Quotulatiousness

March 29, 2010

Americans to lose privacy in offshore banking

Filed under: Economics, Government, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:27

Of course, the headline assumes that they had any such privilege in the past . . .

Samuel Taliaferro is disturbed by provisions in a new law which will extend US government intervention into foreign bank business:

The name of the bill is the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487) commonly known as the HIRE Act. This is the jobs incentive bill that was signed by the President on March 18th amid little fanfare.

Relatively small by Washington standards (“just” an $18 billion stimulus package) the bill was drafted to provide incentives to employers to hire more people but contains some very disturbing language concerning the ownership and transference of money to any overseas account. The truly galling part of the bill is that it attempts to require “foreign financial and non-financial institutions to withhold 30% of payments made to such institutions by U.S. individuals unless such institutions agree to disclose the identity of such individuals and report on the bank transactions”. Think about this — the U.S. government is attempting to strong arm foreign financial and non-financial institutions (think banks and law firms) to either withhold 30% of the transactions in a U.S. individual’s account (and presumably remit this to the U.S. Treasury) or disclose the account details to the U.S.. The language of the bill addresses both bank accounts and any foreign trusts (ie- Private Interest Foundations).

In other words, the US government is afraid more Americans are going to be worried about the security of their money and will look to offshore institutions to preserve their savings. The government is moving pre-emptively to deter that flow of money away from their direct control. You’d almost think they didn’t trust their own citizenry.

March 23, 2010

The Canadian “flavour” of free speech

Filed under: Cancon, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:15

Marni Soupcoff hits the nail on the head with this observation:

Do Canadians understand freedom of expression? For several years, I’ve been arguing that the majority of them don’t — that despite freedom of speech’s prominent place in the Charter, they think it means the ability to say critical things provided these things don’t offend or upset anybody. Protest away, as long as you don’t actually rock the boat.

It’s part of that notorious “Canadian nice” thing: we’re so terribly afraid of offending someone that we’ve empowered the state to monitor and “correct” our speech and behaviour. We like the idea of free speech, but we also undercut the spirit by carving out exceptions to ensure that free speech is not free to offend or insult or demean the listener (or bystanders, or people totally unconnected to the conversation).

This is the genesis of our “hate speech” legislation, which legally defines certain kinds of speech as being so harmful that the use must be proscribed. We appear to fear the use of certain words and phrases as much as if they were literal clubs or bludgeons or some other kind of blunt instrument. In other words, we think it worse to hear offensive speech than to be physically threatened with bodily harm.

This is why the University of Ottawa’s François Houle not only felt it necessary to warn Ann Coulter about our draconian speech laws, but almost certainly felt that without such a warning, those laws were likely to be put into motion. The unspoken but hardly concealed subtext is that we recognize that Americans are more mature than Canadians: they can hear those horrible, horrible words without taking damage or harm.

What initially sounds like another example of Canadian smugness turns out to be an example of Canadian inferiority. Again.

December 5, 2009

Speaking of disproportional punishment

Filed under: Law, Media, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:45

BoingBoing reports on yet another vastly disproportional punishment for a victimless crime:

The movie industry has turned into an alcoholic dad who beats up his family at the slightest transgression while ignoring his own gross failures — blaming everything on external forces and refusing to confront its own problems.

Meanwhile, 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach spent two nights in jail for recording her friends singing “Happy Birthday” at a movie theater, for capturing less than four minutes of a feature film. She is charged with a felony and if convicted, could lose the right to vote, to work with children, to hold office, and to partake in full civil life.

And the movie industry’s pitch to us remains, “Please stop pirating our discs, because if you don’t stop, we may be driven out of business and then society would suffer from our absence.”

Despite (legal) danger, teens still hot for sexting

Filed under: Law, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:20

In another example of the state’s threat of legal punishment being hugely disproportional to the perceived or actual damage of the ‘crime’, so-called sexting can carry a life-long legal penalty for an act with little or no actual danger to the parties involved. In a case of “well, duh”, kids are still eager to send one another pictures of themselves nude or partially clothed, in spite of (or in ignorance of) the legal threats:

The latest figures come from a poll organised by the Associated Press and MTV, which questioned around 1200 youths and semi-youths aged from 14 to 24. What they discovered, among other things, is that boys think naked pictures are “hot” while girls consider them “slutty”.

We’ll go out on a limb here and say that boys and girls feel much the same ways about thigh-high boots and micro-skirts — one boy’s hot is another girl’s slutty, but that’s another issue. Young people do seem peculiarly blind to the long-term risks of naked photographs, though perhaps they should be admired for having such confidence in their own bodies.

About half of those surveyed thought the risks were overplayed — the rest were suitably wary, but did it anyway. Greater education about the risks doesn’t seem to be the answer: it’s almost as though young people aren’t listening to the advice provided by their elders and betters.

The risks they run include both sender and receiver being charged with various sex crimes, resulting in potentially being added to the sex offender registry for their state(s) of residence, which pretty much ends any possibility of them being able to go to university, hold a job, or lead a normal life.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress