Monday, December 01, 2014

John Derringer's 13 Days Of Christmas


Well, the 13 Days Of Christmas Campaign Against Child Abuse and Domestic Violence has started again.

John Derringer, morning radio talk show host at Q107FM in Toronto, raises funds every year which are used to ensure that children who have been the victims of abuse and adults who have been the victims of domestic violence as well as their families can enjoy a better Christmas.

Derringer is a philanthropist here in Toronto and is on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Center for Abuse Awareness.

This fund raising campaign is on behalf of both CCAA and the Martin Kruze Memorial Foundation.

Child Abuse of all kinds, Bullying and Domestic Violence are terrible crimes.

It's up to us as a society to help, to be aware that there are other children out there suffering, and make these children, as well as adult survivors of Child Abuse and victims of Domestic Violence a priority.

Preventing Child Abuse, Bullying and Domestic Violence is everyone's responsibility.

Please note that Domestic Violence is not a gender issue. Both men and women can be and are victims. We don't have good statistics on the number of men who are abused because men don't report this crime out of embarrassment and a lack of social support.

His Campaign will continue from December 1 to 13.

Support his campaign by:

1. calling 1-800-379-8858 (Canada) and contribute! 

2. go directly to their web site at Q107, listen to the show on streaming audio. John's show, Derringer in the Morning, airs from 5:30AM to 10:00AM EST Monday to Friday. John provides details on how to contribute by texting and regular updates, etc.

3. contribute directly and/or participate in the Online Auction  or by going directly to the CCAA site.

Note that the Online Auction features some pretty cool Canadiana, sports and rock memorabilia like: "Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr Hand Signed Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band Record Album With Letter of Authenticity"

4. Or contribute to your own charity in your own country which is helping the victims of child abuse and/or domestic violence!

5. You can also sign Stephen Shellen's Petition to Stop Child Trafficking



Thanks and Merry Christmas/Yuletide Greetings/Happy Solstice/Happy Holidays!

Friday, May 30, 2014

Internet Loons Declare Me An #Anonymous #Hacker LOL!

Well I guess that settles that question.

If Heather Martin, a registered nurse at St. Pauls Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and other Internet Loons declare me an Anonymous Hacker then it must be true. Lol.

After all, they allege:

  1. that they are all 'thorough' researchers 
  2. have a veritable treasure trove of links, and documents that they and other Internet Loons produced 
  3. which they share amongst each other

which say so.

Of course, according to their circular logic, that is 'evidence' and makes their allegations true because, after all, they can reference each others bullshit.

This argument is based on the logical fallacy, Argumentum Ad Populum which simply states: "If many believe so, it is so." 

Of course, the flaw in that statement should be obvious here. Everyone used to believe the world was flat and we know that isn't true. In fact, a lot of people believe in a lot of stupid things. If we assumed they were all true just because a lot of people believed them, we'd still be living in caves.

And people wonder why I call them irrational Internet Loons. Lol.

Seriously.

Why is their demonstrated looniness even a question? Is it that human beings are lacking in a general ability to engage in rational thought processes by default?

I think so and I think this is a serious failing in our educational system.

EVERYONE should be taught logical argumentation skills from the time they can speak. It can be done and it should be done or I see very little hope for the survival of the human race.

Seriously.

The kind and quantity of sheer ignorance that gets flogged on the Internet daily and that some people eagerly lap up and spew everywhere is absolutely astounding.

Maybe we should consider licensing people before they're allowed to have blogs? A required Pass in a course on logical argumentation could be the ticket in. Lol.

Anyway, according to their loony logic, given that,

  1. I am in IT (I'm a web and software application developer)
  2. I support the Anonymous concept

therefore I am an Anonymous Hacker. Lol.

This is like saying (Example 1):
  1. All toasters are items made of gold.
  2. All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
  3. Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Or to be more specific (Example 2):
  1. All people in IT are Hackers
  2. All Hackers are Anonymous
  3. Therefore, all people in IT are Anonymous Hackers
BOTH of the above examples have statements that are known in logical argumentation as valid logic. That is, the conclusion (3) logically follows the premises (1 and 2).

So, as you can see by example 1, logic can be valid, even if it is based on statements that are untrue.
"It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well." --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]
And to the idiot, the premises will be assumed to be true therefore the conclusions are presumed to be true.

Herein lies the difference between the intelligent critical thinker and the ignoramus (who can, should and might be willing to learn) or the stupid (who is incapable of or self-servingly refuses to learn).

