As I mentioned some time ago, I haven’t been sitting idly by and watching things around me unfold. I remain keenly aware of what’s happening each day in the over-the-top system we are subjected to.

Every day I read about more public gouging and fraud by corporations, media “pundits” defending absolute and unquestioning subjugation to the immoral “authority” of state who invoke their flimsy “won’t someone think of the children!” line at the same time as they actively work to undermine and criminalize those seeking to ensure children’s welfare (and everyone else trying to do some good). Every day the government ups the ante in contravening and violating rules, laws, and basic justice, directly suppressing people’s Charter Rights and access to the law. That is, of course, when they’re not busy arbitrarily making up new laws to hold us guilty of “crimes” that they invent on the spot.

And if those laws were ever intended as actual protection of citizens and their rights, it’s painfully obvious that they’re being used specifically to terrorize, extort, and control those same citizens and violate their rights — the exact opposite of their stated purpose. And worse, those laws are being perverted through the breaking and violation of other laws, a situation so repellent that it defies words. And the courts hold this aloft as being in all of our best interests while police go to work making sure we’re all “protected” under their benevolent regime. For this they demand our tax money, to be handed over to banking and corporate acquaintances that show a voracious appetite for control and dominance.

Beyond this I have my own decade-long history with the Canada Revenue Agency in a series of what I feel may fairly be described as omissions, lies, and possibly fraud — all documented in an extensive timeline on the government’s own stationary (i.e. stuff they sent me), often complete with signatures of the CRA agent, the timeline involved, authorizing supervisors, etc. It documents numerous Charter Right violations by them and other other members of the CRA. I can now actually claim to have reams of evidence: papers, transcripts, a long reconstructed timeline.

I can directly prove that the CRA has made, at the very least, an error in deciding that I “owed them” $20,000 for the year 2005, which they said carried over from 2004 where I “owed” $0.

Let that sink in for a moment.

If this was a problem, I was told, it’s on me to straighten out (and I’d better pay what they demand in the meantime!) Initially I thought this was related to the personal business I had started so that I could work as a contractor, but the longer it went on, the sketchier it became. I mean, I only made about $55,000 that year which, according to the math means that the CRA had expected me to remit 36% of my earnings (apparently just for EI alone — see below), a number that jumped far higher after numerous re-assessments (and I better pay that too!)

Ten years in and I still have no assessment, just a bunch of “Notices of Assessment” (tricky wording, huh?) that contradict each other and tell me very little in and of themselves. I’ve continuously demanded to know what the CRA claimed I “owed” them for, and only once did I receive the verbal response that it, the initial $20,000, was marked as “EI — maybe Employment Insurance?” somewhere in the history of the file. I asked for that in writing, as well as the agent’s initials or some other identifying feature to prove that this is the information I was asking for.

Eventually, I received yet another Notice of Assessment that notified me that I “owed” $20,000 from 2005, my 2004 “owing” was $0, and the agent’s initials appeared at the bottom (printed). Well, good, then. Guess that’s that.

So, now I’m sitting on many many copies of Notices of Assessments, many in French (a big indicator to me that someone was messing around with my info at the CRA), many with conflicting information (numerous re-assessments made before I ever submitted returns for any of these years), and still not a single one indicating anything except some sort of weirdness at the Canada Revenue Agency.

I deeply suspect the involvement of a since-acquired IT staffing agency at the outset (2004-2005). They refused to send me my T4 and would only provide me with a photocopy which had what looks like sloppy white-out applied to a conspicuous box. Combined with the fact that they demanded that I was an independent contractor even as they sent me a T4 and a Record of Employment (yes, I have these, plus signed contracts, etc.), suggests that they provided the CRA with some interesting “information” too, which the CRA may have decided was perfectly okay and probably also decided that, yeah, I should be treated as an independent contractor.

I’ve since worked for other large IT staffing firms that have similarly tried to circumvent Ontario’s labour laws, readily co-mingling “employee” with “independent contractor” (one place actually used both in the contract wherever they were expedient), treating ignorant contractors like employees and sticking them with the taxes that they should be paying.

I mean, back in my Henderson Bas nightmare I had to explain to my fellow workers that working 80 hours per week is not expected by law, so it’s not surprising that this kind of thing goes on regularly.

I’m assuming that this is how the situation started . The fact that the Canadian government ripped off Canadian taxpayers through the Employment Insurance system at the same time certainly adds a lot more spice to this whole thing — I suddenly owe twenty grand on what I can best ascertain to be Employment Insurance tax, on the same year as the government guts the system?

That “amount owing” quickly grew to $35,000 and by today I’m sure that it’s ballooned to well over $40,000 what with all the fees and extra bells and whistles they like to throw in. In the meantime, the CRA has frozen my assets in very strategic ways — typically on the last day of the month (when I get paid, pay rent, etc.) — because I didn’t cooperate with their extortion demands (which regularly encompass friends and family — “what assets do they have?” “We can seize whatever we need to!”, etc.) By assets, of course, I mean the gaping debts I have elsewhere in my life.

I’m  told I have the right to challenge this, I have the right to the correct information in a timely manner, etc. etc.

Right.

I would make arrangements to “repay” with agents only to discover that, a month later, those agents were no longer working on my file, and the new agents determined that I owed now and they weren’t going to wait one damn second longer!

Have you ever tried to remove a government-imposed freeze on all your bank/credit accounts? If you’re not experienced with the wonder of a CRA Requirement to Pay, I hope you never have to experience the stress. It could easily push you into abject poverty and a good deal of despair. Illegal? Not if the government does it! And don’t forget, if the government is preventing you from paying your bills, or rent, or buying food, or whetever, that’s on you, legally or otherwise.

You could always declare bankruptcy. The CRA will be happy to assist with that.

Also fun is when they decide that freezing our accounts is insufficient so they’re just going to start taking 55% of your income (I’m staring at last week’s sickly pay stub right now), and you’ll be notified about it two weeks afterward in a letter saying that you’ve had a fair chance to reply to this notice so now it’s our turn!

At least it’s better than the 65% they were seizing earlier!

But then I catch them fucking around with my records, deleting information (people I spoke to, have signed letters from yet who don’t appear anywhere in my CRA records), altering other information (I didn’t request half of my information in French, and yes, I have a record of the request too), etc. and I have to say, I’m not inclined to joke about this too much.

I have never been before a judge on this issue, I’ve never had a chance to plead my case to anyone, in fact wasn’t even aware of the machinations behind the scenes at the CRA, but I’ve been summarily and secretly convicted and have been paying for my “crime” for a decade now with no end in sight. My right to appeal is non-existent because the Canada Revenue Agency is allowed to openly violate this and any other rights we may have (plus whatever laws they feel are irrelevant). That they can use my own tax money (and yours), to extend their defense indefinitely and with resources I could never access in court is a further violation of Charter Rights — that is in no way a fair trial.

So what?

I could complain to the CRA Ombudsman who has the authority to ask the Agency to, pretty please, stop doing this and answer this man’s questions first. If they decide that they don’t want to — all within their legal right — I can take my complaint to the Tax Court.

I’ve been in touch with the Ombudsman and, in fairness, they helped me to get the CRA to release yet another unannounced account freeze, but beyond that I haven’t had any luck; the good times re-started shortly thereafter and have been around since.

In the Tax Court arena I get to go up against the limitless resources of an agency that takes my money without my consent to defend itself and prosecute me. Perhaps Wikipedia isn’t the best source of information about this but based on everything I know it seems accurate in its assessment of the CRA as body that “collaborates” with the Department of Justice to hand down arbitrary judgments against anyone they want money from. Accordingly, “the onus is generally on the taxpayer to prove its case on a balance of probabilities” (i.e. the taxpayer is guilty before proven innocent)

And the best result one can expect from the Tax Court is that they force the CRA to have another look at your case. They may re-determine that there was a mistake. But more than likely, they’ll determine that they were right all along. The Tax Court, in other words, is just another way of grovelling before CRA which has ultimate authority in any event.

This results in direct and disturbing Charter Rights violations, but because it’s the government, they’ll do it anyway. They know that even if the Supreme Court directly rules that they violated the law, they’ll be perfectly free to continue destroying peoples’ lives simply because they can — who will hold them to account? It’s just like when cops decide on a new “policy”; that “policy” is no way a law, not enforceable, and constitutes a direct violation of both law and Charter Rights when carried out by police – or anyone for that matter. Yet the police do it without a care because, obviously, when the cops violate the law it’s because they’re “protecting” us. And, of course, you’re free to point out that the cops are violating the law right there and then, but that’s called resisting arrest and your rights and more laws will be further and more egregiously violated because your only right is to be oppressed by Her Majesty’s representatives. In fact, they’ll be rewarded for cracking some uncooperative skulls, and the courts will back them up every step of the way.

You may call these exaggerations, I call them real and factual.

I have physical, tangible records of being rolled over by the very institutions claiming to be there to help me, from the time my license plates and car were stolen by the Pickering Honda dealership (a forged signature was involved in that one), to the most recent interaction I had with the Enforcement Unit of the Municipal Licensing & Standards Office who claimed (and I have this recorded), that they “aren’t responsible for enforcement” and if I thought that something wasn’t right with the situation I was calling about, I could file a complaint. That situation, being forced to sit in one’s apartment in -18 degree Celcius temperatures because workers have blocked the exits and the elevators aren’t working  (as those workers are ripping out all the windows in your home), apparently doesn’t fall under their purview. Maybe try the police if it’s an emergency, they say, but I might be charged with calling them spuriously, so best just to take it up with the landlord. After all, there are laws to protect me in such cases!

Turns out, there is no agency that ensures that your wealthy landlord, or any other faceless corporation, can’t indirectly kill you in your own home. It makes even less of a difference if you’re paying for the privilege — leases are not intended for your protection. Things like elevators aren’t your right, even if you’re paying for them, I’ve learned. Now, if maybe contractors messed up on the caulking so that the owners complained, that’d be a different story…

Well, maybe.

I say this because the Landlord and Tenant Board, apparently the only place to vent your life-and-death tales, is working diligently to make sure that organisations like the poor, mistunderstood Starlight Investments, have a chance to explain why they’ve been violating municipal law, TSSA orders, etc. for years in our apartment building (and, undoubtedly, others).

During the latest hearing, which has been ongoing for over a year, the judge hushed testimony as “irrelevant” by a witness for the tenants (also a tenant herself), who was recounting experiences in other buildings. Then in the very next sentence (couldn’t have been more than 10 seconds apart), the judge decided to allow exactly the same thing when one of Starlight’s pinstripe-suited lawyers asked the same witness about it.

In this instance, Starlight is being sued by many of the tenants of the building for the elevators — they don’t run much of the time, and when they do they can best be described as deathtraps — not stopping on some floors, stopping on others that weren’t requested, doors not closing, doors not opening, misalignment with the landings (sometimes as much as a foot or more), wobbling up and down of the car when it should be stopped, both floor indicator and ceiling lights going off (total darkness- fun!), exposed wiring (more than one person confirmed the wires were live), inability to go up from the ground floor (their solution was to post up a hand-written sign explaining that we just have to got to the basement first), etc.

The TSSA issued numerous warnings and finally a stop order because of the danger posed by the cars. Starlight’s response was to shut down the elevator (leaving the whole 17-floor building to one half-working death cage). In response to the no-work that Starlight did, the TSSA decided to lift the order, I guess, based on some promise that, no, really, they work great this time. Of course, within a month the same problems were noted again.

It apparently struck no one as odd that exactly the same problems were found after three individual inspections (in this specific case, each a month apart), problems severe enough to force the TSSA to shut down the elevators, and problems that miraculously re-appeared once again after the ban had been lifted. Is it likely that everything was fixed and broke down again in exactly the same way, or is it more likely that Starlight “befriended” the inspector and continued to ignore the problem in exactly the same way they had for years? The judge isn’t sure, so she decided she needed to hear from what I can only assume was a “character witness” for the faceless mega-corporation. And another 6 months’ worth of waiting for the next hearing is tossed out the window.

All of this is well-documented, and has been going on for literally years. And those involved in the lawsuit quickly realized that there are no laws to protect us from such obvious abuses, and even if there were, they wouldn’t be enforced. And even if they were enforced, the obvious glad-handing between Starlight and the court means that even that last resort would be futile. Of course it’s an absolute violation of the law. Of course it’s an abdication of the judge’s responsibility. Of course it’s all wrong. So what? The government is constantly green-lighted to violate laws and people’s rights, something that they can extend to characters like the team defending Starlight’s slimy abuse of their own tenants (I hate to judge a book by its cover but the corporation’s people even look like characters out of some greezy gangster movie).

On top of this, in another hearing before the LTB the tenants of the building are fighting an above-rate rent increase that Starlight is trying to foist on them to cover the cost of all of the renovations they did (I’m already paying the larger rent since I moved in later, but they’re trying to squeeze more money out of me in other ways); renovations like a new roof which leaked profusely into our top-floor unit the first major rain we had, blistering the ceiling and walls with giant water bubbles, and renovations like the window replacements I mentioned above that they decided to do in the middle of winter with absolutely no regard for the residents (I heard that other buildings where this branding make-over took place [it had nothing to do with energy efficiency, etc.] had the luxury of warming areas!) Oh, and the non-functional elevators, you know they want us to pay for “upgrading” those too…

And just to make sure we were all starkly reminded of how biased the judge is in our case, she pronounced that anyone who did not attend a hearing to testify about problems in our class action, problems like those with the elevators, would probably be disqualified because she can’t decide how much to award if she doesn’t know how people were affected as a result of Starlight violating everyone’s contract terms (we’re asking for abatement — rent reduction or refund — for those months where we can prove that the elevators were broken). Tough shit if you have a job in order to pay rent — the onus is on you. Of course, if you refuse to pay the rent and stand up in even this meager protest for your rights, the rental contract, the law, common sense, basic human decency, etc., it is you who will be hauled off by the cops. If the corporation endangers your life by exposing you to the elements (or asbestos, or black mold, or whatever), and furthermore violates contractual terms that they set out, it’d likely be you that’s hauled off by the cops for filing a complaint — at least that’s what the unhelpful lady in the “Property Standards Enforcement” (the people who don’t enforce stuff), unit said.

This assumes that there ever would be a ruling, which is realistically expected never so long as the judge continues to allow Starlight to produce “surprise witnesses” in post-post-post-postponed hearings. I’m not aware of any limitations or regulations surrounding “timely” cases (and that assumes that anyone would bother to enforce them).

Sure, those witnesses may not know anything about the situation, but, you know, the big-money people need their fair day in court. Those tenants who can’t be there, even though they’re being represented by a lawyer (well, a paralegal — it’s the best we could afford), and have all produced signed letters in their absence, are irrelevant. They court sure as hell isn’t going to postpone hearings for one more day to wait for those lazy assholes (or as the Starlight team put it, people who “can’t be bothered to show up”).

Besides all of this, I can’t even count how many times I’ve personally witnessed fraud and law-breaking at some of the companies I’ve worked for in the past. And every day I see cops openly violating the exact  laws that they’re “enforcing”. Then I listen to the media quacks drone on about the wonders of our illustrious and increasingly hard-line leaders, corporate saviours with “visionary” products and services, and wondrous celebrities at whom we should all gaze with adoration, and I can’ help but wonder…

What’s to be done?

So I gave it some thought…

Although I tend to lace my political analyses with a lot more profanity and not so subtle calls to action, I’m heartened to see that the mainstream media seem to be waking up to what’s happening — at least here in Canada.

Christopher Hume’s piece in the Toronto Star today, for example, demonstrates a willingness to no longer tip-toe around the issues. Although I wish I could quote the entire article, the last few-ish paragraphs sum it all up perfectly:

It was painful to watch our prime minister and chief environmental scofflaw, Boss Harper, squirm in New York last week as he tried to talk his way out of his antediluvian attitudes to climate change.

It was just as excruciating to witness Sheriff Ford’s efforts to deal with reports of a video of him apparently smoking crack. The man has yet to mount any defence beyond, “ridiculous.”

Through it all we remain so polite, deferential and glad to be of use, that a good many Torontonians lined up to denounce the media that did them the favour of revealing the mayor for what he is, an overgrown man-child who does what he wants, the city be damned.

Harper, by contrast, knows what he’s doing. He knows his actions are reckless, but to him ethics are a nicety leaders can’t afford.

Neither Harper nor Ford respect government, its institutions or the positions they hold. Both believe themselves exempt. To them, Canadians are gullible or too preoccupied with getting by to hold them responsible.

As bad as things may be, Canadians are terrified they could be worse.

I applaud you, Mr. Hume, for taking a stand against the blithe illegality and corruption of our various levels of government. Now we just need more people to do the same.

Just so I’m clear, I support neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Sri Lankan government in their ongoing struggle. Yes, I do know a bit of the history of the island, the forced displacement of the indigenous Tamil people, etc., but not enough to take a firm stand either way.

But that’s not my point in writing this anyway.

I want to expose the hypocrisy, arbitrariness, and two-facedness of our government in designating enemies and terrorists, especially now that they’ve pushed the “anti-terrorist” Bill S-7 down the throats of Canadians (the latest in a long line of tyrannical, totalitarian, deadly measures that have only one, logical conclusion).

The Tamil Tigers consider themselves freedom fighters, fighting an evil and corrupt strong-man government (openly and proudly installed and maintaned by the Harper government). Sure, many people wouldn’t agree with that definition of the Tigers, but that’s beside the point — Harper loves him his Sri Lankan “authorities” and has made sure Canada’s been helping out since 2006 while simultaneously ensuring dissent is fully destroyed:

Canadian interest in Sri Lanka is also driven by a foreign policy commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In April 2006, Canada listed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a terrorist organization under the Canadian Criminal Code, and in June 2008, the World Tamil Movement was also added to the list.

Now, John Baird, the guy currently running this part of Harper’s shit show, has this to say about the same government that they’ve been brown-nosing and loving up over the past 7 years:

“We’re appalled that Sri Lanka seems poised to host CHOGM and to be chair-in-residence of the Commonwealth for two years,” he told the Guardian.

“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it. We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”

This in-your-face hypocrisy is troubling on many levels, but there are two that stand out above others.

1. It’s excruciatingly obvious that this has nothing to do with “terrorism”, supporting human rights, ensuring equality, etc.; it’s all about arbitrarily (at least, on the surface), vilifying one group or another for reasons of conquest, division, strife, and control.  And while simultaneously decrying our new enemies abroad (but not actually doing anything to back up the vociferous fist-pounding), the government is passing measures designed to go after its own people in the most draconian manner and with complete impunity at home (again, see S-7 for just a smattering).
2. This “these are friends, no, they’re hated enemies” narrative, state of constant and unending war, fear, and domestic subjugation have been spelled out almost exactly in works that were once considered mere horrific works of fiction:
   

This dark and unsettling road that we’re on is nonetheless clearly marked, and has an even more clear destination. It’s not as if history hasn’t shown us example after example of where all of this leads (if we let it), and those who choose to remain ignorant, or worse, supportive of it, also have plenty of first-hand experience to draw on:

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If…if…

We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Not long ago I was accused of being brainwashed because I follow politics. I tried to get more information about my alleged brainwashing from my interlocutor and was bluntly told that I never used to follow politics, so why now?

This person also reads (or at least used to read), TCL, so really would’ve been fairly familiar with how long I’d been following politics; and when I look back through my old posts I realize it’s been for a lot longer than I’d been “brainwashed” for. In fact, the only real thing that’s changed is that I’ve become critical, begun to dig a lot deeper, and think about things a lot more thoroughly.

In other words, I’m “brainwashed” because I now think and express myself a lot more freely.

Uh-huh.

I have regular discussions about politics with this person and am often confronted with their obstinate support of the Harper government. This, at least in part, is one of the reasons I’ve been so vocal (if the word can be applied to writing), about my criticisms of the numerous ways that he and his gang are trying to destroy freedom in Canada.

By “freedom” I’m not alluding to some vague notions of self-expression (though that is certainly true), I’m talking about simple physical freedoms like being able to walk down the street without fear of arbitrary arrest, or being free to express simple opinions and truths without having the government crack down on you, harass you, or spy on you secretly.

This same person, the one who accused me of being brainwashed, came from a repressive communist country where such things were a regular thing, so I assumed that this kind of thing wouldn’t sit well with them. Yet when faced with stark evidence like Bill C-38 or Bill C-11, and expecting at least a modicum of thought, some skepticism, maybe a willingness to dig a bit deeper, even if just to prove me wrong, I instead got derision.

The best retort they can muster is to call me dumb (and brainwashed), and to demand to know why such things concern me.

The real question is, why don’t they concern you?! (And I’m brainwashed)

It’s not tough to imagine, then, with people willing to live with their eyes and ears covered like this, that Harper continues on his merry way to making Canada a massive repressive regime within which citizens are expected to cower in fear and dare not speak ill of the government lest they be “disappeared” into some dark dungeon, indefinitely, with no trial, judge, or jury. The same citizens are actually fully supporting such moves, and they sure don’t want to hear how such things could possibly be bad (even if they’ve lived through such terrors themselves). Heck, why would you even need evidence at that point?

If you’re still paying attention, though, there is still some hope.

To start off with, it’s interesting to compare Harper’s latest bit of despotic maneuvering, Bill S-7, with America’s NDAA.

In the US, the NDAA (innocuously disguised as a recurring military funding bill), includes a variety of passages that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens (in fact, anyone at all), without trial, in military Gulags not unlike Guantanamo Bay. With Bill C-38, Harper has allowed the US to legally waltz across the border with complete impunity and “remove” people at any time they wish.

Not to be outdone, of course, the Harper government is introducing Bill S-7, the “Combating Terrorism Act” (the catch-all term for everything and anything designed to separate you from your rights and freedoms these days), which has many of the same features as the NDAA. Here are some highlights to expect should this thing make it through:

• People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
• The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
• As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
• Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
• A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
• Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
• Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
• These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.

It’s interesting to see how the October 23rd vote on this bill went down: unanimously voted in by both Conservatives and Liberals. I’m sure I’ve stated my belief more than once that they’re now essentially one and the same apparatus (McGuinty’s latest escapades also illustrate this quite well). Literally anyone outside of these two parties voted against it.

It’s also worthwhile to read the discussion at the second reading of the bill, even just to get a sense of the basically blasé, done-deal rhetoric that proponents could muster (when they could be bothered to speak on such trivial matters at all) — oh, and don’t forget 9/11!

To me it seems self-evident that anyone and everyone should be at least slightly concerned about such laws and, moreover, the types of government that would be continuously bringing them forward. The only way to avoid concern is to be completely oblivious to everything when presented with it, to deny reality when it’s staring you in the face, and to sing the praises of our glorious leader even as he’s setting up mega-prisons and the means to fill them with anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

But I guess I’m just brainwashed.

The group is called Re:Sound, and here’s just a smattering of the bullshit they’re peddling (from their website):

You may not be aware that you need a licence to use music in your business, but it is your responsibility to get the right licence(s) if you are playing music in public. Licences are also required by public and commercial broadcasters.

Not entirely true. There is at least one exceptions in the Copyright Act where you can “use music” in your business without being harassed by yet another copyright goon squad:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-48.html#docCont

In respect of public performances by means of any radio receiving set in any place other than a theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainments to which an admission charge is made, no royalties shall be collectable from the owner or user of the radio receiving set, but the Board shall, in so far as possible, provide for the collection in advance from radio broadcasting stations of royalties appropriate to the conditions produced by the provisions of this subsection and shall fix the amount of the same.

In other words, if you are playing music through a radio or over a web station, the station is already paying tariffs so you don’t have to. But what does that matter? They can claim that you owe them cash even if you’re just playing music over a boombox while having a picnic in the park with friends:

G. PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS

Application

1. (1) This tariff sets the royalties to be paid for the performance in public or the communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances of such works in the repertoire of Re:Sound in parks, streets and other public areas.

Interestingly, there are a series of stipulations in Canadian copyright law called “fair dealing” which exempts people from being harassed. Funny how Re:Sound makes no mention of these:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that “these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights.” In particular, the Court gave a “a large and liberal interpretation” to the notion of research, stating that “lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research”.
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a “non-copyrighted equivalent of the work” available to the user? Was the dealing “reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose”?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work “in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work – one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? “Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”

When I mention “yet another” copyright good squad, that’s because this new body is looking to charge people for the same thing that an already existing group, SOCAN, is doing:

Re:Sound and SOCAN are distinct organisations that represent different groups and as such, both are required to be compensated.

But while it’s claimed that these are two “distinct organizations”, the law gives them right to squeal on you to each other:

(2) Re:Sound may share information referred to in subsection (1)

1. (a) in connection with the collection of royalties or the enforcement of a tariff, with SOCAN;

Just like that, the Intellectual Property mafia come along and double your monthly “protection” fees.

And just like any other organization in who’s debt you are simply for existing, they’re ready to charge you interest until you cough up the dough:

Interest on Late Payments

7. Any amount not received by the due date shall bear interest from that date until the date the amount is received. Interest shall be calculated daily, at a rate equal to one per cent above the Bank Rate effective on the last day of the previous month (as published by the Bank of Canada). Interest shall not compound.

Particularly troubling is the section of the Copyright Act that says that bodies like Re:Sound are required to compensate artists if they happen to be collecting tariffs for their works, even if they don’t represent them and have no claim to the copyright:

Claims by non-members

• 76. (1) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in paragraph 31(2)(d) is, if the work is communicated to the public by telecommunication during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Royalties that may be recovered

  (2) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in subsection 29.6(2) or 29.7(2) or (3) is, if such royalties are payable during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work or other subject-matter is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Exclusion of remedies

  (3) The entitlement referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is the only remedy of the owner of the copyright for the payment of royalties for the communication, making of the copy or sound recording or performance in public, as the case may be.

In other words, if these organizations are collecting tariffs on your music, you can demand to be paid for that “service”. However, that’s all you can do. So, the organization can collect money on music that they have absolutely no rights to, and you, as owner of the music, have no other remedies. Read that section again if you don’t believe me.

It’s a messed up way of claiming the right to collect money on your music without claiming direct ownership over it — though the difference is the same if the law claims you can’t restrict someone from collecting money on your own works.

To put it another way, the very “crimes” that these organizations are supposed to be preventing are what they are basically being welcomed to engage in — by law. And if it so happens that you don’t know your music is being milked by Re:Sound for the benefit of their “partners”, too bad. And even if you do, too bad. They get to charge money for all music everywhere, and you’d better like it. You might get paid … eventually.

Of course, if it turns out you underpaid the copyright mafia, they reserve the right to get all up in your business and force you to cough up and pay at any time for a period of up to 6 years back; and, of course, if they ripped you off, there exists no provision to protect you in the same way:

Records and Audits

4. (1) A person subject to this tariff shall keep and preserve, for a period of six years after the end of the year to which they relate, records from which that person’s payment under this tariff can be readily ascertained.

(2) Re:Sound may audit these records at any time during the period set out in subsection (1), on reasonable notice and during normal business hours.

(3) Re:Sound shall, upon receipt, supply a copy of the report of the audit to the person who was the subject of the audit.

(4) If an audit discloses that the royalties owed to Re:Sound during any reporting period have been understated by more than ten per cent, the subject of the audit shall pay the amount of the understatement and the reasonable costs of the audit within 30 days of the demand for such payment.

Do you suppose you get to charge Re:Sound interest if it turns out they’ve been charging people for playing your music for years without your permission?

And if you don’t think that the copyright goon squad will play nice and fair, there are plenty of recent examples demonstrating that they have absolutely no intention of doing that.

Originally posted at: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3527

Is it any wonder that while the government is pushing in Employment Insurance changes that will impoverish Canadians, they’ve simultaneously hid key statistical data from their reports?

And just in time, too! Gotta hand it to the Harper government, when they screw over the Canadian population, they make sure to do it right!

Demand for information about EI is running high right now due to the government’s slow strip tease on changes to the program.

“Loss of data will make it much more difficult to analyse the impacts of changes to the EI rules as they are implemented,” said Andrew Jackson, chief economist at the Canadian Labour Congress.

He is concerned that stricter criteria for EI claimants are coming at the same time as Ottawa reduces the avenues for appeal — leaving adjudicators with little leeway to allow for local and personal circumstances.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120523/employment-insurance-rules-120523/

As I watched Diane Finlay’s (Human Resources Minister), announcement on EI reforms being pushed by the Harper regime, it became increasingly obvious that what they’re doing is pushing the corporate yoke on Canadians even further, and at the same pushing them into abject poverty and servitude.

It’s no exaggeration to say that with every announcement, every proposal, they demonstrate their complete subjugation to mega corporations and banks, and almost exclusively at the expense of you and me, the regular citizen.

The details revealed yesterday pretty much match the announcement made today, and it’s pretty terrifying what they’re putting into place. One of the major pieces of this is that Canadians will now be forced to take work that fits their skill set (paraphrased), and is within 70% to 80% of their average income.

So let’s say you were working an office job, or are in seasonal work, and find yourself laid off. You’ve been paying into the system (more money than you’ll ever be able to collect — heaven forbid YOU should benefit from your own labour!), and now need some assistance. The government will now require you to take a lower-paying job if it fits your skills (you can flip burgers, can’t you?), and is within 1 hour of your home (extra commuting doesn’t cost you any more, does it?).

Now you’ve got your lower-earning job, potentially farther away, and it doesn’t matter if you were living on the borderline of debt. So if you can’t make your monthly payments on your credit card or loan or whatever, you’re kinda fucked. Government says, “too bad”, it’s what you deserve for being laid off (if it’s in your control you get no benefits at all).

But it gets worse because your average income is now lower. While you may have been earning $60,000 last year, because of these changes you’re now earning $45,000 a year so your average income is now $52,500. Now if you’re laid off again (and I’m sure we’ll be seeing a dramatic increase in this — the government will see to it), you have to take a job that pays around $39,400.

Repeat this for a number of years and pretty soon the government will expect everyone to work for minimum wage. Typically it’ll take about 9 to 10 years to halve someone’s salary, especially if they’re dependent on seasonal work in provinces that have few other alternatives. And even in provinces that do, this is a great incentive to drop salaries — eventually, the government will force people to work for a pittance so why not?

Using that $60,000 per year example, that would take about 30 years. Here’s the math (note that each year we take the average pay):

Year 1 – $60,000 x 75% = $45,000
Year 2 – ($45,000 + $60,000) / 2 x 75% =  $52,500
Year 3 – ($45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 3  x 75% = $39,362
Year 4 – ($39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 4  x 75% = $37,052
Year 5 – ($37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 5  x 75% = $35,199
Year 6 – ($35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 6  x 75% = $33,732
Year 7 – ($33,732 + $35,199 + $37,052 + $39,362 + $45,750 + $ 52,500 + $60,000) / 7  x 75% = $32,527
…

Year 30 – $22,836

So after 30 years of service to the corporate economy, you can expect to be getting close to minimum wage (if unchanged from today).

This assumes, of course, that the average income is calculated since the beginning of this system. If the term is limited, say 5 years, the income shrinks more quickly. And what about those “penalties for repeat users”? That hasn’t been fleshed out but you can bet it’ll make the slippery slope down to serfdom even faster.

In any event, no part of this will benefit workers or their families unless they happen to luck out with generous companies (how realistic is that?).

In the meantime, we can likely expect the Harper government to bend over backwards for banks (who are already robbing us blind), and huge corporations who will undoubtedly benefit greatly from slave labour.

You remember Senator Anthony Wiener, right? Sure you do! He’s the guy that tweeted pictures of his junk to a few women, presumably in the hope that he’d be able to hook up with them, and ended up being front page fodder as a result. If you’ll recall, the revelations surrounding his conduct made more than a few headlines and it was really only yesterday that he finally decided to resign, putting that tidbit on most newspapers’ back burners.

Well, if you they thought that was explosive, wait’ll they get a load of Parkergate!

That’s right … Parkergate; just like Wienergate but this time involving a local Toronto politician, John Parker. Well, just like Wienergate, except there was no (visibly) erect penis involved, just the tweet that Parker was surrounded by “hot chicks” while attending a recent plaque unveiling ceremony. Here’s the disgustingly full transcript (you might want to have your kids to leave the room now):

Delighted and honoured to help unveil eight new Toronto heritage plaques and meet hot chicks in the bargain. I love my job.

Can you believe that shit? “Hot chicks”?! What the fuckety fuck?!

The outrage was immediate and palpable. Here’s just a small sampling of the ensuing backlash:

The tweet was erased despite his initial refusal to apologize. Parker, known for his light-hearted tweets, blamed the media for making city hall a place where fun won’t be tolerated.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/21/john-parker-hot-chicks-tweet548.html

The insolence!

Although the event went off without a hitch, the councillor made waves later in the day when he expressed his view of the overall event on the popular social networking tool Twitter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/20/toronto-politician-tweets.html

The gall!

Pulled out of a meeting at his City Hall office, Parker said the focus should be on the eight plaques unveiled Monday to honour Torontonians, not something he posted on Twitter.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/20/councillor-tweets-about–hot-chicks

Bastard!

Heritage Toronto communications director Rebecca Carson said, with a laugh, that she believed she was one of the “hot chicks” in question. She said Heritage executive director Karen Carter might have been another.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1011996–heritage-employee-surprised-by-councillor-s-hot-chicks-tweet

Sickening!

Parker (Ward 26, Don Valley West) said the constituents who have contacted him about the flap have been supportive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1012552–parker-apologizes-for-offending-with-hot-chicks-tweet

Go back to Nazi Germany!

The Don Valley West councillor noted the number of people following his Twitter account has gone up in the wake of the story.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/21/councillor-apologizes-for-hot-chicks-tweet

Scum-sucking troglodyte!

When does a Tweet cross the line? When it involves “hot chicks” and a city councillor.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/rob-ford-asks-parker-to-apologize-for-tweet/article2068241/

Arrrrrggggh!!!!! *running out of the room screaming*

Well, thankfully our mayor stood up and took offense right away, calling on Parker to apologize. I couldn’t actually find anyone else that was publicly offended but that’s probably because of the extreme trauma that’s been inflicted on them. I also couldn’t find a reference to who the “hot chicks” were, but obviously…

…ahhh, I can’t do this anymore. It’s soooooooo stupid! The reason I couldn’t find the offended parties is because, for all intents and purposes, they don’t exist. The various women interviewed for articles expressed, at most, surprise, but not much else. Seriously, even if they took offense, who among them would step forward to positively identify themselves as the “hot chicks” in that tweet? Only Rob Ford, it seems. And since he wasn’t there, I can only assume he took exception to not being included in that group. Well, sorry, Rob … maybe if you manicured your bikini line now and again.

John sums this up best: “I think I’ll be aware of the hazards of slow news days.”

Yup.

This is going to be a rant, dear reader. A long and arduous one about morality, law, taxes, and such. So if you’re not into that kinda thing, you may want to avert your gaze now. Well, maybe you may wanna stick around for the few pictures but the rest of the post will be a tough slog otherwise.

Okay?

Good.

So let’s talk about this concept of the straight and narrow, shall we?

… Continue Reading

Warmest welcome once again, dear reader!

It’s so nice to have the pleasure of your company for another instalment of the Guide. I do hope that life has treated you kindly and that during the odd times when it hasn’t that you’ve had some opportunities to practice being practical. And, more importantly, that that practice has brought you some satisfaction.

In this edition I’d like to pull back from street level and look at a couple of larger forms of urban insolence: government and transit. It’s certainly not necessary to go into any sort of detail; insolence comes in many forms from both sides at this level, from new taxes to higher bus fares, and these are not necessarily local or even urban issues. In fact, as I hope you’ll find, the topics covered here have broader applications.

However, for the practical gentleman this poses a profound conundrum: does one take up arms and revolt against increasingly unjust overlords at great risk to oneself and one’s family, or does one resort to enjoyable but much less effective flaming paper bags (with surprise) left on doorsteps?

Alas, neither option seems agreeable, does it? On the one hand we must choose between radical criminal action, on the other classically amusing but ultimately ineffectual pranks. What’s the practical gentleman to do?

A great deal of wisdom has been scratched onto the walls of prisons as regards these matters, but please allow me to at least get the ball rolling:

The Continental

When one can’t be direct but wishes to nonetheless improve a situation, one must think outside the box. If more money is involuntarily leaving our pocket, more must come in to replenish it. It’s a simple balancing act. Thus, the practical gentleman takes his case directly to the people, bypassing the tight-fisted upper echelons altogether.

In this approach, we simply ask passersby to donate for charity, and I must stress strongly that this is not the same as asking for hand-outs. That would be most ungentlemanly and besides, this is an investment. To convince our fellows of this, however, we are required to present our case with a little more flair. Some call this marketing.

