[don muntean]

[Mac]

[don muntean]

[don muntean]

[excerpt of letter to Brad Wall premier of Saskatchewan]

I have experience with having no rights in Saskatchewan...

PAST INJUSTICE:



The long suffering June 05, 2002 matter is much like how the Saskatchewan justice 'system' failed me in 1983 - when I was a kid!

I know well the feeling of having my rights trounced - when I was 15 years and four months old I was manipulated and molested - by a public servant and look what he was charged with! *Do I have to spell it out for you?

Of course I do not blame Moose Jaw Police service for that past injustice - I blame the Saskatchewan government!

PRESENT:



So how can I expect the SAME justice department to care about my rights now?

Why are my abusers being protected this time?

How can ANYONE be expected to put up with this APATHY?

This APATHY is exactly the same as I saw from Calvert's leftist oligarchy!

I cannot fathom how there has been NO difference with this outrageous NEGLECT - the Liberals under Chretien and Martin in Ottawa didn't care enough to do the right thing about this June 05, 2002 abuse and it seems that NO ONE cares - even now!

What can be said at this point - I really feel ABUSED and VICTIMIZED when I have to continue to BEG for the BASIC DIGNITY AND RIGHTS that I thought were guaranteed to EVERY person in this country!
_______________________________________________________________

* juvenile delinquent n. a person who is under age [usually below 18], who is found to have committed a crime... http://legal-dictionary.thefre.....delinquent

[don muntean]

OTTAWA — Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart delivered a stern warning to the federal government yesterday, saying she is strongly opposed to any legislation that allows the "mass surveillance" of private e-mails and phone calls.

She was reacting to the news that the government wants to update Canada's wiretapping laws with new police powers to monitor criminal suspects in the digital era of cellphones and chat rooms.

"My concerns are a huge increase in surveillance powers," said Ms. Stoddart, who has been raising objections since such an update was first proposed in legislation in 2005 by the Liberal government of Paul Martin. The commissioner, who has had general discussions with federal officials and has been monitoring developments in other countries, said she expects to be consulted on any federal legislation.

"The [obtaining] of a warrant for looking into people's private papers, private affairs, now e-mail conversations is a basic tenet of our democratic and constitutional rights in Canada. To erode this is a very serious step toward mass surveillance so I would like to get a copy of any draft legislation and look at how this could be possibly justified. I've said in the past I've seen no compelling argument put forward for its justification."
Related Articles

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan told a Commons committee Wednesday that his government would propose "changes to programming and legislation" that would modernize police powers to catch criminals using modern devices.

Yesterday, the minister stressed that he supports Ms. Stoddart's concerns and that legislation is not imminent.

"We can't allow new technologies to defeat law enforcement. We have to protect our communities," Mr. Van Loan said. "That being said, we also have to make sure that whatever solutions we come up with respect privacy rights of law abiding Canadians. ... The concerns of the Privacy Commissioner are quite legitimate. We don't want to have legislation that intrudes on privacy rights and I can assure you we wouldn't come forward with that kind of legislation. But we also need to find a way to address a very real problem that's out there."

Opposition critics said they share the commissioner's concerns and would want to see the details of any legislation before taking a position.

Should the government move ahead, it could present an interesting political dynamic in the minority House of Commons.

The Liberals faced considerable resistance in government from Ms. Stoddart and other privacy advocates when they attempted a "lawful access" law in 2005. But a new private member's bill suggests Liberals and Conservatives may not be far apart on this issue.

Last week, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings introduced a 33-page private member's bill that is similar to what the Liberal government proposed. The legislation even carries the same title: the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act.

The Liberal bill would force Internet service providers to be technologically equipped to allow police to "intercept communications and to provide subscriber and other information without unreasonably impairing the privacy of individuals."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....ional/home
____________________________________________________________

A blogger wrote:

"If you have nothing to hide, you don't need to be worried about this."

What about that? What if they start targeting people - just because they don't agree with the government? Slippery slopes....

