re free to go.”

The cop says, “Your guy grabbed his crank. That ain’t right.”

November 16, 2010

Helpless

Filed under: Books, Bureaucracy, Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:17

The National Post is publishing some exerpts from Christie Blatchford’s latest book, Helpless:

But now, occupiers were showing up in force, at least a dozen of them converging on the lone OPP officer, who had already determined that the driver had no licence, no permit and no insurance — oh, and that the car had no plates. He called for backup, a plea that, in the normal course of events in the policing world, usually brings an enormous, instantaneous, gut-level response: Every cop who can get there does.

No one arrived.

In what was probably the single most important early indicator of how the OPP was disintegrating from within, its officers were no longer answering a call for help from one of their own. The constable had been left to fend for himself.

Furious, heartsick, he did what he could — cautioned the driver — and left before things got ugly. Back at the station, he filed a formal complaint. Within a matter of weeks, he was verbally disciplined for having created a possible “flashpoint.”

It was a sign of things to come. The occupation was just a month old, and whenever OPP officers dared speak up about the way things were going, they were slapped down.

It was such an urgent threat that only a week later, the authorities reacted

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:29

A good round-up of the “Twitter bomber” case:

It all started with a moment of grumpy sarcasm on Twitter. Frustrated that his planned trip to Northern Ireland was put in jeopardy by heavy snow at Robin Hood Airport in Doncaster, Mr Chambers whipped out his iPhone and posted the following message on the social networking site: ‘C***! Robin Hood Airport closed. You have got a week to get your s*** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!’

A week later, he was in a police ­station being quizzed as a potential terrorist. He was eventually prosecuted under a law aimed at nuisance calls rather than under legislation for bomb hoaxes, which requires stronger evidence of intent.

After all, it was plain as a pikestaff that Mr Chambers didn’t have any intent to bomb anything at all. Even so, he was hauled before magistrates, found guilty of sending a menacing electronic communication and fined £385. A few days ago, Mr Chambers lost his appeal against his conviction and sentence.

He will now have to pay £2,600 legal costs as well. Judge Jacqueline ­Davies, who was sitting with two magistrates, ruled the tweet was ‘menacing in its content and obviously so’, claiming ‘any ordinary person’ would ‘be alarmed’ by it.

A child protection service with too many failures

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:18

Christopher Booker says that Britain’s bureaucracy to look out for the interests of children is badly off-mission:

For parents who fall foul of this system, often on no more evidence than malicious hearsay, the first shock is to find themselves treated like dangerous criminals. To seize children, social workers seem able to enlist the unquestioning support of the police, who arrive mob-handed, six or eight at a time, beating down doors, tearing babies from their mothers’ arms, holding parents in custody for up to 36 hours while their children are removed into foster care.

The parents must then wrestle with a Kafka-esque system rigged against them in every way. They find themselves in courts where every normal principle of British justice has been stood on its head. Social workers may give written evidence to a judge which the parents aren’t allowed to see. The most outrageous hearsay evidence may be accepted by the court without the parents even being allowed to cross-examine on it.

A key part is played by evidence from supposed “experts”, psychiatrists or paediatricians who may be paid up to £35,000 for their reports, and who receive regular work from the social workers involved. Parents are forbidden to call their own independent experts to challenge a case made against them. They are, all too often, pressured into being represented by lawyers who, again, work regularly for the council, who fail to put their case and who turn out to be just part of the same system.

Parents may be forbidden to testify on their own behalf, but must listen for hours, even days, to everyone else involved — including their own lawyers — putting what amounts to a case for the prosecution. The guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child may never have met the child and merely endorses whatever the social workers say.

Not surprisingly, these bizarre practices are so geared to the interests of a corrupted system that, in the latest year for which we have figures (2008), of 7,340 applications for care orders made by social workers, only 20 were refused.

Meanwhile, the children themselves are handed over to foster homes, which receive £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child, and where many are intensely unhappy and not infrequently abused. Foster carers and social workers routinely conspire to tell bewildered children that their parents neither love them nor want them back. Children and parents meet at rigorously supervised “contact sessions”, where any expression of affection or attempt to discuss why the children have been taken from home may be punished by termination of the session or denial of further contact.

November 12, 2010

Another G20 meeting, another blow against free speech

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:45

If you followed the progress of the last G20 meeting in Toronto, you’ll recall the street theatre it gave rise to. The politicians meeting behind barricades, barbed wire, and thousands of police and soldiers weren’t the story — the story was the protest. In turns, it was peaceful, randomly vandalistic, and then violently suppressed. I was generally against the whole thing, both the G20 itself and the protests that were generated by its presence.

