278 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. The point of a pluralistic society, however, isn’t to find a single, absolute, dogmatic ideal. It is rather to discover ways of coexisting productively, despite and perhaps even in celebration of our differences.

      Very good point. Should look for plurality in ideals.

  2. Jun 2021
  3. May 2021
  4. Apr 2021
    1. s. “We don’t have to prove a racially discriminatory impact to win.”A federal judge agreed with Husted, ruling that Ohio did not violate the law because voters were purged for a variety of reasons. The case has since been appealed to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in late July and has not yet ruled.When Hamilton County, Ohio, where Cincinnati is the county seat, removed 75,000 voters this year, nearly half, and in some neighborhoods far more, were purged because of “non

      Ohio, you are disgusting. Don't you goddam treat my fellow Americans like that

  5. Feb 2021
    1. Emerald

      https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/open-research-emerald/our-open-research-policies

      Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

    2. Wiley  

      Similar to CUP and IOP, Sage, and Springer Nature, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Wiley's publishing activities for four more years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

      Furthermore, the financial credit cap for the Wiley deal is operationally low, resulting in additional expenditure for institutions at the end of the calendar year when open access support funds are running low. This additional cost is not sustainable for many institutions and unintentionally creates inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing.

    3. Springer Nature  

      UK institutions have been through several terms of the Springer Compact deal and continue to negotiate amendments and additional terms with added expense. The Springer Compact deal delivers no-additional-cost publishing for an upfront commitment of funds by institutions. Regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories institutions continue to support Springer Nature's publishing activities. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    4. SAGE Publishing  

      Similar to CUP and IOP, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Sage's publishing activities for three years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    5. IOP Publishing

      Similar to CUP, some UK institutions have signed a contract to fund IOP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    6. Cambridge University Press

      Many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund CUP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

    7. ensure that the vital process of verification and trust in science is maintained to a high standard

      This conclusion is focusing on the statements above, which I personally do not consider to be accurate.

    8. what is allowed

      What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.

    9. to be sustainable this is a decision that needs to be applied at the level of individual journals, not through blanket policies

      It's my interpretation that the funders agree which is why Wellcome Trust wrote to publishers asking if they would change their policies to reflect the rights retention strategy.

    10. undermine the integrity of the Version of Record, which is the foundation of the scientific record, and its associated codified mechanisms for corrections, retractions and data disclosure. 

      This misrepresents the situation. Authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) have been shared on institutional and subject repositories for around two decades, with greater prevalence in the last decade. Despite this the version of record (VoR) is still valued and preserves the integrity of the scholarly record. The integrity of the VoR continues to be maintained by the publisher and where well-run repository management are made aware, corrections can be reflected in a repository. The solution to this problem is the publisher taking their responsibility to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record seriously and notifying repositories, not asserting that authors should not exercise their right to apply a prior license to their AAM.

    11. the Rights Retention Strategy is not financially sustainable

      So far as I know this is not tested or based on any evidence. If the publishers think an open accepted manuscript would undermine the version of record, it doesn't demonstrate much confidence in their added value to me.

    12. eliminates the ability to charge for the services that publishers provide

      This is an inaccurate statement or at the very least misrepresents the situation. Despite the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS), publisher may - and many do - continue to charge page charges, over-run charges, colour charges, submission fees, society fees, etc. to the author. The author may also choose to pay an open access article processing charge (APC), without using their funder's money. Furthermore, the RRS does not eliminate the publisher charging subscription fees, licensing fees for the reproduction of content (e.g. figure resue), access to meta-content, docdel etc. or, indeed, individual access to the version of record (VoR) where a reader has identified a need to see the VoR after seeing the authors accepted manuscript (AAM)

    13. free

      Repository based open access is not free. Institutions and other organisations have invested significant resources into the development, maintenance, management and quality assurance of repositories and their content. This would not be necessary if academic journals publishing was more equitable, transparent and sustainable.