We simply invest in a nice colour print-out of the charity we’re representing, a nice binder to put it on the cover of, and a few hundred charitable donation “receipts” to give to anyone who requests them, to go in said binder. And a pen :) The charity is of course you, only jazzed up a bit; marketed better. Try some interesting twists on your name, combine it with a slogan, borrow a nice logo, but keep it all simple. For example, “The Patrick Fund – Fighting poverty at hom e and abroad”. The name must always be entirely truthful and you should always have a full explanation at the ready. In this case, it is a fund that is in my name and to be used to fight poverty in my home, possibly also to fight that woman I don’t much care for. With minor typographical errors.

For the logo, simply take an existing one from anything around you (using a cell phone camera, for example), and cut off everything but a quarter of the image. For simpler logos, like the Nike swoosh, you may have to use a half of the photo. Or, if cutting doesn’t produce satisfactory results, simply flip the image around horizontally or vertically. The McDonald’s golden arches easily become William’s golden catch basin — for money!

But, most importantly, you must add a prominent outline of the African continent on the logo (hence, “The Continental”). This lets people know you like geography. If you don’t, maybe now’s the time you gave it another try! People aren’t going to give their money to just any old schmuck on the street. Let them know how worldly you are, what a great investment you’ll be, why they should believe. Africa, the symbol of hope.

In this way you don’t hide behind any small print and your honesty and commitment to being upfront will shine through. The donations will come pouring in! At the end of the day you can go home satisfied that your fellow human beings have helped you because of a shared sense of civility. Take that, government!

The Convenient

Did you know that local businesses often provide instant financial support to anyone who strolls in through their front doors? It’s true. In most convenience stores, for example, often placed clearly and visibly in front of the cash register is the leave-a-penny take-a-penny bowl. Most store owners don’t contribute to it so they have no say in how it’s apportioned; it’s a social support system by the people, for the people. Including you.

Penny contributions can be made when pennies are abundant in your life. When they’re scarce, you can of course take. But be sure to do so a penny at a time, thus affording someone else the opportunity to take every alternate penny if they wish. A two-second wait period is customary unless no one else is in front of the counter with you.

The only drawback of the take-a-penny system is that some stores carry larger caches than others. I suggest carrying a strong bag (the pennies will get heavy!) and visiting as many shops as you can. Remember, those pennies already belong to you so you’re not required to make idle chit-chat with the shopkeeper. If they give you any trouble, simply threaten to call police. If this is not your style, you may instead opt to dress provocatively. Ladies will have an advantage over the gentlemen here, I’m afraid. Sorry fellas, we can’t win ‘em all.

The Economic

Many economic pundits have been putting forth the idea that being environmentally conscious and being profitable don’t necessarily have to be exclusive of each other. In fact, an amazing array of novel ideas is beginning to surface during these difficult financial times, many of them designed to produce environmental benefits, and many of those turning in tidy profits for anyone willing to put in some effort. The concept of carbon credits, for example, is ingenious but it hasn’t quite caught on yet. The problem is simply a dearth of mass adoption. This means that the market is still very much wide open … for anyone willing to roll up their sleeves and work for it.

Honest rewards for honest labour.

The further upshot of this is that the practical gentleman may rest well at night knowing that he’s earning an income from a noble pursuit, its influence continuing well into the future. The only requirement is a nice smile and a number of carbon credit certificates. There is no currently accepted standard for these – be creative, but keep the initial batch inexpensive. The idea is not to lose money here :)

Now the hard part: we go door to door selling carbon credits. There’s no trick here, you just have to shake hands, sip tea, and sell the hell outta that carbon!

Eventually, you may want to to invest in some fancy paper certificates — set yourself apart from the competition. Just work the cost into the price of the credits.

You can promise clients that each carbon credit they buy will be used to directly sequester a certain amount of green (in your pocket), ‘n house gasses. Not sure exactly what those gasses would be, but probably natural (this is a good, light-hearted jest to open the conversation with – and be sure to hug the potential client).

Of course, you must guarantee each and every certificate. Should the client ever wish to redeem it, you must exchange the credit for the appropriate amount of carbon. Although it’s difficult to get pure carbon, rough carbon (mixed with impurities) may be produced simply by burning something to ashes. This is your contractual obligation so you must honour the request within a reasonable time frame.

One of the biggest arguments against buying credits in this way is that (it is claimed) they are really used to prevent the environmental effects of burning stuff. Haha! What nuthouse did that escape from? If you buy a carbon credit, you should be able to exchange it for carbon. Who’s going to pay for not getting something? When the customer understands that this certificate is worth something, then it becomes a lot more valuable. Treat each buyer like the intelligent human being they are; logic will always wins the day ;)

You’ll have to do some research into going carbon credit prices but, since you probably won’t have any immediate competition in your neighbourhood, you may just be able to set whatever price you want. Just be sure not to price yourself out of the market! :D

I hope, dear reader, these points will help you through the tough times. They were inspired by a certain form of insolence, but their application turns out to be much broader. If the challenge was to think outside the box, hopefully that has been achieved. Certainly they are merely a spot from which to cast off, but hopefully they’ll chart a course to some pleasant tropical island with nice beaches, nice people, and nice drinks with little umbrellas in them. Even Mexico might be a nice escape.

Wishing you a bon voyage!