• China's Crackdown on ‘Hedonistic’ Bankers Fuels Industry Brain Drain - YouTube
    Where are they going though? Some to Hong Kong, some from banking to crypto, to digital banking. 78% of banks have reduced personnel or something. Some big jobs pay have been cut in half.
    People don't want this many people in the sector, they want the sector to serve the people rather than lavish lifestyles. Government wants other sectors, like manufacturing. They want sectors to be self-regulated, so China doesn't have the corruption (which they have now).

    This P.E.I. senior has no fixed address. He says there aren't enough services for people like him - YouTube
    #Canada #Technology

    Has AI made it ok to say the economy is sort of stagnating (considering inflation)?
  • Why Were Campus Vending Machines Using Facial Recognition Software? - YouTube

    Police now need warrant for IP addresses, Canada's top court rules - YouTube
    Canadians should have a reasonable expectation of privacy for thier IP addresses, Supreme Court said. It would be an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. It is a breadcrumb on a trail that could tell Google or Meta a lot of information about that individual.
    Not the same ruling as two lower courts.
    The man had allegedly used fraudulent credit card info and the police had pursued the matter without a warrant.

  • Critical documents expected to arrive in mail just vanish - YouTube

    Canadian military accepting less than 1% of permanent residents who apply - YouTube
    #Canada #Immigration

    The Javers Files: Apple Vision Pro in Moscow - YouTube
    It's not even available in UK and other countries where it is allowed by Apple. It does sell for like 50% more though in Russia.
    Parallel import. Apple products have been not sold in Russia by Apple for 2 years, a protest against the Ukraine invasion and war. However, they're still available there to buy.
  • Police Now Need a Warrant to Access Ring Footage - YouTube

    Causing Someone to Stop Walking is Now a Crime in Vegas - YouTube

    Blinding headlights are growing problem on US roads - YouTube

    Is he for real? Destruction of evidence isn't viewed as criminal act by Trudeau government - YouTube

    City Sues to Keep Its Police Chase Policy Hidden - YouTube
    Because police have rules for when they will continue a police chase and when they will not pursue further becaues negatives outweigh positives.
    But now a bystander was struck and killed during a chase. They want to know if the police were following their policy at the time.
    They have the Freedom and Information Act in Texas.

    Anna Paulina Luna Asks If Hillary Clinton Or Stacey Abrams Should Be Charged With 'Insurrection' - YouTube
    #Terrorism #Politics

    Ford government's wage restraint law deemed unconstitutional - YouTube
    Bill 124. Workers could be eligible for $billions in backpay.
    'Violated the collective bargaining rights of workers.'
    ‘unconstitutional bill passed in 2019.’
  • Invoking Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, court rules - YouTube
    Infringed 'Charter rights’. 2B Freedom of Expression. 8 Search and Seizure. Didn't find any infringement on Movement.
    Finding was very different than the the ‘public inquiry’, the Merlo Commission which had found that what the government did was ok.
    At the time, there was a lot of talk about the ‘CSIS defintion of a naitonal threat.’ Justice Mosley said it doesn't matter if CSIS says that, although it might have weight and be considered. ... The seizing and freezing of bank accounts affected people beyond those they were trying to affect. ... Unreasonable invocation of the Emergencies Act.
    Judge said this is why it's important to have thes public interest litigants [CCLA] to bring these cases forward.
    #Canada #HumanRights
    The CCLA hadn't asked for costs or any remedy other than a declaration.
    ‘Canadian government’ expected to appeal.
    What happens when a court finds a democratic government violates the Constitution? Can a person who is a PM/President retain authority after they have publicly broken the law against many people and violated a whole nation? and how can they hope to afterwards talk about other people as criminals?
    Trudeau government has been saying that ‘economic harm’ can constitute ‘a national threat to Canada.’ Nope. ‘Gaslighting’ Court rules Trudeau's invocation of Emergencies Act was UNREASONABLE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL - YouTube
    Government lost on all measures, not just one. Everything they did, basically, was illegal (unconstitutional) (except perhaps againts Movement).
    The Trudeau Regime Just Got a Whole Lot Worse - YouTube

    FBI DEFIES Judge’s Order To Turn Over Seth Rich’s Laptop! - YouTube

    Supreme Court may reel in power of federal agencies in major case - YouTube
    Medicine, air quality. Who has power to decide? The government-created agencies or the courts, in deciding how to interpret laws? Fishing agency forces fishing boats to carry a government observer on their boat and to pay for it. Currently, courts defer to these types of agencies. ‘That’s where the government almost automatically wins. The government's argument just has to be within the realm of acceptibility, the realm of plausibility.' But the fishermen are saying the agency is overstepping. Lower judges are instructed they have to rule in the government's favor. 40-year precedent. Decision expected in June.
    Healthcare, things won't ‘move as smoothly.’
    We investigated the German farmer protests - YouTube

    Supreme Court Vacates Rulings Against Vaccine Mandates - YouTube
  • What is the worst thing that happened today? - Elon



    If you have 20m users and over $1b revenue (only Meta and Google). Meta didn't want to comply and now blocks Canadian news organization links. Google threatened to do the same but now has reached a deal and the links are not blocked.

    It's to compensate news organizations when they share their links (?and click through to them?). Not all ‘news’, but some news that meets certain standards they decided. Google didn't want to deal with each organization, but is willing to deal with one organization that represents them all.

    Question of democracy. If voting relies on news, and if people who now get their news from online, can't access reputable news organizations, could pose challenges. Perhaps a bigger principle at stake.



  • ... reportedly, for the past 2 years during the Pandemic.

  • "Never in my 56 years have I ever experienced a country so divided, so full of hatred towards friends and neighbors. They may have opinions that differ from theirs, but they're so willing to publicly shame and humiliate and spew forth angry vitriol. We have been called 'terrorists.' For the first 36 we were inundated with hatred with threats of violence. People threatened our team on the phone, telling them "We're coming to get you." "We're going to throw bricks through your window." "You'll pay for this you nazi supporter." I personally have been called a disgusting pig of a woman and that I shall rot in hell." Our rural shop out in Meritville, Ontario, someone draped a large bedsheet over our sign ... and the sign read, "Tammy supports terrorists." - Tammy, the woman who was doxed after donating $250 of her own money to the Canadian trucker protest.

    "Late yesterday messages of support and encouragement started to arrive, and people from coast to coast to coast throughout Canada and the US, they've been buying gift cards online and calling themselves 'guardian angels.'"

    "Our kids arrived today and there were heart-shaped balloons hanging from the door handle and the window was covered with little sticky notes and they were all these inspiration notes of encouragement.

  • Minister who crafted Canadian Charter suing government for violating it

    "I'm the only first minister (of those who drafted the Charter in the early 1980s) left alive who was at that conference and helped draft these freedoms and these rights and the Constitution Act of 1982 itself. And I do this very reluctantly. I've been watching this thing for two years, I've been speaking out about it ... and I've come to the conclusion now that I must as a Canadian and as one of the writers and founders of the Constitution Act of 1982, not only speak about it. I must act about it. I must show Canadians that I'm so concerned as a citizen and as a former first minister ... that I must take action against my own government because they have violated rights that I and others helped craft in 1981-1982." - Brian Peckford

    "There is a section in Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows governments to override these freedoms in unusual circumstance. And I remember this very well when we were crafting the constitution. These unusual circumstances, because of putting it in the constitution, it's not a Federal act or a provincial act, it's in a constitution which is supposed to enshrine permanent values and give glue to the country. So this Section One can only be used, and I remember this well, in times of peril, in times of war and insurrection, or when the State is in peril, when the existence of the State is in peril."

    "Even in the extreme circumstance that you try to make Section One apply ... then there are four tests that had to be met in order for it to apply. That means it must be demonstrably justified that what the action is is worthwhile. In other words, some kind of cost-benefit analysis must be done by law, it must be done within reasonable limits, and fourthly and most importantly, all those three must be done within the context of a free and democratic society. And a free and democratic society to me means parliamentary democracy in our country. We have 14 parliaments, and they have all been completely silent. There's no parliamentary committee anywhere in any of those 14 parliaments looking at what's happening to our country. There are the people's representatives."

    He said that newspapers in the country, which in the past did carry his letters when he wanted to comment on some public policy, but since he started talking this way, they have not carried his letters, or even acknowledged that they've received his letters.

    He noted that lots of news organizations in the country have received money from the government. Over $600m.

    His legal team is basing their claim on the freedom of mobility guarantee (since he has to specify something). He commented that in Canada, the second largest country by land mass, freedom of travel was very important. The government has banned travel by plane and train (and sometimes highways, I've heard). "In other words, we can't travel across our own nation."

    (He said they also considered freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. "Lots of people and churches were prevented from getting together.") (And there's currently a curfew in Quebec.)