    14. work against the shared objective of a more open and equitable scholarly ecosystem

      Again, it is not at all clear what is meant by this statement. Equity in academia is an incredibly important goal. This statement currently reads like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Libraries, Institutions and funders have found that the unintended consequences of deficient deals with publishers supported by their funds can include inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing. However, the intention of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is to arm all authors with detailed knowledge of their rights to ensure they have the same minimum opportunity to widely disseminate their work. Furthermore, by providing a version of an output with a CC BY license there is greater equity around accessing the research and therefore greater opportunity to build on it for public benefit, making a more equitable environment for all. The version of record (VoR) remains important in this scenario, so more equitable access should not undermine the sustainability of journals and platforms which are valued.

    15. The Rights Retention Strategy ignores long-standing academic freedoms

      It’s not entirely clear what is meant by this statement. This is incredibly inflammatory rhetoric for most academics who take academic freedom very seriously - for very good reasons. However, the academic has the freedom not to accept a grant if they fundamentally disagree with the funder’s desired approach to effective dissemination of the research they support. Furthermore, the rights retention strategy (RRS) is in place to give the authors more freedom of choice over what happens to the version of record (VoR). Because of the RRS, the author can submit to the most appropriate journal for the research regardless of whether it explicitly provides a compliant route to publication (assuming the journal takes the submission forwards) or whether or not the author can access funds to pay a publication charge (APC) in a hybrid subscription journal.

    16. The Rights Retention Strategy provides a challenge to the vital income that is necessary to fund the resources, time, and effort to provide not only the many checks, corrections, and editorial inputs required but also the management and support of a rigorous peer review process

      This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.

    17. However, we are unable to support one route to compliance offered by Plan S,

      The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

      Academy of Dental Materials

      Acoustical Society of America

      AIP Publishing

      American Academy of Ophthalmology

      American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

      American Chemical Society

      American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

      American Medical Association

      American Physical Society

      American Society for Investigative Pathology

      American Society for Radiation Oncology

      American Society of Civil Engineers

      American Society of Hematology

      American Society of Clinical Oncology

      American Association of Physicists in Medicine

      American Association of Physics Teachers

      AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

      Brill

      British Journal of Anaesthesia

      Budrich Academic Press

      Cambridge Media

      Cambridge University Press

      Canadian Cardiovascular Society

      De Gruyter

      Duncker & Humblot

      Elsevier

      Emerald

      Erich Schmidt Verlag

      French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

      Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

      Future Science Group 

      Hogrefe

      International Association for Gondwana Research

      IOP Publishing

      Journal of Nursing Regulation

      Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

      Julius Klinkhardt KG

      La Découverte

      Laser Institute America

      Materials Research Forum LLC

      The Optical Society (OSA)

      Pearson Benelux

      SAGE Publishing

      Society of Rheology

      Springer Nature

      Taylor & Francis Group

      The Geological Society of America

      Thieme Group

      Uitgeverij Verloren

      Verlag Barbara Budrich

      Vittorio Klostermann

      wbv Media

      Wiley

      Wolters Kluwer

  6. Nov 2020
  7. Oct 2020
    1. Antalet premiumprenumeranter som står för hälften av Spotifys intäkter steg med 27 procent till 144 miljoner jämfört med samma period föregående år. Det var fler än analytiker förväntat sig (142,5 miljoner) enligt Refinitivs sammanställning.
    1. James Bronterre O’Brien, told the people:‘Knaves will tell you that it is because you have no property, you are unrepresented. I tell you on the contrary, it is because you are unrepresented that you have no property …’16

      great quote

    1. he group has become self-described “dignity scholars” who have studied the notions and criteria of dignity in landmark legal cases. In doing so, R2L has used Hypothesis as their “human rights tool” to examine legal evidence and build an argument for legislative change.

      Hypothes.is as a human rights tool! awesome!

