Tuesday 12 March 2024

Virani defends Online Harms Bill after Margaret Atwood warns of 'thoughtcrime' risk

 

Virani defends Online Harms Bill after Margaret Atwood warns of 'thoughtcrime' risk

Online Harms Bill proposes to police seven categories of harmful content online

 
Catharine Tunney · CBC News ·
Margaret Atwood has weighed about her concerns with the government's Online Harms Bill. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)

Justice Minister Arif Virani is defending his government's Online Harms Bill after celebrated Canadian writer Margaret Atwood shared views comparing the new legislation to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The award-winning author took to social media late last week to share an article from the British magazine The Spectator titled, "Trudeau's Orwellian online harms bill." 

"If this account of the bill is true, it's Lettres de Cachet all over again," Atwood wrote on X, referring to letters once sent out by the King of France authorizing imprisonment without trial.

The federal government introduced late last month its long-awaited Online Harms Bill, which proposes to police seven categories of harmful content online, including content used to bully a child, content that sexualizes children or victims of sexual violence, content that incites violence or terrorism, and hate speech.

As part of proposed amendments, "hate speech" would be defined based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

"The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!" Atwood wrote.

In Orwell's cautionary novel about a totalitarian society, thoughtcrime is the illegal act of disagreeing with the  government's political ideology in one's unspoken thoughts.

Atwood famously tackled authoritarian regimes in her novel The Handmaid's Tale, in which a religious patriarchal society forces women to bear children and those who speak freely are severely punished.

Her publicist said she was not available for interview about her social media post.

A man in a black suit gestures as he speaks into a microphone. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani speaks during a press conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on the new online harms bill on Feb. 26. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Asked about Atwood's comment during an event in Toronto, Virani said there's a lack of understanding about  Bill C-63 and how to combat hate.

Virani said the definition of hate speech in the bill does not include content that's "awful but lawful."

"It includes expressions of detestation and vilification. It does not include insults, offensive comments, or jokes that are not very polite," said Virani in French.

"The idea that someone on their smartphone on an afternoon while they're watching a football game, if they insult anyone ... could be condemned in a court or caught by a peace bond is ridiculous, in my opinion." 

Virani, who is shepherding the Online Harms Bill through the House of Commons, said protecting freedom of expression is essential to him as minister of justice.

Over the weekend the minister responded to Atwood on X suggesting the article she shared "mischaracterizes the bill."

"Happy to discuss," he posted.

Former chief justice thinks bill will be challenged

Atwood isn't the only eminent Canadian weighing in.

Speaking on the Public Policy Forum's "WONK" podcast, former chief justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin said society is changing.

"It's our responsibility as responsible citizens, it's the government's responsibility, to deal with new media, new harms, new things that develop in society. So I applaud the government for taking this on, as many other countries have," she said.

But she cited potential problems with the bill's proposed changes to the Criminal Code, such as an increase in the maximum punishment for four hate propaganda offences.

Someone found guilty of advocating genocide, for example, could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.

"I do predict that this is going to be challenged in the courts," McLachlin told host Edward Greenspon.

"We have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge — life sentences for sending out some words. That's heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged."

Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, says she expects the Online Harms Bill will be challenged in court. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for amendments, saying the bill's "draconian penalties" could put a chill on free speech.

"Bill C-63 risks censoring a range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships," said executive director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv in a statement issued soon after the bill was introduced.

"The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism. "

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said his party supports criminalizing the harmful content categories laid out in the bill. But the Tory leader accused the Liberals of trying to create more bureaucracy rather than supporting law enforcement agencies.

Speaking to a small group of reporters the day after the bill was introduced, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme said he welcomed the legislation, particularly tougher sentencing provisions and the move to make tech companies bear more responsibility for what happens online.

Duheme said that right now, the RCMP believes it could enforce the new measures without additional resources.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Catharine Tunney

Reporter

Catharine Tunney is a reporter with CBC's Parliament Hill bureau, where she covers national security and the RCMP. She worked previously for CBC in Nova Scotia. You can reach her at catharine.tunney@cbc.ca

With files from Darren Major and the Canadian Press

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices
 
 
 
 

Trudeau's new online censorship law - Problems with Bill C-63 / the Online Arms Law

 
Mar 4, 2024  
The Trudeau government has proposed a new law to regulate the internet, and it has major constitutional problems. 
 
Please write to your member of Parliament using this online portal we created: https://theccf.ca/fix-c-63/ 
 
The Online Harms Act would limit constitutionally-protected expression in the following ways: 
 
- The Bill would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The tribunal could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
 - The subjectivity of defining “hate speech” will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech. 
 
 - The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment. 
 
 - The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future. The accused would be forced to choose between imprisonment or a “recognizance to keep the peace” that may be accompanied by severe conditions such as giving a bodily sample, refraining from drugs and alcohol, giving up firearms and wearing an ankle monitor. 
 
- The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk. Social media companies will likely err on the side of caution and block large amounts of speech that is close to the legal line. 
 
 - The Bill would require social media companies to provide a mechanism for users to flag content that they believe is “harmful content,” which is defined as including speech that “foments hatred.” This will inevitably lead to censorship of legally-protected speech. 
 
- The Bill would require social media companies to report on how they dealt with perfectly legal but otherwise “harmful content” that “the operator had reasonable grounds to believe posed a risk of significant psychological or physical harm.” This appears aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw. 
 
In this episode I mention a tweet thread by my colleague Josh Dehaas. 
You can read it here:   / 1762510237032951848   
 
 I also mention an op-ed by my colleague Joanna Baron.
 
 I also talk about two important Supreme Court cases about hate speech. 
 
You can read those cases here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc...  
 
Please write to your MP to express your concerns about this law! https://theccf.ca/fix-c-63/
 

1,666 Comments


You people never call but you do write me
 

Tell your MP to stop Bill C-63!

Russell Phillips

<rphillips@theccf.ca>		Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 6:36 PM
Reply-To: rphillips@theccf.ca
To: david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

Tell your MP to stop Bill C-63!

As our followers know, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is deeply concerned that the Online Harms Act introduced in the House of Commons on February 26 will significantly hamper constitutionally-protected expression. Among other effects: 

  • The Bill would create a new process for Canadians to report instances of online speech directed at them is discriminatory, with a quasi-judicial tribunal ordering fines up to $50,000, and up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would remain anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
  • The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment;
  • The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future;
  • The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk; &
  • The mere threat of human rights complaints and fines for Canadians and social media companies will chill large amounts of otherwise protected speech.

This Monday we launched a new campaign that allows visitors to our site to use a form to tell their MP to stop this bill.

You can do so here: https://theccf.ca/fix-c-63/

 

Please note that if you're in a riding with a vacancy you might not be able to contact your Member of Parliament. I'd encourage you to reach out to party leaders (including the PM) if you live in one of these ridings.

Why were conspiracy to murder charges dropped in Coutts?

On Episode 28, we give you an update on the criminal charges dropped against two men arrested at Coutts, Alberta in February 2022, and the civil lawsuits launched by trucker convoy participants; we explain the ruling that says Quebec's secularism law Bill 21 is fully shielded from judicial review by the notwithstanding clause; and we explain the interesting inter-provincial trade angle in a lawsuit from McGill and Concordia against the province's tuition structure.

 

You can also find Not Reserving Judgment on Apple, Spotify, Google, YouTube, and wherever else you find your podcasts.

"It’s a very bad political loss for [the government]"

Next, Canadian Affairs recently ran a lovely profile on the CCF's Christine Van Geyn outlining the extraordinary year we had at the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Check it out, and please subscribe to support our friends at Canadian Affairs!

Finally, here's what what we're reading/watching this week:
Donate

Canadian Constitution Foundation

This email was sent to david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com

You've received this email because you've subscribed to our newsletter.


 

 So do concerned friends
 

Trudeau's Bill C-63

Don Corey

<flyrod4908@outlook.com>		Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 7:13 PM
To: Don Corey <doncorey498@hotmail.com>, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

INTERNATIONAL

Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill

The legislation authorizes house arrest and electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future crime

March 6, 2024 | 2:12 pm

Justin Trudeau (Photo: Getty)

Written by
Jane Stannus
Jane Stannus is a translator and journalist.
There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike — medicine, for example — where you bury the goods in a spoonful of jam. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.

The stated intent of the bill is something every decent person supports: protecting children from online victimization. Yet behind this noble aim lurks the thought police.

This is no exaggeration. This legislation authorizes house arrest and electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future crime. It’s right there in the text: if a judge believes there are reasonable grounds to “fear” a future hate crime, the as of yet innocent party can be sentenced to house arrest, complete with electronic tagging, mandatory drug testing and communication bans. Failure to cooperate nets you an additional year in jail. If that’s not establishing a thought police, I don’t know what is.

What is a hate crime? According to the bill, it is a communication expressing “detestation or vilification.” But, clarified the government, this is not the same as “disdain or dislike,” or speech that “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

Unfortunately, the government didn’t think to include a graduated scheme setting out the relative acceptability of the words “offend,” “hurt,” “humiliate,” “discredit,” “dislike,” “disdain,” “detest” and “vilify.” Under C-63, you can be put away for life for a “crime” whose legal existence hangs on the distinction between “dislike” and “detest.”

Despite this Trudeau claims to stand against authoritarianism.

The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that under C-63, his criminalization would be a certainty. The legislation appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the human rights tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion). Complaints are free to file, and an accuser, if successful, can hope to reap up to a $20,000 payout, with up to another $50,000 going to the government.

Hold on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with protecting children online? So far it seems more geared towards protecting the Liberal government online. There is in fact a section that requires social media companies to establish plans to protect users, including children. But if you’re getting your hopes up, prepare to have them dashed.

All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new government body called the digital safety commission. The commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to any content, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to third-party researchers accredited by the commission. All data. Any content. No oversight.  

Does that sound crazy? There’s more.

The ostensible purpose of putting the commission (and not the ordinary police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e. without a warrant) in situations where material victimizing a child could spread quickly across the internet. What that means in effect is that the commission is not accountable and does not have to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says in its sharply worded critique of the bill, it endows government appointees with vast authority “to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.”

Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of Canada, leading politicians seriously want to punish people for crimes they might (but actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law that criminalizes conspiracy, and another law criminalizing threats — so we’re not talking about someone who is planning murder or terrorism. Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites? People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticize the government? People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will send you to hell?

There’s something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realize. With the Online Harms Bill, as with the reckless invocation of the Emergencies Act and the debanking of protestors, they are making a mockery of the rule of law and of the public order they are sworn to uphold.

This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website.

Canada's "Online Harms" bill - an overview critique of Bill C-63

#OnlineHarmsAct

Premiered Mar 2, 2024 MCINNES COOPER It is finally here: the long-anticipated Online Harms bill. It was tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2024 as Bill C-63. It is not as bad as I expected, but it has some serious issues that need to be addressed if it is going to be Charter-compliant. It also has some room for serious improvement and it represents a real missed opportunity in how it handles “deepfakes”, synthetic explicit images and videos. The bill is 104 pages long and it was just released, so this will be a high level overview and perhaps incomplete. But I will also focus on some issues that leapt out to me on my first few times reading it. In a nutshell, it does a better job than the discussion paper first floated years ago by not lumping all kinds of “online harms” into one bucket and treating them all the same. This bill more acutely addresses child abuse materials and non-consensual distribution of intimate images. I think the thresholds for some of this are too low, resulting in removal by default. The new Digital Safety Commission has stunning and likely unconstitutional powers. As is often the case, there’s too much left to the regulations. But let’s get into the substance. Read the bill and track its progress here: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill...3.74K subscribers 

34 Comments


Remember me?

My latest calls to Commissioner Raymond Théberge and his General Counsel and John Kulik General Counsel for McInnes Cooper McInnes & Cooper and many others this morning

Fraser, David

<david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com>		Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thanks for your e-mail. I am away from my desk until Monday, July 26, 2021.

If your matter is urgent, please re-send it with URGENT in the subject line.

d.


David T.S. Fraser
McInnes Cooper

tel +1 (902) 444 8535 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350

Purdy's Wharf Tower II
1300-1969 Upper Water Street
PO Box 730
Halifax NS B3J 2V1






Drouin, Nathalie (BRQ)

<Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>		Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Veuillez noter que je suis absente jusqu'au 16 août 2021, sans accès à mes courriels. Si cela ne peut attendre mon retour, je vous invite à communiquer par courriel avec mon adjointe Irène Ghobril à Irène.Ghobril@justice.gc.ca. Merci.

Please note that I am away until August 16th, 2021 with no access to my e-mails. If it cannot wait my retrun, you can contact by e-mail my assistant Irène Ghobril at Irene.Ghobril@justice.gc.ca. Thank you.

NOTIFICATION ÉLECTRONIQUE: NotificationPGC-AGC.Civil@justice.gc.ca

Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario

<Premier@ontario.ca>		Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.

You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read, reviewed and taken into consideration.

There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a response may take several business days. 

Thanks again for your email.

______­­

Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.

Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.

Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.

Merci encore pour votre courriel.

Higgs, Premier Blaine (PO/CPM)

<Blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca>		Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:47 AM
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.

If your inquiry more appropriately falls within the mandate of a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer your email for review and consideration.

 

Merci d'avoir pris le temps de nous écrire.

En raison du volume des messages reçus, cette réponse automatique vous informe que votre courriel a été reçu et sera examiné dans les meilleurs délais.

Si votre demande relève plutôt du mandat d'un ministère ou d'un autre secteur du gouvernement, le personnel vous renverra votre courriel pour examen et considération.
 

If this is a Media Request, please contact the Premier’s office at (506) 453-2144 or by email

media-medias@gnb.ca

S’il s’agit d’une demande des médias, veuillez communiquer avec le Cabinet du premier ministre au 506-453-2144. 

    

General Information

For general information and answers to common questions on novel coronavirus please visit:

GNB/COVID-19 or Canada.ca/coronavirus  information line  1-833-784-4397.

Safety Issues

For safety issues regarding place of employment/employer please call WorkSafe NB 1-800-999-9775.

Compassionate requests

Please call the Canadian Red Cross 1-800-863-6582.

Non-health questions

Please call 1-844-462-8387. The email address is helpaide@gnb.ca.

For questions related to travel restrictions during COVID-19

Please call 1-833-948-2800.

MENTAL HEALTH

CHIMO Helpline 1-800-667-5005

Hope for Wellness Helpline 1-855-242-3310

Canadian Border Services Agency

CBSA has instituted a COVID-19 hotline regarding border crossing concerns/questions at

1-800-461-9999.

Employment Insurance Hotline

Please call 1-833-381-2725.

Renseignements généraux

Pour obtenir des renseignements généraux et des réponses aux questions les plus fréquentes sur la COVID-19, veuillez consulter le site GNB/COVID-19 ou Canada.ca/coronavirus ou composer le 1-833-784-4397.

questions de sécurité

Pour les questions de sécurité concernant les lieux de travail ou les employeurs, communiquez avec Travail sécuritaire NB au 1-800-999-9775.

DEMANDES POUR RAISONS DE COMPASSION

Veuillez téléphoner à la Croix-Rouge canadienne au 1-800-863-6582.

Questions non liées à la santé

Veuillez composer le 1-844-462-8387 ou envoyer un courriel à l’adresse helpaide@gnb.ca.

Questions liées aux restrictions de voyage pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 :

Composez le 1-833-948-2800.

SANTÉ MENTALE

Ligne d'aide CHIMO : 1-800-667-5005

Ligne d’écoute d’espoir : 1-855-242-3310

Agence des services frontaliers du Canada

L’Agence a mis en place une ligne d’information sur la COVID-19 pour les questions concernant la traversée de la frontière, le 1-800-461-9999.

LIGNE D’INFORMATION SUR l'assurance-emploi

Composez le 1-833-381-2725.

 

Office of the Premier/Cabinet du premier ministre

P.O Box/C. P. 6000 Fredericton New-Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada

Tel./Tel. : (506) 453-2144

Email/Courriel: premier@gnb.ca/premier.ministre@gnb.ca

 
 

David Amos

<david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>		Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:40 AM
To: "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, pascale.giguere@ocol-clo.gc.ca, Marc.Dalton@parl.gc.ca, Mario.Beaulieu@parl.gc.ca, JKitchen@jccf.ca, Douglas.Smith@otc-cta.gc.ca, Doug.Smith2@gnb.ca, toby@law-democracy.org, lukacs@airpassengerrights.ca, louise-helene.senecal@aircanada.ca, "steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, Norman Traversy <traversy.n@gmail.com>, "Nathalie.Drouin" <Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca>, mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, "Mike.Comeau" <Mike.Comeau@gnb.ca>, "hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, Office of the Premier <scott.moe@gov.sk.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>
Cc: motomaniac333 <motomaniac333@gmail.com>, john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com, david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com, ti@transparency.org, info <info@gg.ca>, "Ian.Shugart" <Ian.Shugart@pco-bcp.gc.ca>


Methinks as soon as Mary Simon is sworn she should have her minions
study my documents on file in Federal Court closely before I sue the
Queen again at least these two files found on a couple of my Scribd
accounts should make the Bloc and the Conservatives it up ad pay
attention before the lady drops the writ for your boss Mr Prime
Trudeau The Younger N'esy Pas Madame Telford?

Checkout page 4

https://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315068782/Dumb-DannyBoy-Bussieres-formerly-of-the-GRC

Document Information
Original Title:Dumb DannyBoy Bussieres formerly of the GRC
Description:Former COR Party members should notice this barring
document is SIGNED (Chucky Leblanc's is NOT) It is definitely in
breach of the CHARTER because it is in ENGLISH ONLY. Get it yet
Premier Gallantt and mindless David Coon?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mary-simon-installed-as-governor-general-1.6114622

Mary Simon to be officially installed as governor general today

Ceremony begins at 10 a.m. ET and CBC will stream it live
Darren Major · CBC News · Posted: Jul 26, 2021 4:00 AM ET | Last
Updated: 12 minutes ago

?Official Languages Commissioner Raymond Théberge joins Power &
Politics to discuss his investigation of the process that chose Mary
Simon as the next governor general."

https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/en/timeline-event/raymond-theberge-takes-over-helm-office-commissioner-official-languages

Raymond Théberge takes over the helm at the Office of the Commissioner
of Official Languages

Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:09:54 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re My calls to both Douglas Smiths 819 953-5074 & (506)
444-2800, Toby Mendel and 902 431-3688 and Dr. Gábor Lukács 647
724-1727 today
To: admin@jccf.ca, jcarpay <jcarpay@jccf.ca>, JKitchen@jccf.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:05:50 -0400
Subject: Re My calls to both Douglas Smiths 819 953-5074 & (506)
444-2800, Toby Mendel and 902 431-3688 and Dr. Gábor Lukács 647
724-1727 today
To: Douglas.Smith@otc-cta.gc.ca, Doug.Smith2@gnb.ca,
info@law-democracy.org, lukacs@airpassengerrights.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/08/re-cbc-censorship-and-my-last-call-to.html

Tuesday, 8 August 2017
RE CBC censorship and My last call to David Fraser of McInnes & Cooper
about such things he yaps about constanty within CBC


Well the comment section started out pretty could with CBC acting in
an ethical fashion and not blocking any comments of mine until a
couple of their favourite Trolls pounced on me. As soon as I responded
the blocking began almost instantly. I registered my indignation and
those comments were blocked as well so I quit for the day.

I had had enough of David Fraser and his bullshit today. Trust that I
will try to call the other two lawyers mentioned within this article
tomorrow.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-transportation-agency-facebook-post-gabor-lukacs-1.4235123

"The Canadian Transportation Agency and an air passenger rights
activist are engaged in an online battle that pits freedom of
expression against a government agency's right to delete negative
comments from its social media accounts.

Gabor Lukacs has won 24 of 27 court cases against airlines, which were
taken to the agency. Recently, he posted "5 Reasons not to Trust the
Canadian Transportation Agency" on the agency's Facebook page.

The post compares the number of air passenger complaints in recent
years to the dwindling number of enforcement actions against airlines.

It also names some agency employees, including Doug Smith, its chief
dispute officer.

The post includes a discipline history of Smith from the Law Society
of Upper Canada in 2004, when he was suspended from practising law."

The Other DOUGLAS SMITH
 Regional Manager
Fredericton Criminal Law Services (Regional Office )
New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission
 Contact Information
Phone : (506) 444-2800
Fax : (506) 462-2290
Email : Doug.Smith2@gnb.ca

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 11:19:23 -0400
Subject: RE: My last call to David Fraser of McInnes & Cooper
To: john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com, david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com,
"Leanne.Fitch" <Leanne.Fitch@fredericton.ca>, oldmaison
<oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>, sallybrooks25
<sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca>, "len.hoyt" <len.hoyt@mcinnescooper.com>,
"ht.lacroix" <ht.lacroix@cbc.ca>, "hon.melanie.joly"
<hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca>, "brian.gallant" <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
Yvonne.Colbert@bc.ca, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "bill.pentney"
<bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca>, "jan.jensen" <jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca>,
mcu <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, eps <eps@edmontonpolice.ca>, cps
<cps@calgarypolice.ca>, "Liliana.Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-transportation-agency-facebook-post-gabor-lukacs-1.4235123


Transportation agency accused of censorship after deleting online criticism
'This is a form of censorship ... and this is a violation of freedom
of speech,' says air passenger advocate
By Yvonne Colbert, CBC News Posted: Aug 08, 2017 6:00 AM AT


44 Comments


Ben Smith
lol same as on this site... and we own the CBC too.

Life under the Liberals.... always harder for some reason.


Gabor Lukacs
@Ben Smith
CBC is is not a governmental body. It is not subject to s. 2(b) of the Charter.

Darryl McBride
@Gabor Lukacs The CBC is tax payer funded and should be subject to the charter.

David Raymond Amos
This comment is awaiting moderation by the site administrators.
@Gabor Lukacs It is a Crown Corp that has a particular mandate to be
non partisan


David Raymond Amos
This comment is awaiting moderation by the site administrators.
@Darryl McBride I agree Furthermore what does CBC call it when they
block my comments?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Fraser, David" <david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:53:41 +0000
Subject: Your call
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

David,

could you please explain what you were getting at in your call just
now? I was in the middle of something else, wasn't able to understand
it all and then the line just cut out.

Thanks,

d.
Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Kulik, John" <john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 17:37:49 +0000
Subject: McInnes Cooper
To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>,
"david.raymond.amos@gmail.com" <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Amos:

I am General Counsel for McInnes Cooper. If you need to communicate
with our firm, please do so through me.

Thank you.

John Kulik
[McInnes Cooper]<http://www.mcinnescooper.com/>

John Kulik Q.C.
Partner & General Counsel
McInnes Cooper

tel +1 (902) 444 8571 | fax +1 (902) 425 6350

1969 Upper Water Street
Suite 1300
Purdy's Wharf Tower II Halifax, NS, B3J 2V1

asst Cathy Ohlhausen | +1 (902) 455 8215



Notice This communication, including any attachments, is confidential
and may be protected by solicitor/client privilege. It is intended
only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail or
telephone at McInnes Cooper's expense. Avis Les informations contenues
dans ce courriel, y compris toute(s) pièce(s) jointe(s), sont
confidentielles et peuvent faire l'objet d'un privilège avocat-client.
Les informations sont dirigées au(x) destinataire(s) seulement. Si
vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur
par courriel ou par téléphone, aux frais de McInnes Cooper.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
To: coi@gnb.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com

Good Day Sir

After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
to speak to one of your staff for the first time

Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.

These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
suggested that you study closely.

This is the docket in Federal Court

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T

These are digital recordings of  the last three hearings

Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug

January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015

April 3rd, 2017

https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing


This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal

http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All


The only hearing thus far

May 24th, 2017

https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown


This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity

Date: 20151223

Docket: T-1557-15

Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015

PRESENT:        The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell

BETWEEN:

DAVID RAYMOND AMOS

Plaintiff

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

ORDER

(Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
December 14, 2015)

The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
in its entirety.

At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
(now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal).  In that letter
he stated:

As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
You are your brother’s keeper.

Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.

In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
[1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.


AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion.  There
is no order as to costs.

“B. Richard Bell”
Judge


Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.

 I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the  the Court
Martial Appeal Court of Canada  Perhaps you should scroll to the
bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83  of my
lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?

"FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the most

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html

83 The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
five years after he began his bragging:

January 13, 2015
This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate

December 8, 2014
Why Canada Stood Tall!

Friday, October 3, 2014
Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
Stupid Justin Trudeau?


Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369


On 8/3/17, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
> If want something very serious to download and laugh at as well Please
> Enjoy and share real wiretap tapes of the mob
>
> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>
>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>
>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>> cards?
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>
>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter.
>>
>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes.
>>
>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:39:12 -0600
Subject: Re Our Rights under the Charter Whereas Joseph Hickey won't
talk to me perhaps Perhaps Dr. Gábor Lukács will do so someday EH?
To: lukacs@airpassengerrights.ca, joseph.hickey@ocla.ca
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>

FYI I just called both of them from 902 800 0369 and they did not pick up

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/air-passenger-advocate-launches-constitutional-challenge-1.2281401

http://topgroups.ca/~lukacs/

http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-09-22-OCLA-Lukacs-motion_to_intervene-DIGITAL.pdf

Dr. Gábor Lukács
Halifax, NS
Tel: (647) 724 1727
Fax: (902) 404-5644
Email: lukacs@airpassengerrights.ca

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 204
Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5
Joseph Hickey, Executive Director
Tel: (613) 252-6148
Email: joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 16:41:29 -0700
Subject: The mindless B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton should have
noticed the OCLA Petition by now EH Mr Wilson of the RCMP?
To: fauxcapitalist@yahoo.com, joseph.hickey@ocla.ca,
"ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca" <ezra.levant@sunmedia.ca>, "t.wilson"
<t.wilson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "jennifer.johnston"
<jennifer.johnston@gov.bc.ca>, "suzanne.anton.mla"
<suzanne.anton.mla@leg.bc.ca>, josh <josh@bccla.org>, frankffrost
<frankffrost@hotmail.com>, radical <radical@radicalpress.com>,
denis.rancourt@gmail.com, president <president@uottawa.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "JAG.Minister"
<JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca>, "david.eby.mla" <david.eby.mla@leg.bc.ca>

Perhaps some clever lawyer should explain to her the pdf files hereto
attached EH David Eby???

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=6596

http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

Ontario Civil Liberties Association
180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 204
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K2P 1P5


http://fauxcapitalist.com/2014/10/16/jason-erb-interviews-arthur-topham-on-exposing-faux-capitalism-october-16-2014/


Jason Erb interviews Arthur Topham on Exposing Faux Capitalism, October 16, 2014

October 16, 2014 by FauxCapitalist

On a special October 16, 2014 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism, I
interviewed Arthur Topham, who has been charged as a political thought
criminal for allegedly violating Canada’s Criminal Code provisions for
“willfully promoting hatred,” for his writings at his site,
RadicalPress.com.

In this interview, the issues we discussed included:

- The Ontario Civil Liberties Association supporting his case and
calling for a repeal of all “hate crime” provisions in the Criminal
Code and circulating a petition calling for the B.C. Attorney General
to revoke her consent for the prosecution of Arthur Topham.
– He was charged with a crime after the Human Rights Commission was no
longer to hear so-called hate cases in 2012.
– The tight control of the media and the blackout on mass media
coverage of his case ever since November 2012 with a single National
Post article.
– The phony media, with so-called liberal newspapers like the Toronto
Star not making counter-point arguments to the supposed right-wing
National Post newspaper on their article.
– The inconsistencies in the charge and with his prosecution.
– The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees those charged “to be
tried within a reasonable time,” yet he was charged in 2012, and his
trial has finally been scheduled for October 2015.
– The political nature of the crime, with the Attorney General of the
province having to sign off on it.
– The selective application of the law, with others not prosecuted,
despite doing similar or more things than Arthur Topham did.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:57:49 -0600
Subject: I called Jim Eglinski and Ryan Maguhn's campaign manager as
well The sneaky ex RCMP dude hung up on me twice and the little
Librano lady admitted knowing who I was but just laughed at my
concerns
To: dhowell@edmontonjournal.com, lgunter <lgunter@shaw.ca>,
reporter@hintonvoice.ca, ed.moore@sunmedia.ca, dwight@moosefm.ca,
rrimer@newcap.ca, david.cournoyer@gmail.com, wctpress@telus.net,
reporter@fitzhugh.ca, "justin.trudeau.a1"
<justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, q <q@cbc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, "nick.moore"
<nick.moore@bellmedia.ca>, premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>,
Rob.Merrifield@gov.ab.ca

Go Figure

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Yellowhead+voters+polls+federal+byelection/10285181/story.html

http://www.edsonleader.com/2014/10/30/conservative-candidate-has-always-wanted-to-serve-the-people

http://hintonvoice.com/federal-byelection-coming-to-yellowhead-p2859-73.htm

http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2014/10/19/former-fort-st-john-mayor-now-running-to-be-mp

http://www.theeagle.ca/index.asp?mn=3&id=13631&cc=2
http://daveberta.ca/tag/jim-eglinski/

http://www.whitecourtpress.com/jim-eglinski-in-the-running/

http://www.fitzhugh.ca/meet-the-candidates-for-yellowhead-mp/

http://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/candidates?L=e&ED=48028&EV=40&EV_TYPE=3&PROV=AB&PROVID=48&QID=-1&PAGEID=17

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2014/03/fwd-yo-bobby-boy-paulson-whereas-many.html

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html

http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/11/fyi-newfy-rcmp-dudes-john-warr-and.html

>>>> ---- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "McKnight, Gisele" McKnight.Gisele@kingscorecord.com
>>>> To: lcampenella@ledger.com
>>>> Cc:motomaniac_02186@hotmail.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:53 PM
>>>> Subject: David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Hello Lisa,
>>>>
>>>> David Amos asked me to contact you. I met him last June after he became
>>>> an independent (not representing any political party) candidate in our
>>>> federal
>>>> election that was held June 28. He was a candidate in our constituency
>>>> of
>>>> Fundy (now called Fundy-Royal).
>>>>
>>>> I wrote a profile story about him, as I did all other candidates. That
>>>> story appeared in the Kings County Record June 22. A second story,
>>>> written
>>>> by one of my reporters, appeared on the same date, which was a report
>>>> on
>>>> the candidates' debate held June 18.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall David Amos came last of four candidates in the election.
>>>> The winner got 14,997 votes, while Amos got 358.
>>>>
>>>> I have attached the two stories that appeared, as well as a photo
>>>> taken by reporter Erin Hatfield during the debate. I couldn't find the
>>>> photo
>>>> that ran, but this one is very similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A1-debate A1-amos,David for MP 24.doc debate 2.JPG
>>>>
>>>> Gisele McKnight editor
>>>> Kings County Record
>>>> Sussex, New Brunswick
>>>> Canada
>>>> 506-433-1070
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Raising a Little Hell- Lively Debate Provokes Crowd
>>>>
>>>> By Erin Hatfield
>>>>
>>>> "If you don't like what you got, why don't you change it? If your
>>>> world is all screwed up, rearrange it."
>>>>
>>>> The 1979 Trooper song Raise a Little Hell blared on the speakers at
>>>> the 8th Hussars Sports Center Friday evening as people filed in to
>>>> watch the Fundy candidates debate the issues. It was an accurate, if
>>>> unofficial, theme song for the debate.
>>>>
>>>> The crowd of over 200 spectators was dwarfed by the huge arena, but as
>>>> they chose their seats, it was clear the battle lines were drawn.
>>>> Supporters of Conservative candidate Rob Moore naturally took the blue
>>>> chairs on the right of the rink floor while John Herron's Liberalswent
>>>> left. There were splashes of orange, supporters of NDP Pat Hanratty,
>>>> mixed throughout. Perhaps the loudest applause came from a row towards
>>>> the back, where supporters of independent candidate David Amos sat.
>>>>
>>>> The debate was moderated by Leo Melanson of CJCW Radio and was
>>>> organized by the Sussex Valley Jaycees. Candidates wereasked a barrage
>>>> of questions bypanelists Gisele McKnight of the Kings County Record
>>>> and Lisa Spencer of CJCW.
>>>>
>>>> Staying true to party platforms for the most part, candidates
>>>> responded to questions about the gun registry, same sex marriage, the
>>>> exodus of young people from the Maritimes and regulated gas prices.
>>>> Herron and Moore were clear competitors,constantly challenging each
>>>> other on their answers and criticizing eachothers' party leaders.
>>>> Hanratty flew under the radar, giving short, concise responses to the
>>>> questions while Amos provided some food for thought and a bit of comic
>>>> relief with quirky answers. "I was raised with a gun," Amos said in
>>>> response to the question of thenational gun registry. "Nobody's
>>>> getting mine and I'm not paying 10 cents for it."
>>>>
>>>> Herron, a Progressive Conservative MP turned Liberal, veered from his
>>>> party'splatform with regard to gun control. "It was ill advised but
>>>> well intentioned," Herron said. "No matter what side of the house I am
>>>> on, I'm voting against it." Pat Hanratty agreed there were better
>>>> places for the gun registry dollars to be spent.Recreational hunters
>>>> shouldn't have been penalized by this gun registry," he said.
>>>>
>>>> The gun registry issues provoked the tempers of Herron and Moore. At
>>>> one point Herron got out of his seat and threw a piece of paper in
>>>> front of Moore. "Read that," Herron said to Moore, referring to the
>>>> voting record of Conservative Party leader Steven Harper. According to
>>>> Herron, Harper voted in favour of the registry on the first and second
>>>> readings of the bill in 1995. "He voted against it when it counted, at
>>>> final count," Moore said. "We needa government with courage to
>>>> register sex offenders rather than register the property of law
>>>> abiding citizens."
>>>>
>>>> The crowd was vocal throughout the evening, with white haired men and
>>>> women heckling from the Conservative side. "Shut up John," one woman
>>>> yelled. "How can you talk about selling out?" a man yelled whenHerron
>>>> spoke about his fear that the Conservatives are selling farmers out.
>>>>
>>>> Although the Liberal side was less vocal, Kings East MLA Leroy
>>>> Armstrong weighed in at one point. "You're out of touch," Armstrong
>>>> yelled to Moore from the crowd when the debate turned to the cost of
>>>> post-secondary education. Later in the evening Amos challenged
>>>> Armstrong to a public debate of their own. "Talk is cheap. Any time,
>>>> anyplace," Armstrong responded.
>>>>
>>>> As the crowd made its way out of the building following the debate,
>>>> candidates worked the room. They shook hands with well-wishers and
>>>> fielded questions from spectators-all part of the decision-making
>>>> process for the June 28 vote.
>>>>
>>>> Cutline – David Amos, independent candidate in Fundy, with some of his
>>>> favourite possessions—motorcycles.
>>>>
>>>> McKnight/KCR
>>>>
>>>> The Unconventional Candidate
>>>>
>>>> David Amos Isn't Campaigning For Your Vote, But….
>>>>
>>>> By Gisele McKnight
>>>>
>>>> FUNDY—He has a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket, a chain on his
>>>> wallet, a beard at least a foot long, 60 motorcycles and a cell phone
>>>> that rings to the tune of "Yankee Doodle."
>>>>
>>>> Meet the latest addition to the Fundy ballot—David Amos.
>>>>
>>>> The independent candidate lives in Milton, Massachusetts with his wife
>>>> and two children, but his place of residence does not stop him from
>>>> running for office in Canada.
>>>>
>>>> One has only to be at least 18, a Canadian citizen and not be in jail
>>>> to meet Elections Canada requirements.
>>>>
>>>> When it came time to launch his political crusade, Amos chose his
>>>> favourite place to do so—Fundy.
>>>>
>>>> Amos, 52, is running for political office because of his
>>>> dissatisfaction with politicians.
>>>>
>>>> "I've become aware of much corruption involving our two countries," he
>>>> said. "The only way to fix corruption is in the political forum."
>>>>
>>>> The journey that eventually led Amos to politics began in Sussex in
>>>> 1987. He woke up one morning disillusioned with life and decided he
>>>> needed to change his life.
>>>>
>>>> "I lost my faith in mankind," he said. "People go through that
>>>> sometimes in midlife."
>>>>
>>>> So Amos, who'd lived in Sussex since 1973, closed his Four Corners
>>>> motorcycle shop, paid his bills and hit the road with Annie, his 1952
>>>> Panhead motorcycle.
>>>>
>>>> "Annie and I rode around for awhile (three years, to be exact)
>>>> experiencing the milk of human kindness," he said. "This is how you
>>>> renew your faith in mankind – you help anyone you can, you never ask
>>>> for anything, but you take what they offer."
>>>>
>>>> For those three years, they offered food, a place to sleep, odd jobs
>>>> and conversation all over North America.
>>>>
>>>> Since he and Annie stopped wandering, he has married, fathered a son
>>>> and a daughter and become a house-husband – Mr. Mom, as he calls
>>>> himself.
>>>>
>>>> He also describes himself in far more colourful terms—a motorcyclist
>>>> rather than a biker, a "fun-loving, free-thinking, pig-headed
>>>> individual," a "pissed-off Maritimer" rather than an activist, a proud
>>>> Canadian and a "wild colonial boy."
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, the man who is running for office has never voted in his
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> "But I have no right to criticize unless I offer my name," he said.
>>>> "It's alright to bitch in the kitchen, but can you walk the walk?"
>>>>
>>>> Amos has no intention of actively campaigning.
>>>>
>>>> "I didn't appreciate it when they (politicians) pounded on my door
>>>> interrupting my dinner," he said. "If people are interested, they can
>>>> call me. I'm not going to drive my opinions down their throats."
>>>>
>>>> And he has no campaign budget, nor does he want one.
>>>>
>>>> "I won't take any donations," he said. "Just try to give me some. It's
>>>> not about money. It goes against what I'm fighting about."
>>>>
>>>> What he's fighting for is the discussion of issues – tainted blood,
>>>> the exploitation of the Maritimes' gas and oil reserves and NAFTA, to
>>>> name a few.
>>>>
>>>> "The political issues in the Maritimes involve the three Fs – fishing,
>>>> farming and forestry, but they forget foreign issues," he said. "I'm
>>>> death on NAFTA, the back room deals and free trade. I say chuck it
>>>> (NAFTA) out the window.
>>>>
>>>> NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement which allows an
>>>> easier flow of goods between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> Amos disagrees with the idea that a vote for him is a wasted vote.
>>>>
>>>> "There are no wasted votes," he said. "I want people like me,
>>>> especially young people, to pay attention and exercise their right.
>>>> Don't necessarily vote for me, but vote."
>>>>
>>>> Although…if you're going to vote anyway, Amos would be happy to have
>>>> your X by his name.
>>>>
>>>> "I want people to go into that voting booth, see my name, laugh and
>>>> say, 'what the hell.'"

Etc Etc Etc
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)