Christopher Hume has been attending the Canadian Civil Liberties Association public meetings about the events of that weekend:

In anticipation of the violence that has become de rigueur at such gatherings, South Korea has mobilized 50,000 police officers and put its armed forces on the highest security alert.

Sound familiar? It should. We did exactly the same thing — and in the process revealed ourselves to be oafs. And not just oafs, but nasty oafs.

Just how nasty is being documented by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It’s holding public meetings this week in Toronto and Montreal to hear from victims of police violence at the G20. Their stories were at once riveting and tedious. Riveting because the pain is so obviously real; tedious because they’re all the same.

The fact is that G20 summits have no place in the city. The gatherings, which come with full imperial trappings, are a contemporary version of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. That was the legendary meeting in 1520 between King Henry VIII of England and King Francis I of France. As the name implies, it was a diplomatic extravaganza where fountains flowed with wine, where palaces were constructed — and where nothing was accomplished.

[. . .]

A city is its infrastructure. That infrastructure is what we inhabit, and what enables us to inhabit the city. But because of security concerns, G20 organizers and their uniformed henchmen feel they must shut down that infrastructure, and with it, the city.

The tales of police callousness and brutality being heard at the CCLA are a disturbing reminder of the lengths to which the state will go to ensure its safety even at the cost of ours. It’s like the old line from the Vietnam War about having to destroy a village in order to save it. In this case, Torontonians, and by extension all Canadians, had their right to security suspended so as not to compromise the participants’ security — or, more to the point perhaps, not to inconvenience these terribly important people.

Earlier posts on the G20 idiocy here.

November 11, 2010

Chinese wine buyers get all-VQA store that Ontario wine buyers can’t have

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, China, Law, Wine — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:56

I’m all in favour of improving the visibility and availability of Ontario’s VQA wines in other markets, so this news is both good and infuriating simultaneously:

A couple of weeks ago the Government of Ontario announced the opening of an all-VQA wine store in China (in the city of Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan Province). Oh happy day — now the Chinese can drink (and copy) all the Ontario icewine they want . . . but this begs the question: why should the Chinese have an advantage that we Ontarians do not? Do the Chinese drink more Ontario wine? Why is it so important that China get the opportunity to drink Ontario wines that folks in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury can not?

I have nothing against the Chinese getting their hands on our wine; I’m glad to see a country embrace our wines as so many of us have embraced their food. But seriously, why should folks living in China have more and better access to Ontario wines then those of us living in the actual province. When I first heard the news, all I could say was an incredulous, “Seriously?” Has Ontario really become, as wine writer Dean Tudor puts it, every time he mentions Ontario, “a have not province”? When it comes to our own wine industry it keeps getting more and more “have not” and won’t get.

See what I mean? Great that they’re opening outlets in a new foreign market, but we still can’t get that kind of opportunity to buy here at home? All-VQA stores have been discussed (and rejected) before, but they’re apparently a great idea for foreign markets.

Update: Fixed the broken link.

Even more reason to believe that ACTA is a bad deal

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:45

From the folks at BoingBoing:

New revelations on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a secretive global copyright being privately negotiated by rich countries away from the UN: ACTA will require ISPs to police trademarks the way they currently police copyright. That means that if someone accuses you of violating a trademark with a web-page, blog-post, video, tweet, etc, your ISP will be required to nuke your material without any further proof, or be found to be responsible for any trademark violations along with you. And of course, trademark violations are much harder to verify than copyright violations, since they often hinge on complex, fact-intensive components like tarnishment, dilution and genericization. Meaning that ISPs are that much more likely to simply take all complaints at face-value, leading to even more easy censorship of the Internet with nothing more than a trumped-up trademark claim.

November 10, 2010

“Don’t you know who I am?” UK style

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:34

It’s all very well to pass restrictions on the peons, but when those restrictions are applied to your aristocratic self, you’re apparently entitled to rant:

Britain’s anti-terror chief launched an astonishing attack on airport security staff after they stopped her taking a banned amount of liquid onto a plane.

Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones, in charge of national security, was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag.

[. . .]

The Baroness was ticked off by border staff, who did not recognise her. But she took offence when they told her how important security is.

The 71-year-old Baroness, known for being haughty, ranted: “Of course I know how important it is, I’m the Security Minister.”

It’s so tedious to have to put up with back-chat from the peasantry, isn’t it?

Pat Condell: Free speech in Europe

Filed under: Europe, Law, Liberty, Religion — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:24

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress