Terrorism Law: A War on Internet

All levels of government are trying to feed balderdash to ordinary Canadians as a way of brainwashing them into feeling guilty unless they willingly accept reverse onus (guilty as charged and no way to prove innocence) without uttering a whimper or protest to unwarranted Internet surveillance.

(Translation: stupid, low-life minions aren’t trustworthy or deserving, let alone intellectually qualified, to express and share ideas and opinions over the Internet. Only the elite should have the privilege to access such a valuable commodity.)

Show your true-blue Canadian spirit, the governments promote. After all, it’s for your own safety and in the name of national security. Canadians really have no choice. If they don’t comply eagerly to the diktat, the governments will force their dull-witted bureaucratic demands on their newly-minted slaves, anyway.

In my not-to-humble opinion, the answers the governments seek to avoid hackers are simple. Governments should stop operating antiquated electronic equipment and software, and always stay a jump ahead of hackers by springing for excellence in updated virus protection, locks and alarm systems, and, as any five-year-old child knows, change passwords often.

Further, and most importantly, stop hiring multicultural, politically-correct traitors who are freeload hackers, given open-door access to high-security areas where they can roam unencumbered in the confidential databases for days, downloading sensitive information without interruption.

So, don’t whine to me, Vic Toews, minister of Public Safety, with stupid, long-winded, sniveling verbosity on your Website that groups are breaking into government computer systems, searching through files, causing systems to crash, and stealing industrial and national security secrets, and personal identities.

It’s not my fault; it’s your fault.

“We don’t see them, we don’t hear them, and we don’t always catch them,” Toews complained about his incompetence. “At times they are mere nuisances. At other times, they present real threats to our families, companies and to our country.”

But, no, instead of correcting the problem, it is more fun for governments to play dictator and tighten the screws on scrupulous Internet users who will no longer be able to express their outrage of bureaucrats and politicians.

Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s so-called Conservative bunch is hell-bent to follow the Liberal Party’s lead and table privacy-sucking (Un)Lawful Access to the Internet legislation during Parliament’s fall sitting (StopSpying.ca), it seems only fitting that I should post a reminder article from my “I-Told-You-So” files.

This one was originally published in the Whitehorse Star on February 25, 2002.

In keeping with the Red Book election campaign promises, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his Industry Canada minister of the day, Brian Tobin, had promised everybody in Canada access to high-speed Internet by 2004.

The terrorist attack on America saved the Liberals the trouble of having to fulfill their commitment. In mid-December (2001), a hastily-drafted, ill-debated anti-terrorist bill was pushed into law as a so-called security measure in the aftermath of 9-11 events.

Various cabinet ministers, interviewed on separate occasions by Anthony Germaine, host of CBC’s radio show The House, began to back-peddle their official political-pledge position. They blamed budgetary restraints due to the measures that had to be addressed in the new terrorism legislation. So, the altered target date, they said, for high-speed computer access was “as quickly as possible”.

Expressing overtures about the priority to implement protective procedures throughout government were Finance Minister Paul Martin, Human Resources Minister Jane Stewart and Allan Rock, who inherited the Industry Canada portfolio from “retiree” Tobin during Chretien’s sweeping cabinet shuffle in mid-January (2002).

The weekend before the swearing-in-ceremony, computer wizards were “said” to have hacked into the computer system served from Ottawa. Like jilted wives, government employees were evidently the last to know that the external e-mail access was first on the list of items to be dismantled and disabled Canadawide on January 12, 2002.

Instead of improving Internet services for “everybody in Canada”, especially in remote regions, the government inconvenienced users by firewalling access to all Web-mail sites, such as Hotmail, Yahoo, Magma, Netscape, AOL, Sympatico, etc.

A denial notice, posted by Linda Bloskie, director of IC (Industry Canada) Network Services, explained the security measure was the result of terrorism acts against New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Bloskie invited anyone with questions or comments to e-mail her but she didn’t provide an address.

“The security measure is being taken because the use of such e-mail accounts by desktops on the IC Network can inadvertently introduce e-mail viruses from those sites,” said the notice.

That is a crock of IT (intelligent technology in polite circles). Anyone bent on infecting the system can send a message to a government e-mail address from an outside Web-mail site, anyway.

The disabling was for the expressed purpose of scrubbing messages, which had been slow reaching their destinations because government was screening the material for unacceptable “hate” words–a direct fallout from anti-terrorist bill C-36.

This terrifying law, which was purported to be a war on terrorism in the spirit of national security, has turned into a war on the Internet and free speech.

Suppression of information is the tyrannical deed of the devil. And the only effective way to combat the wickedness and retain a semblance of a free and democratic society is to be informed.

Free exchange of information on the Internet is more vital than ever to defend civil liberties against the depredations of evil leftists who are spreading lies and poisonous half-truths widely through the Net and liberal mainstream media. It is obvious that pseudo-journalists and “politically-correct” hacks, who have no principles nor integrity, cannot be trusted with facts.

Muzzling the Internet will play into the agenda of these dangerous busybodies by severely crippling fundamental rights and freedoms as guaranteed in 2(b) of the Charter: “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communications.”

“Should we allow one day of terror, executed by nine suicide bombers, to scare us into relinquishing the civil liberties that have been won through blood, sweat and tears, since the time of the Magna Carta?”

So asks Jim McKee in his piece titled “Trading Liberty for Security”. The Ontario-based writer pointed out in a recent Dialogue magazine that one of the police-state powers given the government and its agencies under C-36 authorizes judges to order the deletion of material from any Internet site in Canada that is deemed to be “hateful”.

To merely criticize the delicately-sensitive government might be considered “hate”. For sure, to specifically criticize its poor immigration policy would be open season for Website censorship.

You and the judge could become bosom buddies. From the time the court orders your Website gagged until it can potentially be restored could be five years or longer winding through courts while exhausting appeals.

Among the 15 or more statutes that need amending to accommodate the terrorism legislation is the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, noted in a newsletter that the Human Rights Act makes discrimination out of any published material that is “likely to expose hatred or contempt” on members of privileged groups.

The privileged are designated by race, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, even those whose conviction of an offence has been granted pardon.

These type discriminatory acts water down democracy by trying to pretend that giving special rights to select groups supersede natural rights.

“But under Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act, truth is no defence, nor does intention matter,” Fromm reminds us. The censorship lobby, which has long had its sights fixed on the Internet, is ecstatic, he added.

These self-righteous, politically-correct socialists are crawling out of the dark corners like so many repulsive roaches to intentionally destroy people’s freedom of expression and their rights to ownership of intellectual and entertainment properties.

The January 2002 issue of Canadian Intelligence Service also acknowledges the whole government attack on the Internet as nothing more than an attack on freedom of speech and communication for all except those of politically-correct opinion.

“In every respect, its provisions are the very denial and negation of English common law, which is the basis of Canadian law,” the CIS bulletin states.

But using the Internet to attack freedom is not making an iota of contribution to Canadian security, nor to the war against terrorism.

Nope. “(It) is in reality itself an attack on Canadians’ freedoms and the institutionalizing of bureaucratic terrorism,” continues the CIS commentary, “using the present crisis as the excuse for inflicting such a Draconian measure on our own people.”

The Canadian government’s tampering with the Internet is a scary, maggot-infested, people-control device that any freedom-loving person knows must be stopped dead in its tracks.

Otherwise, the next tyrannical move is for government agents to round up and chuck hard copies of your Bibles and books, CDs and photographs into fiery incinerators, along with your firearms, and then seize all independently-owned printing presses.

Jane Gaffin, October 16, 2011

1 thought on “Terrorism Law: A War on Internet

  1. Without Prejudice:

    A do agree with what you have disclosed. my question is what can we do about the fact that terrosit are in every country setting up shop in one way or another. There has to be big mo ey behind it as this is how it functions someone has to foot the bill for theses acts. Since prime Misnister harper shakes hands with those who are connected with people who are guilty of corporate crimes and criminal offences ( The case agianst Malik Talib and Rahim Talib) which is going to court in BC. These men are from the republic of congo the porvince of Katanga and have set up shop in Bc and are now starting a company based out fo toronto called CuCO which is copper mining and pipelines. They are guilty of crimes here so that may be why they went there. Malik is the leader of the islamic Muslim society in BC. I would like to know wy the general public and honest people are being monitored and have to deal with the issues you mention and these men are not. They have a human trafficking file on them and also when they start this new compnay one can only imagine that they will have slave labour and use up all the resouces strip the land and leave with the fortune in pocket . leaving behind a devasted people , poor and sick as is tradion with corporate greed and crime. Terrosim takes on many forms and is financed somehow. a place worth looking into by the way without prejudice is a legal term .

Leave a Reply to Diane Dillon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.