British Columbia Wants to Impose Police State Gags on Discussion of Health Threats in

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 26 May 2012 06:50

British Columbia Wants to Impose Police State Gags on Discussion of Health Threats in Ag and Fish Farms What's the problem with governments? Do they gain power and then seek to assume total power over the groaning taxpayers who fund them? Apparently, this is so in British Columbia. "B.C.'s Liberal government is poised to further choke off the flow of public information, this time with respect to disease outbreaks. The Animal Health Act, expected to be passed into law by month's end, expressly over-rides B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, duct-taping shut the mouths of any citizens - or journalists - who would publicly identify the location of an outbreak of agriculture-related disease such as the deadly bird flu. 'A person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose . . . information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle,' Section 16 of the Act reads. It is quite conceivable that the provincial government, in the event of a disease outbreak at a farm, would delay releasing a warning in order to protect the farm in question or the industry it's part of. In that event, should you as a citizen hear about the outbreak, or if you were an employee at an affected farm, you would be breaking the law by speaking publicly about it or bringing concerns to the media."* (The Province*, May 22, 2012) The idea that a person reporting a concern about an agricultural illness or a disease on a fish farm would face a provincial gag backed up by hefty fines and/or imprisonment is outrageous. There should be riots of anger to defy those tyrants who would dare silence their fellow citizens. We have for years challenged Canadians to show thier thirst for freedom by protesting and defying those tyrants who would dare silence them, Yes, of course, it would be wrong to spread false rumours about health threats on farms or fish farms,. Surely, though, the laws of libel and slander, strict as they are in Canada, are more than adequate to deal with any bad faith writings of that sort. *The Province* report continues: "Citizens or journalists breaking the Animal Health Act but not charged with an offence can be slapped with 'administrative penalties,' which are fines. And the legislation contains an additional attack on rights of citizens: if you don't pay your fine, a government representative simply files a paper in court that is the same, according to Sec. 80(2) of the Act, 'as if it were a judgment of the court with which it is filed.' Except for the absence of a judge or any semblance of due process. Ultimately, this legislation aims to protect businesses from disclosure of information that may harm their financial interests. As B.C. Freedom of Information commissioner Elizabeth Denham revealed in a letter to provincial Agriculture Minister Don McRae, his ministry has expressed concern that the province's legal protection of "'hird-party business interests . . . does not adequately protect information related to farmers engaged in animal-health programs or subject to disease-management actions.' Ministry employees, animal-health inspectors and laboratory employees are specifically barred from disclosing information about farm-disease outbreaks. Denham noted that it's extremely rare for a law to override freedom of information legislation. The Animal Health Act removes "the public's right to access various records regarding animal testing, including actions and reports relating to animal-disease management," Den-ham wrote. The Animal Health Act would override another provincial law, the Offence Act. While the Offence Act caps punishment at a $2,000 fine and six months in jail for offences not drawing higher penalties in other legislation, the Animal Health Act says that section of the Offence Act doesn't apply, and lays out a punishment regime with penal-ties reaching to $75,000 fines and two years in prison. The offence of failing to keep information confidential falls among the violations drawing the highest penalties." *Paul Fromm* *Director* *CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION* B.C. law to ban information on farm outbreaks Overrides Freedom of Information law, carries stiff penalty By Ethan Baron, The Province May 22, 2012 [image: Ethan Baron] Ethan Baron *Photograph by: *Ginger Sedlarova , The Province B.C.'s Liberal government is poised to further choke off the flow of public information, this time with respect to disease outbreaks. The Animal Health Act, expected to be passed into law by month's end, expressly over-rides B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, duct-taping shut the mouths of any citizens - or journalists - who would publicly identify the location of an outbreak of agriculture-related disease such as the deadly bird flu. "A person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose . . . information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle," Section 16 of the Act reads. It is quite conceivable that the provincial government, in the event of a disease outbreak at a farm, would delay releasing a warning in order to protect the farm in question or the industry it's part of. In that event, should you as a citizen hear about the outbreak, or if you were an employee at an affected farm, you would be breaking the law by speaking publicly about it or bringing concerns to the media. Citizens or journalists breaking the Animal Health Act but not charged with an offence can be slapped with "administrative penalties," which are fines. And the legislation contains an additional attack on rights of citizens: if you don't pay your fine, a government representative simply files a paper in court that is the same, according to Sec. 80(2) of the Act, "as if it were a judgment of the court with which it is filed." Except for the absence of a judge or any semblance of due process. Ultimately, this legislation aims to protect businesses from disclosure of information that may harm their financial interests. As B.C. Freedom of Information commissioner Elizabeth Denham revealed in a letter to provincial Agriculture Minister Don McRae, his ministry has expressed concern that the province's legal protection of "third-party business interests . . . does not adequately protect information related to farmers engaged in animal-health programs or subject to disease-management actions." Ministry employees, animal-health inspectors and laboratory employees are specifically barred from disclosing information about farm-disease outbreaks. Denham noted that it's extremely rare for a law to override freedom of information legislation. The Animal Health Act removes "the public's right to access various records regarding animal testing, including actions and reports relating to animal-disease management," Den-ham wrote. The Animal Health Act would override another provincial law, the Offence Act. While the Offence Act caps punishment at a $2,000 fine and six months in jail for offences not drawing higher penalties in other legislation, the Animal Health Act says that section of the Offence Act doesn't apply, and lays out a punishment regime with penal-ties reaching to $75,000 fines and two years in prison. The offence of failing to keep information confidential falls among the violations drawing the highest penalties. Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/information+farm+outbreaks/6657194/story.html#ixzz1vxBKeBAq