Whether these irrational Internet Loons who are alleging that I'm an Anonymous Hacker fall into the category of ignoramus or stupid is solely in their hands. I have no control over which they demonstrate, by their own actions, to be. Only they can do that.

All I can do is provide the education and information which will help to educate those interested in learning and that is what I'm doing here.

Now, as you can see, in the demonstration above, valid logic, while it's certainly logical, isn't necessarily true if the premises aren't true. It can be false. It can even be completely nuts unless you think toasters are actually time machines. In which case I'd have to say that you were nuts.

That's why logical argumentation doesn't just require validity. It also requires soundness.

A sound logical argument is one which uses both valid logic (the conclusion follows logically from the premises) AND the premises are demonstrably true.

This is where the irrational Internet Loons fail in all their allegations. In many cases, they are sort of capable of making claims which on the surface might appear to make sense or appear to have some truth to them but as soon as you scratch the surface a little you expose the filthy inner lining of irrational looniness because the premises are false. That is, they intentionally don't or can't present sound arguments.

Their goal is just to fabricate some bullshit that sounds good and that thoughtless people might buy rather than to present truth. The purpose of that goal is defame and discredit those they target with their bullshit.

A sound logical argument about people in IT and Anonymous hackers would look like the following:

  1. Some people in IT hack
  2. Some people in IT support Anonymous
  3. Some people in IT might be Anonymous Hackers

Does this logic support the allegation that people in IT are Anonymous Hackers?

Of course it doesn't.

It supports the allegation that those people in IT who hack and who support Anonymous might be Anonymous Hackers not that they are Anonymous Hackers.

If you replace the term, 'Some people' with my name, does it support the allegation I'm an Anonymous Hacker?

Of course it doesn't.

In order for the logic to be sound, you'd have to have evidence that I hack. The fact that I publicly support Anonymous isn't enough. BOTH premises have to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be true and argument (allegation) logic to be sound.

Since I have publicly stated that I don't hack and since there is no evidence that I'm lying (you'd need actual demonstrable proof of my alleged hacking not some paranoid unproven accusation), the statement is flagrantly obvious bullshit and most likely intentional lies.

Even if someone fabricated evidence that I hack (and that's what they would have to do since I don't), the statement is still can't be perceived as being necessarily true. The conclusion can still only be that I might be, not that I am, unless there is demonstrable evidence of me participating as a hacker in an Anonymous Op. That evidence would also have to be fabricated since I haven't participated in any Anonymous Ops as a hacker.

Given that some of these Internet loons actually have a proven and demonstrated history of fabricating evidence in order to support their false allegations this is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Of course, my specialty is to expose their lies, fabrications and frame-ups which I have done successfully and repeatedly on my Cyberharassment and the Cyberbullies blog. The loons hate this blog and claim that I'm targeting 'innocent' people on it despite the fact that it contains a great deal of evidence, much of it hard evidence and some of it irrefutable evidence. Lol. This is the real reason they hate it.

If you want to have a good laugh you can read all about their lame attempts at frame-ups and deceptions and watch how I expose their lies using forensic technology and critical reasoning applied to evidence openly available on the Internet or provided to me by others.

sound arguments both start out with true premises and have a form that guarantees that the conclusion must be true if the premises are, sound arguments always end with true conclusions. --IEP. Validity and Soundness [in logical argumentation]

In my company blog I've provided an excerpt from a very good article which defines the different groups of people in IT, what they do, and what the differences are between the groups including the difference between web and software developers like myself and hackers. There's also a link back to the full article which is interesting and worth a read.


Here's an excerpt of the excerpt. Lol.


WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CODER, A HACKER, A PROGRAMMER, A DEVELOPER, AND A COMPUTER SCIENTIST?

These words might all mean the same thing to you. Perhaps you hear geek, nerd, and dweeb, but we all know these have very important differences. Knowing the differences also can give you a sense of how deep you want to go on your coding adventure.


  • Coders - Can pretty much figure out it. It'll work, but it won't be pretty.
  • Hackers - usually low level folks, skillful, with detailed understanding of some area deeply, often scarily deeply.
  • Programmer - Write code and understand algorithms. Often work alone and well.
  • Developer - Are the best generalists, can use lots of different systems and languages and get them to talk to each other. Are true and broad professionals, work with people, and communicate well.
  • Computer Scientist - Need to be able to prove how computers work, at a theoretical level. Are usually math people also.



