    1. They also found themselves unable to sustain and organize in the long term in a manner proportional to the energy they had been able to attract initially and the legitimacy they enjoyed in their demands.

      This reminds me of an excellent example I heard recently on Scene on Radio's Men series which tells the story of a rape which occurred several years prior to the bus boycott that helped to rally the community and make the bus boycott far more successful than it would have been without the prior incident and local reportage.

      The relevant audio begins (with some background) at approximately 22:40 into the episode.

    1. Mutual aid societies were built on the razed foundations of the old  guilds, and cooperatives and mass political parties then drew on the  experience of the mutual aid societies."

      This reminds me of the beginning of the Civil Rights movement that grew out of the civic glue that arose out of prior work relating to rape cases several years prior.

      I recall Zeynep Tufekci writing a bit about some of these tangential ideas in some of her social network writing. (Where's the link to that?)

  8. Sep 2020
    1. Facebook ignored or was slow to act on evidence that fake accounts on its platform have been undermining elections and political affairs around the world, according to an explosive memo sent by a recently fired Facebook employee and obtained by BuzzFeed News.The 6,600-word memo, written by former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang, is filled with concrete examples of heads of government and political parties in Azerbaijan and Honduras using fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to sway public opinion. In countries including India, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, she found evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes to boost or hinder political candidates or outcomes, though she did not always conclude who was behind them.
  9. Aug 2020
    1. Facebook has apologized to its users and advertisers for being forced to respect people’s privacy in an upcoming update to Apple’s mobile operating system – and promised it will do its best to invade their privacy on other platforms.

      Sometimes I forget how funny The Register can be. This is terrific.

    1. Facebook is warning developers that privacy changes in an upcoming iOS update will severely curtail its ability to track users' activity across the entire Internet and app ecosystem and prevent the social media platform from serving targeted ads to users inside other, non-Facebook apps on iPhones.

      I fail to see anything bad about this.

    1. "When an OP rejects your edit, please do not edit it back in!" Correspondingly, when a user repeatedly does try to edit, understand that something in your framing isn't working right, and you should reconsider it.
    2. I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!
  10. Jul 2020
    1. Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.
  11. Jun 2020
    1. One of the new tools debuted by Facebook allows administrators to remove and block certain trending topics among employees. The presentation discussed the “benefits” of “content control.” And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word “unionize.”

      Imagine your employer looking over your shoulder constantly.

      Imagine that you're surveilled not only in regard to what you produce, but to what you—if you're an office worker—tap our in chats to colleagues.

      This is what Facebook does and it's not very different to what China has created with their Social Credit System.

      This is Orwellian.

    1. Zoom, a Silicon Valley-based company, appears to own three companies in China through which at least 700 employees are paid to develop Zoom’s software. This arrangement is ostensibly an effort at labor arbitrage: Zoom can avoid paying US wages while selling to US customers, thus increasing their profit margin. However, this arrangement may make Zoom responsive to pressure from Chinese authorities.
    1. Zoom didn't do this to comply with local law.

      They did this because they don't want to lose customers in China.

      This is just capitalistic greed.

      Shutting down activists over a dictatorship is wrong, and it is actually as simple as that.