    "If us as first ministers had wanted to just have protecting rights and freedoms that could easily be changed, we wouldn't have gone to the constitution. We would have said, 'Just put an act in the Federal parliament, put acts in all the parliaments, and then up to the whim of the political party of the time to change it. We wanted to safeguard it, so it would be beyond the whim of political machinations and therefore could not be changed, only in the most extreme circumstances."

    He also noted that the Oaks Test (coming from a Supreme Court case in 1986) about what Section One meant, and [in the current situation] the lower courts have not looked at this test. This is highly unusual because the courts always look to the precedent set by the highest court ... in determining what they will do in their case. The absence of seeing the Oaks test in the lower courts is very troubling and is the other reason we must take this kind of action at this time."

    "And this is where I ... come down and say, 'We have to exhaust all of the civilized legal processes that we set up under our constitution. ..."

    When asked what the current process was, if not by parliamentary discussion and decision, for the government to take these actions, ever the Charter rights, Peckford said, "Here's where the most insidious part of this equation comes into play. What the governments have done is used, in many cases, existing legislation under which they have the power to make regulation. So they've used existing emergencies, legislation, and inflated it enough or interpreted it in a manner that they can also use in this circumstance and therefore issue additional regulation. And then in other cases, they did not fully explain or have a parliamentary committee look at other amendments when they opened their parliament and closed it within two or three days or a week. In other words, sufficient debate wasn't allowed to understand the repercussions of what they were doing, when they were giving more power to the minister and more power to the public health officer."

    He said it was worse than just not allowing debate, "because we had time. One can perhaps relieve or excuse, if one wants to, and say, For the first 90 days, when this thing began, you could make an argument that OK, the government's had to move. But in any rational way if they had used the emergency measures planning that was already in place, they would have moved to protect the vulnerable first. And then did a study on the rest. What else do we need to do in society. What they did is just a cart blanche over all of society without giving second thought to it."

    "... not only are the vaccines destructive. More destructive than any vaccine in our history, and that's a scientific fact, they have had time to adjust, and this is where they have not even been nimble."

    He discussed that many decisions are made by government based on opinion polling of Canadians in the street, but that the polls were sometimes affected by advertising and (government subsidized legacy media) news, saying "Here they are advertising that you've gotta get vaccinated, on the television, and they're actually even doing ads for children, and trying to talk to children directly through a public ad, so they're feeding off themselves. They're creating enough fear so they'll get the poll they want to get."

    "Canadians are very trusting of their government," he noted. (I've also noticed this a lot.)

  • Hostage diplomacy worked for China

    ... The Huawei exec who's been under house arrest in Vancouver for a couple years on request by America (they said she bypassed their embargo on Iran, I think, and wanted her deported to the US. She's been arguing against deportation from Canada since then).

    Shortly after the exec's detention, China detained two Canadians, saying they were spying. (It sounds like they were never charged, just detained until now).

    Shortly after the exec recently made a deal with the US and was released by Canada to return to China, China released the two Canadian men.

    "Because it was so blatently a form of hostage diplomacy I think people are going to start thinking about how they deal with China. ... a major emerging power that doesn't really follow international law, so there's a lot of implications that need to be addressed." - Clifford Coonan

  • Canadian govts go for mandatory vaccines

    ... but there were large protests outside city halls and hospitals over the freedom to chose. A further concern has to do with people not feeling the vaccines currently being offered are not adequately tested, we don't know enough about them, and they don't feel comfortable putting it in their bodies.

    Legally, people have the freedom to choose they don't want a vaccine, according to Canadian employment lawyer Lior Samfiru. It can't be forced on them. He said it's actually a human rights violation (to require a medical procedure and also to distinguish between people who have and don't have Covid) as well. He said it's not legal for employers to impose it on employees, and if they let employees for this they are liable to pay severance (possibly up to 2 years). Samfiru said people who challenge their employers have a good chance of success.

    In the US, however, it might be different. Dorit Reiss, law professor at the University of California Hastings, told CNBC there was a history of vaccine mandates in the workplace. Health care employers have required vaccines, and some restaurants have required Hep A vaccines. Employment is at will, which means the employer gets to set many of the workplace rules, and vaccine rules are health and safety rules, making the workplace safer. But there is a question whether the government can mandate a vaccine under an emergency authorization (which it is currently under in the US). However, the EUA only limits the Federal government and doesn't say anything about other employers. Citizens don't have constitutional rights against employers, although they may have some legal rights.