Sunday, May 25, 2014

CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Online abuse is, unfortunately, a common problem. It seems that there are some people in this world who simply get a lot of pleasure out of abusing others and the online world is a fertile ground for finding vulnerable victims. By vulnerable I’m not really referring to people who have any particular physical, emotional , or psychological vulnerabilities but rather the fact that we are all vulnerable in the online world to having our personal and professional reputations injured or destroyed. All knowledge and information about us which is out there is available to be twisted, misrepresented, distorted, exaggerated, lies invented based on it, and otherwise abused to present us in a negative light, in public, amongst those who either don’t know us or only know us casually.

We are also vulnerable to this abuse in real life but it’s harder to do and requires more structure and organization. It’s also harder to prove that it’s going on in real life. In the online world where nothing ever really gets deleted (despite the harassers attempts to remove the evidence) it can almost always be located and therefore the allegations proven.

Someone, somewhere has almost always archived it for posterity.

So, while the lies never get erased, your refutations to the lies also never get erased. If you’ve done your job properly the truth can and will overwhelm the lie and the liars even if they outnumber you.

However, going through that process is time consuming and often quite painful because those who engage in cyberharassment and stalking often have nothing else to do. They can (and do) spend hours doing this because they are dysfunctional people living dysfunctional lives whereas those of us being targeted with this abuse are trying to lead active, normal lives and this nonsense takes us away from that.

While these stalkers and harassers are usually incredibly stupid people, they do excel at lying so you will be dealing with their false allegations with the police, social media sites, friends, family, etc. sometimes for years. In the case of psychopaths, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’ll be on your case for years or until they get themselves incarcerated in prison or a psych ward.

This is one reason why this type of harassment can’t be ignored or swept under the carpet. The lies, if left to fester can and do take on a life of their own and become ‘truth’ by virtue of the fact that there is nothing out there refuting them.

When it comes to one’s personal and professional reputation these lies can have a deep and often immeasurable impact, especially vicious ones like the current ‘call everyone you hate a pedo’ rage.

The more seriously mentally ill the cyberharasser/stalker is, the further they will go with their abuse and lies.

If you:

  1. Challenge their story by challenging the fact that they have no evidence? Voila, evidence gets fabricated in the form of fake photoshopped screenshots, fake pedo web sites set up under the targets personal name as the domain, quoting known liars or people who have an obvious bias, etc.
  2. Expose their lies and their cowardice? Voila numerous false allegations/complaints filed with police, social media sites you’re a member of, government agencies, employers (past and present), schools, social service agencies (if you receive assistance), etc.
  3. Confront their lies? Voila they recruit other stalkers to spew them for them so that they can claim ‘they aren’t the only ones that hate you’. Suddenly you’re surrounded by a goon squad wallowing in its own filth of lies, the intent being to overwhelm the truth with the lies.

So, what are the solutions?

What can we do to deal more effectively with such lunacy online. Aside from having those who engage in this abuse carted off to their local Psych Ward in strait jackets or to prison. While that will certainly help resolve the problem, it isn’t the easiest thing to do and in the mean time we all have to survive the crazies.

While we can’t change the fact that there are seriously disturbed people out there in the world, many of whom have access to the Internet and are going to be problems… there are often small things that can be done that end up having a big impact.

This recent article from Wired provided some interesting examples and insight into this issue:

According to the article, a simple process like providing a specific and detailed explanation for why someone was banned reduced the recidivism of the bad behavior dramatically whereas not providing an explanation resulted in a ‘disturbingly high’ recidivism rate.
The team also found that it’s important to enforce the rules in ways that people understand. When Riot’s team started its research, it noticed that the recidivism rate was disturbingly high; in fact, based on number of reports per day, some banned players were actually getting worse after their bans than they were before. At the time, players were informed of their suspension via emails that didn’t explain why the punishment had been meted out. So Riot decided to try a new system that specifically cited the offense. This led to a very different result: Now when banned players returned to the game, their bad behavior dropped measurably. 
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

A solution like this actually accomplishes three things which are excellent for the consumer of the service.

  1. The user has a clear understanding of what the behavior that was considered negative is, and knows that if they want to stay on the site they can’t engage in that specific behavior again.  This creates a solid deterrent for that negative behavior.
  2. The support staff are required to properly examine the issue and provide a specific reason, presumably with the evidence that the person did indeed violate the rules. This has the benefit of ensuring that Support staff do their jobs properly and can actually justify the suspension (or lack of suspension based on a complaint). That is they can justify it based on actual written policy rather than just an arbitrary spur of the minute, get this off my desk fast, decision or I feel sorry for person A, I’m on their side and will help them even though the person isn’t doing what person A says they’re doing, etc.
  3. Most importantly, any sense of injustice or unfairness at the decisions is also removed because everything has been properly explained and justified. This, in and of itself, can lead to self-correcting behavior. Justice has been done.

Of course, the person might find the standard itself objectionable which is a different issue but one that should be addressed by any social media site which actually wants to be a comfortable place for their users. They could have a special forum where these types of discussions can occur directly with Support staff or Development staff. Explanations will resolve 90% of the issues and the other 10% probably need to be fixed. If they can’t be fixed, people are kept informed and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Or, at least less often, than they would without these measures in place.

The reality is that the current recidivism rate for ‘bad’ behavior is disturbingly high on sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the decisions to remove or leave items being objected to are arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently not based on the written site rules/policy.

Frequently items which obviously violate the social media site’s policy are left while items which don’t are removed and the posters suspended, banned or otherwise punished despite the fact that they didn’t violate any policy or rule.

I’m currently in a battle with Twitter and have been for a nearly a month to get my business Twitter account unsuspended. Twitter refuses to interact with me to provide any explanation, rationalization, or justification for their arbitrary (and unjustified) actions.

I have provided a detailed refutation to Twitter (in several emails now) including the tweets that I was tweeting at the time my account was suspended based on a false complaint, and screenshots of Twitters own interface showing that at least one allegation is completely bogus and without any merit. This has, so far, been completely ignored.

Not only is this frustrating to the user who is the target of cyberbullying / harassment and being further victimized by false accusations of allegedly doing what is actually being done to them, but it enables and encourages the cyberbullies and harassers to take things further and further. After all, their scam worked.

And you can rest assured they will be smugly gloating about the fact that it worked while coming up with ways to escalate things even further. Of course, they’ll blame you for the escalations. How dare you stand up to their abuse and do so publicly. That’s cyberbullying them according to their sick and twisted thinking. Lol.

To Facebook’s credit, they have banned Michael Babcock from Facebook because of his ongoing bullying and harassing behavior, defamations, lies, etc. They closed down over 20 Facebook sites set up by him for no other purpose than to personally attack, defame and spread lies about social activists on Facebook. Particularly anti-pedophilia social activists. Babcock is just one of a group of people that are part of this current harassment campaign and instigating numerous Tard Krews into senselessly targeting innocent people who are anti-pedophilia social activists.

All this accomplishes, of course, is to protect the real pedophiles since those who are going after them, the anti-pedophilia social activists,  are being discredited and defamed by this group of people: Antonio F. Lopez /Kree Love Dallas, TX (impersonating UK teen Kree Love) et al, Thomas Schroeder aka Thomas Cook aka Juliet Biehl et al, Julie Ann Larson aka Rusalka Sireen aka Javeria Laila et al, Christopher Joseph Erwin aka Jason Steele, Michael Babcock aka N2KMaster aka CoderHyguru aka Coder Hyguru.

The article proposes the following and I agree because it’s focusing entirely on the behavior that’s exhibited rather than the content of what is said. What is said only matters when it leads to negative behaviors and on those grounds free speech has always had some limitations.

You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theatre because of the impact that will have on behavior.

CyberBullying and harassment are the same. When you falsely call someone a Pedo or Pedo enabler and post it all over the web in numerous blogs, web sites, torrents, pastes, on DarkNet with personal information in Doxbin, etc. etc. there is an impact not only to the person targeted but to others who might decide to interact in negative ways with the target because of those false allegations.

So, this isn’t about free speech. It’s about bullying and harassing behaviors.

Extracted from the article:

What would our social networks look like if their guidelines and enforcement reflected real-life community norms? If Riot’s experiments are any guide, it’s unlikely that most or even many users would deem a lot of the casual abuse, the kind that’s driving so many people out of online spaces, to be acceptable. Think about how social networks might improve if—as on the gaming sites and in real life—users had more power to reject abusive behavior. Of course, different online spaces will require different solutions, but the outlines are roughly the same:

  • involve users in the moderation process,
  • set defaults that create hurdles to abuse,
  • give clearer feedback for people who misbehave,
  • and—above all—create a norm in which harassment simply isn’t tolerated.
–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

Update May 27, 2014: Babcock has returned to Facebook. Whether this is with or without Facebook's knowledge is unknown at this time. His usual game is to sneak around using socks. However, his pages and sock accounts are being closely monitored by quite a few people. Any defamatory libel, abuse or pathological lies about anyone will be immediately reported. Babcock created numerous pages whose sole purpose was to harass and defame innocent people with the lies he likes to fabricate. Facebook did the right thing to remove these harassment pages. There are no constitutional protections for people to lie and defame others. If he wants to call innocent people pedophiles or peophile enablers he should provide the evidence or shut the fuck up. While he claims to have Gigabytes of evidence, it's all nothing but misinterpreted nonsense which has for the most part been taken out of context and doesn't mean what he alleges it means. He's either a pathological liar, has extremely poor reading skills (elementary school level at best), or so mentally ill that he can't even interpret the written word correctly. His technical skills are so shoddy that he can't even interpret the simplest forensics software results correctly either.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

#Anonymous: Operation Net Storm


Published on May 10, 2014
[[ EMERGENCY ACTION NEEDED ]]
----------------------------------------­­---------

OFFICIAL HASHTAG(S):
#NETSTORM
#OccupyFCC
#SaveTheInternet

TRANSCRIPT: http://pastebin.com/WSz4GQTz

LOCATION: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, D.C. (http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/05...)

E-MAILS: List of FCC commissioners and their twitters, emails, blogs, instagrams, etc: http://www.fcc.gov/leadership // openinternet@fcc.gov

MAKE THE CALL: http://act.freepress.net/call/interne...

STI: http://www.savetheinternet.com/may-15...

They have taken action: http://on.rt.com/2bqtcl

What is Net Neutrality: http://www.vox.com/cards/network-neut...

MUST WATCH: http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M (via description)

The Monopoly: http://youtu.be/FM1psOX58qw

Don't know how to contact your representative? Find out who they are and let them know: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

SIGN THE PETITIONS:

- https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/peti...

- https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/peti...

- http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/tell...

NOTE: The description of this video will continuously be updated ONLY if necessary. Please check the description of this video daily for any updates.

Follow @TheAnonMessage on Twitter for the latest.

========================================­====

"What's Happening To Me (Alt 1) - Extreme Music / 2 Steps from Hell", musical composition administered by:
AdRev Publishing
Category
Nonprofits & Activism
License
Standard YouTube License
Show less

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Anonymous OpJamaica

Frankly this applies to ALL of the Caribbean.

Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean Islands should all be included in this Op. Just saying :-)

Very well researched video.  Recommended.


Monday, April 14, 2014

Corporate Welfare Bums and Taxes



If they can afford to buy our governments, not trickle down a penny in benefits to citizens through increased employment, etc. they're hoarding money and they certainly can afford to pay taxes at the 90% rate which is what it was in the 1950s. 

Hoarding money (which is what the wealthy elite do) is one of the most destructive things a member of the wealthy elite can do to our economy. When it trickles down, we use it to buy goods and services and save small amounts (relatively speaking). When there is no trickle down and the wealthy elite hoards it to invest all of it in existing companies which are not being expanded while employee benefits downgraded, etc in order to increase profit margins and attract investors there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the economy.

It's a destructive cycle and it's a process that needs to be eliminated.

And this isn't even looking at the issue of mass (at the corporate level -> 60% just in Ontario) corporate tax evasions and tax frauds worth billions in lost tax revenue in Canada and trillions world-wide.

Our governments should be charged with Gross Mismanagement of Tax Payer Funds as well as Criminal Collusion in the Commission of Tax Fraud for turning a blind eye towards this and allowing this robbery to continue.

Those Corporations that are engaging in this should have their assets seized, turned over to the tax payer either to become government corporations or be sold and entire BODs should be imprisoned for this crime.

Tax evasion should not be rewarded by negotiating 50% deals, etc. Monies owed should be paid in full or assets seized and sold to compensate the tax payer.

Linda McQuaig
Are CEOs panicking over a new style of tax rage brewing?

 | APRIL 10, 2014

Extract from article:
"Nonetheless, the CBC's interview with Howlett sparked gasps of rage from the bowels of the business press, notably Terence Corcoran in the National Post -- even though a detailed description of the Cameco case and other tax avoidance schemes had just appeared in a special issue of Canadian Business under the cover headline: How to pay no taxes -- Many of Canada's largest companies pay almost no tax: What's their secret?

Of course, that report, directed towards a business audience, is seen as harmless. It's quite another matter when that information is used by the likes of Howlett to wake up the Canadian public to this wealth grab by some of our biggest corporations -- companies which pushed governments to slash taxes and then largely avoided even those lower rates by shifting their profits offshore."

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance #NSA #StopSpying

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Dear Kitty,

Take Action
Big news. Today, the Internet is uniting to fight back against mass surveillance. 

The political landscape has shifted dramatically since the first Snowden leaks last June. We’re at a key moment in the battle against those who want to scoop up all your private personal information, whether it’s the NSA, or other countries’ spooks, like Britain’s GCHQ or Russia’s FSB.

Will you sign onto our global petitionopposing mass, suspicionless surveillance? 

It’s crafted by legal experts from around the world and lays out principles for restraint, oversight, and specificity for engaging in surveillance. Your signature will give weight to a new legal framework for policymakers that will lead to modern surveillance laws that will protect individual privacy rights, instead of trampling them.


You’ll be standing with over 360 activist groups from Colombia to Uganda, dozens of world experts, and thousands of your fellow Internet citizens.

Please help spread the word.

In addition to signing the global petition, you can share on social media using the hashtag #StopSpying.

You can also help us by installing this code on your website, which will install a banner urging visitors to oppose mass spying.

There are also protests, discussions, and cryptoparties being organized around the world.See if there's one in your area.

Back in the USA, we're fighting for you

Thanks to supporters like you, EFF has been fighting NSA surveillance in American courts. We're attacking Internet surveillance programs as illegal and unconstitutional under US law, and we're representing 22 organizations in challenging the phone records surveillance program on free speech grounds.

This is bigger than just the US, though. We’ve explained to states at the UN and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the implications of the NSA’s spying on the privacy rights of everyone, at home and overseas. And we’re teaming up with our fellow activists around the world to make sure everyone is free from unchecked snooping, whether it’s from the United States’ dragnet spying, or your local surveillance state.
Stopping the NSA from collecting emails like this,


Rainey Reitman
Activism Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation




Friday, December 20, 2013

My Favorite Christmas Story: Nativity by Kevin Annett

I'm an atheist but this lovely Christmas Story touched me.

It was written and sent to me by a christian whom I like and respect, Kevin Annett.

I write christian and not Christian because his Christianity is non-denominational.

Kevin was a Reverend for the United Church in Canada and defrocked by the Church for exposing it's abuse of Aboriginal children in Residential Schools in Canada. After defrocking Kevin, the United Church went on a life long persecution campaign against him ensuring that he was unable to work and earn a living, organizing a personal smear campaign against him amongst other things.

Kevin describes himself as not being religious but still "walking with Christ".

This story is a bit long but I hope you'll take the time to read it. IMO, it's worth the time.

Merry Christmas/Happy Solstice/Happy Holidays!





Nativity

By Kevin D. Annett

The last Christmas we were all together hangs over memory like the fog did that year in the Alberni valley. It was a time of gathering, two years and more of labor summoning so many together where once there were but a few. And it was a time of ending.

The church stewards had warned me to expect an overflow crowd at the Christmas eve service, and like overgrown elves they had busied themselves around the building, stringing wires and sound systems in the cold auditorium kept that way to save money. The snows had come early, and our food bank was already depleted.

With my eldest daughter who was but five, I had walked to the church one morning in the week before yule, pondering the cold and the sermon, when I met the one who would pierce the fog that year for us. She stood patiently at the locked door, her brown eyes relaxing as we approached. Her bare hand gestured at me.

“You’re that minister, ain’t you?” she mumbled to me, as daughter Clare fell back and grabbed my hand.

Before I could answer, the stranger smiled and nodded, and uttered with noticeable pleasure at her double entendre,

“They say you give it out seven days a week!”.

 I smiled too, gripping Clare’s hand reassuringly and replying,

“If you mean food, we’re a bit short, but you’re welcome to whatever’s left.”

She nodded again, and waited while I unlocked the door and picked up Clare, who was clinging to me by then.

The basement was even more frigid than the outside, but the woman doffed her torn overcoat and sighed loudly as we approached the food bank locker.

“For all the good it’ll do …” she said, as I unlocked the pantry and surveyed the few cans and bags lying there.

I turned and really looked at her for the first time. She was younger than she had sounded, but a dark, cancerous growth marred her upper lip, and a deep scar ran down her face and neck. Her eyes were kindness, and in that way, very aboriginal.

 “I’m sorry there’s not more …” I began, since back then I still saw things in terms of giving. But she shook her head, and instead of saying anything, she looked at Clare, and the two of them exchanged a smile for the first time.

 I stared, confused, at the cupboard so bare, and heard her finally utter,

“Them people in church, you know what they need?”

I set Clare down and shook my head.

“They need Him. They sing about Him, and pretend they know Him, but hell, they wouldn’t spot Him even if He came and bit ‘em on their ass.”

I smiled at that one, and even dared a mild chuckle.

“You doin’ a Christmas play for the kids?” she continued.

“Yeah”.

 “I bet it’s the usual bullshit with angels and shepherds, right?”

 I nodded.

 “That don’t mean nuthin’ to those people. Why don’t you do a story about … well, like, if He came to Port Alberni to be born, right now.”

 I finally laughed, feeling very happy. She smiled too, walked over to the cupboard and picked up a small bag of rice. Donning her coat, she nodded her thanks, and said,

 “My bet is Him and Mary and Joseph, they’d end up in the Petrocan garage, down River road. The owner there lets us sleep in the back sometimes.”

And then she was gone.

I didn’t try explaining the stranger to anyone, ever, or what her words had done to me. All I did was lock the food cupboard and lead Clare up to my office, where I cranked up the heat and set her to drawing. And then I sat at my desk and I wrote for the rest of the day.

The kids in church were no problem at all. They got it, immediately. The Indians who dared to mingle in the pews that night with all the ponderous white people also took to the amateur performance like they had composed it themselves, and laughed with familiarity as the holy family was turned away first by the local cops, and then hotel owners, and finally by church after church after church.

 It was mostly the official Christians who were shocked into open-mouthed incredulity at the coming to life of something they thought they knew all about. As the children spoke their lines, I swear I saw parishioners jump and writhe like there were tacks scattered on the pews.

 “Joe, I’m getting ready to have this kid. You’d better find us a place real friggin' quick  …”

 I’m trying, Mary, but Jehovah! Nobody will answer their door! I guess it’s ‘cause we’re low lifes.”

 Look! There’s a church up ahead. I bet they’ll help us!”

 If you believe the Bible, whoever He was loved to poke fun at his listeners and shock them out of their fog, and our play would have made him proud. As the eight year old girl who played Mary pleaded fruitlessly for help from a kid adorned in oversized clerical garb, and was covered in scorn by the young “priest”, I heard a sad moan rise from the congregation.

 But things took a turn when Mary and Joe came upon an Indian, played by one of the aboriginal kids.

 Sir, will you help us? My wife’s going to have a baby …”

 Sure!” replied the native kid with gusto. “I got a spot in a shed behind the gas station down the road. The owner lets us all sleep in there!”

And in a contrived scene of boxes and cans scattered where our communion table normally stood, Mary had her baby, as erstwhile homeless men with fake beards and a stray rez dog looked on, and one of the witnesses urged Mary to keep her newborn quiet lest the Mounties hear his cries and bust everyone for vagrancy.

 Voices were subdued that night in the church hall over coffee, cookies and Christmas punch, and the normally dull gazes and banalities about the time of year were oddly absent. The Indians kept nodding and smiling at me, saying little, and not having to; and the kids were happy too, still in costume and playing with the local stray who had posed as the rez dog in the performance that would always be talked about. It was the white congregants who seemed most pregnant that night, but they couldn’t speak of it.

 It was one of my last services with them, and somehow they all knew it, since we had all entered the story by then. For a churchly Herod had already heard a rumor, and dispatched assassins to stop a birth, and me, even though it was already too late.

 My daughter Clare was not running and rolling with the other kids, but in her manner joined me quietly with her younger sister Elinor in tow. Our trio stood there, amidst the thoughtful looks and unspoken love, and person after person came to us and grasped our hands, or embraced us with glistening eyes. An aging Dutch woman named Omma van Beek struggled towards me in her walker and pressed her trembling lips on my cheek, and said something to me in her native tongue as the tears fell unashamedly from both of us.

 Later, when we were scattered and lost, I would remember that moment like no other, as if something in Omma’s tears washed away all the filth and loss that were to follow. And perhaps that looming nightfall touched my heart just then, for I gave a shudder as I looked at my children, almost glimpsing the coming divorce, and I held my daughters close as if that would keep them safe and near to me forever.

The snow was falling again as we left the darkened building, kissing us gently like it had done years before when as a baby, Clare had struggled with me on a toboggan through the deep drifts of my first charge in Pierson, Manitoba, on another Christmas eve. The quiet flakes blessed us with memory, and settled in love on the whole of creation, even on the unmarked graves of children up at the old Indian residential school.

The old Byzantine icon depicts Jesus as a baby, hugging his worried mother while she stares ahead into his bloody future: her eyes turned in grief to the viewer, yet his loving eyes seeking her, past the moment, past even his own death.

The image may still hang in the basement of my church, where I left it.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Legal Aid, Corruption, Access To Justice and Denial of Charter Rights

Justice Denied - Access To Legal Aid
Justice Denied - Access To Legal Aid
It really doesn't surprise me that Canadian's Charter Rights have become so eroded. This is inevitable when those most vulnerable to having their rights violated are actively denied access to the Justice system.

I live in Ontario. A province where access to Legal Aid is so restrictive that, frankly, despite the fact that I know many social activists, many poor, I don't know a single person who has been able to benefit from receiving Legal Aid to protect their rights. 

It doesn't matter whether they're dealing with criminal charges as a result of arrests during protests or whether they're dealing with petty government bureaucrats who over-extend the rights they have to intrude into the privacy of those needing to access the social safety net; make decisions about who does and doesn't get access to the social safety net; or how they interpret the rules regarding the type of access, etc.

I can also attest to the fact that despite the fact that I have been eligible for Legal Aid at different points in my life based on income, I have never, throughout my entire lifetime, been granted access to the benefit because of these extra-legal regulations that the Provincial governments of ALL political stripes have given themselves the right to impose.

It's important to remember here that Canada is constitutionally different from the US in that we don't have inviolable rights. We aren't a republic. 

As a result, what we have is privileges that are deceptively called 'rights' which are granted to us by the state and which can (and have been) taken away from us at the drop of a hat when the state deems that wish to withdraw the granting of the privileges they've given us. (eg. War Measures Act imposed in 1970, Ontario Legislation imposed during the G8/G20 in Toronto in 2008 - both were by Liberal governments and swept under the proverbial carpet).

Any excuse to do this can (and has been) used, whether it's 'terrorism' (Bill C-41: Anti-Terrorism Act) or 'financial' (Provincial Regulations controlling access to Legal Aid) or something else. 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants Canadians the following privileges:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84) 
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.  
--Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Given that these are the privileges granted to Canadians by the State.

Given that Ontario Legal Aid (and that of other provinces) restricts who can access Legal Aid based on type of case and not just income.

Given that the Province is often the party that is likely to be challenged, sued in these cases.

When the Province restricts Access to Legal Aid in any way for any reason other than income ...

Are they not violating each and every Canadians' Charter Rights and Freedoms to Access to Justice and doing so in a manner which is not only self-serving (covering their own asses) but prejudicial and harmful to the citizens of that Province?

Isn't that Corruption?
cor·rup·tion kəˈrÉ™pSHÉ™n noun noun: corruption; plural noun: corruptions
1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
2. the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so.
I'm not a lawyer but it sure looks that way to me.

Apparently there are lawyers and others who agree that access is being restricted, and that it's a problem, if you read the following article written in 2007. However, note, that in 2007 things just got worse. It was bad before then too. And also note that these changes which reduced accessibility to justice occurred both at the Federal and Provincial levels which implicates ALL of the major Canadian political parties.


Has Corruption become so systemic that we don't recognize it anymore, even when it slaps us in the face?

Have Canadians really become such lazy, apathetic slobs that we've stopped caring about our own Civil Rights?

If not, then why the hell aren't we metaphorically storming the barricades over this one?

And where the hell is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association?


Saturday, October 05, 2013

Warning From #Anonymous - We Are Awake


There are numerous reforms that can be made both in the US and France which are Republics and where the Constitution protects the rights of the people as inviolable. There are also numerous reforms that can be made in Parliamentary democracies which grant the people their rights.

1. First and foremost we need to redefine what constitutes Treason. Treason, in reality is, and in law should be:

a. any act which undermines the democratic processes of a country such as election fraud, excessive payments to politicians who in turn advocate policies favorable to those who financed their campaigns, etc.
b. any act which undermines the local economy in favor of external or international interests,
c. any act such as lobbying which benefits a foreign power at the expense of the country.

2. The next critical change has to be establishing restrictions on Investment Capitalism and Banking as a system while allowing Productive Capitalism to flourish. Investment Capitalism and Banking is what's destroying our economy not Capitalism per se.

3. Then we need to evaluate our entire Justice system and establish laws that guarantee One Law For All including the wealthy elite and establish punishments for those who refuse to implement the law fairly and even handedly applying it to all.

4. Abuse of power and Corruption by any elected official or employee of the state, particularly when innocent citizens are the victims.

Those are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that given some thought others could come up with more.