  12. May 2020
    1. the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards;
    1. The Right of Withdrawal expires, in the case of a contract for the delivery of digital content which is not stored on a tangible data storage medium, at the point of time when we have begun the performance of the contract after you have expressly agreed that we should commence the performance of the contract before expiry of the withdrawal period and have confirmed that you were aware that with your consent to the commencement of performance of the contract, you lose your right of withdrawal.
    1. "On the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights." The move comes as little surprise from an administration that frequently has lambasted the 47-member body for a gamut of perceived failures — particularly the dubious rights records of many of its member countries, as well as what Haley has repeatedly called the council's "chronic bias against Israel."
    1. You don’t need to have any reason for exercising this right — you can simply change your mind
    2. Consumers located in the EU are also protected by a default legal 2 year guarantee on products purchased at no additional cost. Here again: 2-years is the statutory minimum
    3. EU consumer law applies to contracts or other legal relationships between consumers (on one side) and professionals, businesses, companies on the other (B2C). It does not apply to B2B (e.g. a supermarket places an order with its fruit supplier) or C2C relationships (e.g. I sell my old bike over eBay).
    4. In the US, there is no one national law in regards to returns/refunds for purchases made online as in most cases, this is implemented on a state-by-state basis, however, under several state-laws, if no refund or return notice was made visible to consumers before purchase, consumers are automatically granted extended return/refund rights. In cases where the item purchased is defective, an implied warranty may apply in lieu of a written warranty
    1. What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.
    2. They don't have to host the extension on their website, but it's absolutely and utterly unacceptable for them to interfere with me choosing to come to github and install it.
    3. It's no less beyond the pale than when apple actively sabotaged people's devices to force them to upgrade or amazon deleted people's already bought and downloaded ebooks. It's completely unacceptable and frankly should fall under consumer rights laws.
  13. Apr 2020
    1. At Brown’s sentencing, Judge Lindsay was quoted as saying “What took place is not going to chill any 1st Amendment expression by Journalists.” But he was so wrong. Brown’s arrest and prosecution had a substantial chilling effect on journalism. Some journalists have simply stopped reporting on hacks from fear of retribution and others who still do are forced to employ extraordinary measures to protect themselves from prosecution.
    2. I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.
    3. This principle equally applies to the laws of our country; we should never violate basic rights even if the consequences aren’t immediately evident.
    1. The patent right is but the right to exclude others, the very definition of “property.” That the property right represented by a patent, like other property rights, may be used in a scheme violative of antitrust laws creates no “conflict” between laws establishing any of those property rights and the antitrust laws.
    1. Thousands of enterprises around the world have done exhaustive security reviews of our user, network, and data center layers and confidently selected Zoom for complete deployment. 

      This doesn't really account for the fact that Zoom have committed some atrociously heinous acts, such as (and not limited to):

  14. Mar 2020
    1. Something else that will never change is the right to freely self-host Matomo On-Premise; this way you can always host Matomo Analytics on your own servers without having to pay for it.
    1. GDPR introduces a list of data subjects’ rights that should be obeyed by both data processors and data collectors. The list includes: Right of access by the data subject (Section 2, Article 15). Right to rectification (Section 3, Art 16). Right to object to processing (Section 4, Art 21). Right to erasure, also known as ‘right to be forgotten’ (Section 3, Art 17). Right to restrict processing (Section 3, Art 18). Right to data portability (Section 3, Art 20).
    1. The main forces that restricted public health police powers were: (1) the advent of civil rights jurisprudence; (2) the rise of patient autonomy and the rapid expansion of state personal health services expenditures; and (3) federal encroachment on state authority.
    1. multiple scandals have highlighted some very shady practices being enabled by consent-less data-mining — making both the risks and the erosion of users’ rights clear
    2. Earlier this year it began asking Europeans for consent to processing their selfies for facial recognition purposes — a highly controversial technology that regulatory intervention in the region had previously blocked. Yet now, as a consequence of Facebook’s confidence in crafting manipulative consent flows, it’s essentially figured out a way to circumvent EU citizens’ fundamental rights — by socially engineering Europeans to override their own best interests.
    1. The French Court of Cassation has decided to reclassify the contractual relationship between Uber and a driver as an employment contract.
    1. Right now, if you want to know what data Facebook has about you, you don’t have the right to ask them to give you all of the data they have on you, and the right to know what they’ve done with it. You should have that right. You should have the right to know and have access to your data.
  15. Feb 2020
    1. To add insult to injury I learn that when Cloudflare automatically detects an anomaly with your domain they permanently delete all DNS records. Mine won't be difficult to restore, but I'm not sure why this is necessary. Surely it would be possible for Cloudflare to mark a domain as disabled without irrevocably deleting it? Combined with the hacky audit log, I'm left with the opinion that for some reason Cloudflare decided to completely half-ass the part of their system that is responsible for deleting everything that matters to a user.