 

CRIME WATCH -- Another One Bites The Dust -- Sharmarke Mohamed Drug Pusher Deported

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 25 May 2012 04:42

CRIME WATCH Another One Bites The Dust -- Sharmarke Mohamed Drug Pusher Deported Federal records show that Sharmarke Mohamed was finally punted from Canadaon April 16. "'If he had come from, say, Sweden, he would not only have been found inadmissible [under the Immigration Act] for serious criminality, but, in all likelihood, would have been deported long ago. However, he is a refugee from Somalia and is protected.' ... Because he came here from war torn Somalia, he has been allowed to linger, causing mayhem through his escalating violence, a Federal Courtjudge declared before deciding that enough is enough. Despite Mohamed having been granted refugee protection after fleeing to Canada — and a plea from the United Nations that he not be sent home to 'one of the most dangerous places on earth' — his drug and alcohol-fuelled crimes pose such a danger to Canada he must be sent back regardless, Justice Sean Harringtonhas ruled. Chief Justice Pierre Blais, of the Federal Court of Appeal, upheld the decision, clearing the way for [Mohamed's removal]. Immigration officials had hoped he had left the violence behind when he came to Canada in 1990 at the age of 27. ... 'Unfortunately, Mr. Mohamed’s settlement in Canada has not been quite peaceful. He got married twice, had two children from each of those marriages, and is now living separate from [both],' Justice Blais wrote in his appeal’s decision. There are court orders, in fact, against him contacting his first wife. He was convicted of assaulting a roommate with a butcher’s knife, of robbing three banks, assault, assault with weapons, assault causing bodily harm, and other crimes. Immigration authorities ordered his deportation in 2009, which he fought vociferously. [Not entirely unassimilated however; Mohamed insisted] detention violated his Charter rights under Section 7, claiming it would 'jeopardize' his life and security." (National Post, May 7, 2012) Note, Sharmarke Mohamed should not be confused with Sharmarke Mohamed Warsame. Also Somali, Sharmarke Mohamed Warsame was a well known local drug dealer on the Brooks, Alberta circuit. Found beaten to death in a field outside that town in 2008, the beat down was allegedly reprisal for holding an 18-year-old local girl against her will and raping her repeatedly. Does anyone ever answer for the failed decisions of our immigration and refugee admission system? [This article appears in the May, 2012 issue of the *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE*. Published monthly, the *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE* is available by subscription for $30 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and expiry date to *CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HOTLINE*, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]

 

Hear Paul Fromm -- The Fighting Side of Me: Living With Minorityitis

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:06

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlp238.net/zztzQb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAR PAUL FROMM -- THE FIGHTING SIDE OF ME: LIVING WITH MINORITYITIS ( HTTP://REASONRADIONETWORK.COM/20120508/THE-FIGHTING-SIDE-OF-ME-LIVING-WITH-MINORITYITIS ) May 8, 2012 Persecuted Nova Scotia Christian Student William Swinimer Paul Fromm * … dissects furor over Islamic school website denouncing Jews for seeking to kill Mohammed; * … exposes the contradicitons and hypocrisy of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre; * … backs Nova Scotia Christian student suspended for sporting “Life is Wasted Without Jesus” t-shirt; * … refutes Globe and Mail‘s 10-part propaganda series promoting the “need” for a million more immigrant workers by 2020; * … wonders at Germany’s terrified establishment — a heavily annotated (refuting and criticizing) version of Mein Kampf will finally be allowed. What are they afraid of?. http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120508/the-fighting-side-of-me-living-with-minorityitis ( http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120508/the-fighting-side-of-me-living-with-minorityitis ) _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp238.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgmybgguewwmw Powered by YourMailingListProvider