That USELESS Jennifer Stoddart - a LIBERAL APPOINTEE speaks up for rights of criminals but WHERE was she when I asked her office for help?

On April 19, 2004 I filed a review/complaint under s. 11 of the PIPEDA with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada replied with a letter on May 17, 2004 giving a citation of s. 13(2)(b) of the PIPEDA:

“…the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, by means of a procedure provided for under the laws of Canada, other than this part, or the laws of a province.”

NO HELP FOR ME. If I really wanted express how I feel about this Liberal TOOL my post would be censored...

If they have some valid reasons to spy then fine - but in my experience - there will be abuses of this as at some point some loser public servant is going to get some crazy idea to use it for their own curiosity and - who is there to stop it?

I really am sick of our UNELECTED leaders playing God!

So will it help? Just look at the situation - in Quebec them Islamists who firebombed the Jewish school were given a paltry four year sentence - fat good the surveillances will do when the USELESS courts sentence KNOWN terrorists to four years.

I myself find such programs suspect:

http://spyimplants.webs.com

[don muntean]

Well here we are many months after the Sask Party win...has SGI been dealt with in any manner? No. Has Brad Wall's new government done a single thing to help resolve this matter? No. The Sask Party is a BIG disappointment...some of Canada's leaders just don't get it.

[Mac]

Keep in mind that elected politicians are only the face of the government. The faceless, unelected & unaccountable bureaucrats are the ones you're fighting... and you have to get through them to talk to the politicians...

-Mac

[don muntean]

[don muntean]

Some interesting hypocrisy:

Quennell pointed out that if it weren’t for the privacy commissioner and the NDP raising concerns about the enhanced driver’s license, he’s confident the scheme would have been implemented. He remains concerned about how much the Sask Party will now
spend on an awareness campaign aimed at telling people to obtain a passport.

“The only reason this program was stopped was because the privacy commissioner and the NDP put a spotlight on it,” Quennell said. “That’s how this Brad Wall government operates, legislate first and ask questions later. Thank goodness it didn’t work this time.
It’s just unfortunate that Saskatchewan taxpayers are now on the hook for $670,000 due to the incompetence of this Sask Party government.”

http://www.frankquennell.ca/iod.php

So what is that?

Of course it is very disheartening to see that the Sask Party government was trying to expand SGI's purview - instead of doing the right thing and scaling it back.

That said - here is the real crux of the audacity of the NDP:

"legislate first and ask questions later"

That's been the NDP history with SGI [among issues].

How did the NDP get no-fault insurance passed in Saskatchewan?

Was there any debate in the legislature? No. Was there any discussion with the population? No.

The NDP simply went with "legislate first and ask questions later" - only the NDP didn't ask questions later - the NDP leadership even evaded anyone who had questions and concerns. Quennell has insulted the intelligence of the people in this province.

The fact remains that the NDP's socialist forerunners created SGI and ever since has given its executives increasingly unreasonable discretionary [and investigative] powers over the population of Saskatchewan.

The NDP is a joke - their leaders are a farce - they're some of the most disingenuous anywhere!

Additionally SGI has had nearly 60 years of NDP empowerment!

SGI as it is - is a serious conflict of interest and it seems that no matter the government of the day - the SGI agenda proceeds.

Why has the Sask Party failed to deliver on promised changes at SGI?

The hodge podge system that they currently have is inequitable and the reality is that people have the right not to be held hostage by SGI's monopoly on auto insurance.

How long shall this go on? Shall the Sask Party eventually do the right thing and bring reform to SGI... If not - why not?

[Ryan Renneberg]

I really haven't had too many problems with SGI, I've put in claims with no issue... my premiums are low in comparison to other provinces with private insurance... so I'm not too sure why you have it out for them.

The spyimpant thing seems kindof lame... if you are looking for anyone to take you seriously, you should probably check that at the door.

[don muntean]

[Ryan Renneberg]

[don muntean]

[don muntean]

[Mac]

Isn't that an interesting turn of events? Good spot, Don.

-Mac