      ...and this is why some companies should not grow to become too big for the good of their customers.

    1. Research ethics concerns issues, such as privacy, anonymity, informed consent and the sensitivity of data. Given that social media is part of society’s tendency to liquefy and blur the boundaries between the private and the public, labour/leisure, production/consumption (Fuchs, 2015a: Chapter 8), research ethics in social media research is par-ticularly complex.
  16. Jan 2020
    1. Damage to water sources that residents attribute to mining, as well as increased demand due to population migration to mining sites, reduces communities’ access to water for drinking, washing and cooking. Women, who are primarily responsible for fetching water, are forced to walk longer distances or wait for long periods to obtain water from alternative sources. The dust produced by bauxite mining and transport smothers fields and enters homes, leaving families and health workers worried that reduced air quality threatens their health and environment.

      Mining is contaminating our water sources and water is one of the most important things for survival.

  17. Dec 2019
    1. Despite the successful resolution, it was still quite unsettling that a domain name could be transferred to another registrant and sinkholed for some perceived violation. I thought there would be more checks in place to confirm that a perceived violation was real before a domain could be transferred.

      This is highly unsettling. A person, organisation, country, or company should not be able to have a domain name transferred from its rightful owner this easily.

  18. Nov 2019
    1. If the apparatus of total surveillance that we have described here were deliberate, centralized, and explicit, a Big Brother machine toggling between cameras, it would demand revolt, and we could conceive of a life outside the totalitarian microscope.
  19. Oct 2019
    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

  20. Sep 2019
  21. Aug 2019
  22. doc-0k-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com doc-0k-c0-docs.googleusercontent.com
    1. The Bill of Rights lists a number of personal freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon,

      I agree, because in the Bill of Rights it does not state anywhere anything about health care just The American Rights.

    1. Section 2 then begins the real ball game, namely everyone has the following fundamental freedom. The one difficulty we had, as a committee, is with Section 2(b). What do we do with freedom of thought when you have got legislation dealing with have propaganda? How far is it possible to retain such articles as Section 281(1) of the Criminal Code and Section 281(2)? Moreover, you will see we have quoted from Article 20 of the United National Covenant of Civil and Political Rights where propaganda of this kind is regarded as inconsistent with freedom of speech. [Page 87] So we raised the question which seemed to me to be necessary to raise with you, that caution must be exercised, we hope, by the courts in due course, or by you, as draftsmen on how far you are prepared to push the concept of free speech consistent with our experience of hate propaganda. One suggestion we make here-and I do not wish to do anything more than to drop it as a hint, but you may want to have some language that some of the modern constitutions have, which state very starkly and flatly that the advocacy of genocide or group libel is forbidden. But I had the honour to be the chairman of the special committee on hate propaganda in 1965. At that time we came to the flat conclusion that the advocacy of group hatred and genocide was totally inconsistent with the democratic process and no democratic state could tolerate it. Now, whether you want to put that flatly in a constitution is for you to consider; but I think it is for us to bring it to your attention, because it is of importance.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 132.

    2. This Committee did not have a parochial view; this Committee does not pretend that the human rights question belongs to any sector of the Canadian people. It belongs to them all. But, peculiarly enough, there are two or three areas where the Jewish interest happens to be special, and in some cases very sensitive. One is the problem of war criminals, and how that relates to certain protections offered by a charter of rights in the criminal law field. Another is the problem of free speech, and how far that affects such things as hate propaganda

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 131-132.

    1. We want to make it very clear, first of all, that in principle we support the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the constitution. We want to see the constitution patriated to Canada and we want to see in that constitution an entrenched bill of rights. However, we do have some concerns. We are not altogether happy with all of the bill of rights. in that connection we are, I suppose, in somewhat the same situation as a number of other groups who have appeared before you. For example, we feel that some of the statements are too vague. Having been a part of the preparation of the brief of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I can say that I, personally, share some of the concerns that they have in terms of the vagueness of some of the language, and I speak particularly of such words as “fundamental freedoms”, and those kinds of things in which we talk about “natural rights”, et cetera. We would like to see some of these things spelled out. On the question, for example, of freedom of speech, we believe very strongly in freedom of speech, while at the same time, of course, being against censorship. But we would like to see freedom of speech limited only in certain specific ways. In the brief we have indicated, for example, that to a large extent we believe in the doctrine of clear and present danger. We think that freedom of speech should be curtailed where the danger is clear. For example, we have no right to go into a crowded theatre and shout “Fire!” resulting in people being trampled to death as a result of fleeing from a fire which is nonexistent and where there is no danger at all. In a situation like that, obviously, we do not have absolute freedom. But we think this needs to be spelled out a lot more clearly than it is today.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 131.

    1. I would like to ask you if you have considered, Ms. Hardy, the notion of freedom of the press as an individual right or collective right? Ms. Hardy: It could be considered both because if you speak of freedom of the press for a newspaper, it includes the whole role of a newspaper in a community as well as the role of an individual reporter or columnist, so that I really feel that there would be no point in having freedom of the press for an individual if you did not have it for the publication for which the individual happened to be working, either perhaps in the electronic media or in the print media. So I would prefer to have it refer to both an individual and collective group. Senator Lapointe: Do you think that editors of papers or radio stations would have to come here also to express their opinion on freedom of the press? Ms. Hardy: We would include them as responsible leaders, presumably in the community, and the value of having responsible leadership is very noticeable now that the Royal Commission on Newspapers is sitting and I think that you have to have the leadership in order to develop followers and principles.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 130.

    1. Last March, ProPublica published an extensive investigation that found IBM had fired an estimated 20,000 U.S. employees ages 40 or older in the past five years.
    2. The company started firing older workers and replacing them with millennials, who IBM’s consulting department said “are generally much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers.”
    3. International Business Machines Corp. has fired as many as 100,000 employees in the last few years in an effort to boost its appeal to millennials and make it appear to be as “cool” and “trendy” as Amazon and Google, according to a deposition from a former vice president in an ongoing age discrimination lawsuit.

      IBM has a long history of working against humanity, e.g. when colluding with the Nazis.

  23. Jul 2019
    1. I want to refer you to Section 2 of the resolution which is a Section on fundamental freedoms. It says: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion, (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion expression, including freedom of the press and other media of information What I want to ask you is, how do you think the word “everyone” would be interpreted as it pertains to everyone has the following freedoms, the freedom of the press, freedom of other media of information. I want to take you back in this country about four of five years when the government across the way introduced legislation, which I supported, concerning Time magazine and Reader’s Digest, to try and Canadianize the magazine industry in this country. I am wondering whether or not if we were to enshrine Section 2 in the constitution as written, Time magazine or Reader’s Digest could have gone to the courts and said: “We have a consitutional right in this country of freedom of expression and freedom of the press and freedom of information, freedom of the media; therefore, the government of Canada [Page 12] and the Parliament of Canada do not have the right to legislate restrictively against our two organizations.” Could it be interpreted in that way? Ms. Crandall: Mr. Nystrom, I think that is the kind of question which an expert should be asked to answer. This is what we are saying now, We have not had an opportunity to look at all sides of these questions to give you any kind of an answer. Again, I am not trying to be difficult. But that is one of the questions which we would like to ask someone who is knowledgeable. Mr. Nystrom: I appreciate the answer. The reason why I ask the question is that the words “everyone” and “citizens of Canada” are used throughout the resolution. I am not a lawyer myself, but it would seem to imply that these could be given a fairly wide interpretation, and I am concerned that we might have in a constitution something that is restrictive where we could not increase Canadian content. Let me ask you the same question again about the electronic media. There is growing concern that we Canadianize radio, television—and the CRTC is concerned about this, about television programs coming in from the United States. There is talk now about a second CBC network in this country. Again, I want to ask you a similar question pertaining to the electronic media. If everybody has the freedom of expression and freedom of the press and other media of information, in your opinion, or perhaps in the opinion of your colleague, do you think we would be able to do this as a Parliament, where the constitution says we are denying a fundamental right to everyone, perhaps NBC, New York, or ABC somewhere in the United States? Ms. Hardy: I think, Mr. Nystrom, that it is very important. I have served abroad for Canada in the Department of External Affairs, in the public affairs field, and I feel that it is very important that we develop a Canadian culture, that we develop an interest in things Canadian and a pride, and I grant that there are very good programs produced by the electronic media of other countries but I think we should be proud of our own heritage and be proud of what we can do. I have just been at a briefing on plans for CBC 2, Tele Deux, and I am very pleased that this is what may be coming along shortly and I would hope that we would not refuse all foreign media offers to assist us in our cultural development, but I think we should certainly give ourselves the chance to be first in the field and to welcome the opportunity and the pride in our own country and in what we can develop ourselves. This is a continuing subject of interest financially as well as culturally, naturally, and I would hope that the media club, which now covers the electronic media representatives as well as the press, would be in the forefront of assisting in developments if possible. Thank you. [Page 13] Mr. Nystrom: I wonder if you could possibly, if you have time to do a written brief to the Committee, to try and seek some advice on those questions, because I agree fully with you that we have to develop a Canadian culture and of course we need some input from other countries around the world because we are part of the global village, we have to have a Canadian identity and it is very important, and I would be very concerned if the way Section 2 is written that perhaps we could be denied through our constitution the right to develop fully the Canadian culture and pehaps you could look at that. I also wanted to ask your interpretation of a couple of other words in Section 2. I wanted to ask you what you think the interpretation in your opinion would be of other media of information. We have singled out here freedom of belief, opinion, expression, including the freedom of the press. I know what the press is, I think, but what would be the interpretation legally, in your opinion, of other media of information, what would that include? Ms. Hardy: I would expect that that would include the electronic journalism. The press is usually referred to as print media. Media is a very broad term that has had to be used because you cannot just refer to the press now because it covers a number of other representatives who inform, through one source or another, and I think the electronic media has an important place now in our culture because communications in this country is an aspect of helping unify the country, I think, by letting us get to know each other, not only through print but through electronic means.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 128-130.

    2. Thank you, Mr. Joint Chairman, for giving the Media Club the opportunity to before this Special Joint Committee. As you will see from our submission, Media Club is concerned with the profession, therefore concern of members is with the proposed entrenchment in a charter of rights and freedoms of a new Canadian constitution, freedom of the press.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 128.

    3. Mr. Hawkes: There is another conundrum inside your brief, and in contrast to the testimony we had the other day, They wanted to protect the rights of the fetus, your brief clearly says to us: protect the rights of the woman. There is another group involved in the abortion issue and that is medical personnel. Does your association have a position on their right to refuse to participate in any medical procedure, including the procedure of abortion? Dr. Waters: As far as I know, I am just trying to search my memory now, I think the Canadian Medical Association does have a clause in its Code of Ethics that allows physicians to withhold these services in terms of abortion. I do not think any physician can be expected to perform any act that he finds repugnant, and I am quite sure that, again, I am speaking from memory, that the Canadian Medical Association does respect that. Ms. Pelrine: That clause, however, goes on to say that should the physician, because of personal, moral, religious or ethical beliefs, be unable to perform a particular procedure, he or she is obligated to so inform the patient and to refer the patient to another physician who will perform the procedure. I am certainly prepared to accept that Code of the Canadian Medical Association. Mr. Hawkes: Would the freedom of conscience, which is also contained in this charter, be relevant to that issue? Mr. Kellermann: I think that a doctor might argue that he did not want to perform a particular operation or medical treatment of some kind on the basis of freedom of conscience, but that is fine, I do not think that in any way contradicts the position of CARAL, CARAL’s concern is that there be doctors available for the women who want to choose to have an abortion, and as long as that is guaranteed we are not in any way interested in forcing other doctors to involve themselves in that process. They just do not want other doctors standing in the way of women having that right. Ms. Pelrine: And who indeed would want to submit to any medical procedure performed by an unwilling physician?

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(a)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 125-126.

    1. In Section 2(b). that section gives the impression that the freedom of the press and the media is an individual right. Well, in fact, as we have already pointed out in our report, the freedom of the press is merely a mode by which the general freedom of expression is exercised, it is not a right of an individual as such.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 128.

    2. Now, I put to you that no right is absolute; even the right of free speech is qualified in that perhaps for instance, under the Criminal Code you cannot cause a disturbance in a public place, for example, there are many restrictions to keep our society together without having it turn into anarchy or chaos. I suggest to you, because you are critical of the wording later on in general, that rather than deleted Section l, we might come back with a better worded Section I that meets the requirements of more inspiring wording, and meets the requirements that rights in here are more enshrined and less susceptible to court interpretation. Mr. Paisley: Our concern with Section 1 as written is that it would, in our opinion, completely over-ride the rest of the Charter. Without examining the given Section 1 which is envisaged, it is impossible to say whether our concern would be satisfied or not. We simply take the position that if it remains with the rest of the Charter, it would probably be of no effect at all. Mr. Irwin: Many groups have expressed the view which you are expressing, and some have come back and said that it should be made stronger and not so intrusive. I appreciate the difficulty in not having that here now. Mr. Paisley: May I add to what I have said further. We feel that even if there is no Section I, it does not mean to say that [Page 23] there are going to be unqualified or absolute rights. Experience elsewhere with unqualified rights shows that they are in fact qualified by the courts. There is the statement of the courts in the United States to the effect that the right of freedom of speech does not give a person the right to call “fire!” in a crowded theatre. We believe that if you have the right stated in an unqualified fashion it would be interpreted in a reasonable way by the court. That is the reason why we suggest it is unnecessary to have this sort of introductory limitation clause as proposed.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 92-93.

    1. Senator Austin: Under section 2, where you see Subparagraph (b), reference to freedom of thought, including freedom of the press and other media of information, Minister, is it the intention to in any way enlarge the present rights as they are so indistinctly understood of the press and other media in Canada? Is it, for example, now open to argue as to protection of sources in the hands of journalists and press and electronic media people? [Page 79] Mr. Chrétien: I do not know how the Court will interpret that, but we are dealing here, we are formalizing the guarantee that exists traditionally in this society concerning the freedom of the press and other media. What will be the interpretation of the Court in terms of the sources of information and so on, it would not be for me, I do not know what the Court will decide or if there will be some different circumstances that will have to be analyzed by the Court before rendering a judgment. Senator Austin: Your attempt here was to be neutral? Mr. Chrétien: As tnuch as possible.

      §[2] (https://primarydocuments.ca/canada-act-1982/#Fundamental) (2(b)more specifically) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 127-128.

    2. Mr. McGrath: I am saying that your charter is meaningless in the light of what is said in Section 1 of Schedule B when you make it subject to the reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 96.

    3. Surely that makes everything that follows redundant because a free and democratic society would have within it in a parliamentary system freedom of conscience and religion. Ours does; it operates under the practices and conventions and traditions of the British Parliamentary System. It seems to me that you have fallen into the same trap here as the Canadian Bill of Rights because you are going to exclude all the very commendable rights and freedoms that you have set out in Section 2 of Schedule B. It either means that they apply or they do not apply. What are the reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society.

      §1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Referenced in Adam Dodek, The Charter Debates (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 96.