Bruce Montague’s Firearms Challenge: A Brave Battle for Freedom

For the past several days, I’ve been reading up on the Bruce Montague case, a Constitutional challenge of Canada’s Firearms Act, and from what I can see, a brave stand against the most corrupt and hypocritical forces in government.

All last week, the case was being argued at Kenora Superior Court in Kenora, Ontario, as a precursor to criminal proceedings being brought against Mr. Montague and his wife for the possession of “unregistered” firearms. A verdict is expected sometime in the next few days or weeks.

The Constitutional challenge seems to be centred on the question of political legitimacy; or more specifically whether our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and other legal protections which preceded it) should prevent the federal government from forcing law abiding citizens to “register” their legally obtained weapons in a complex bureaucratic system, mired in red tape, which could ultimately lead to the confiscation of said weapons.

Personally, I have never owned a gun and have no real interest in obtaining one, so let me say that my interest in this case is purely academic. Yes, I am fully aware of the damage and violence that firearms can cause in a society, but I believe that the traditional “gun control” arguments simply don’t stack up against the all-important principles of individual freedom, sanctity of the home, and the right to self-defense.

I am also concerned about the absurd and unprecedented amount of power given to police officers by the Firearms Act, as well as the Act’s apparent infringement on numerous Charter rights (see http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html for a full explanation).

Most police officers are, in my opinion, far more corrupt and arrogant than the average citizen who seeks only to guard his home and mind his own business. And yet, we trust our police with a whole array of dangerous weapons, which they all-too-often abuse. Add that to the reality that disturbed criminals will always be able get their hands on guns and other weapons one way or another. Why should law-abiding homeowners be left helpless in the crossfire?

Yes, I realize that judges are cautious about striking down legislation (as they should be), but I really can’t understand how this particular law is compatible with our Charter, Bill of Rights, British common law, or any of the principles that freedom-loving Canadians hold dear. If judges are able to make bizarre and, quite frankly, laughable changes to the definition of “civil marriage” (and may well continue to do so in the future), then surely they can strike down a law that sees citizens jailed for trying to ensure their own safety, within their own homes.

Whether Mr. Montague can win his case, I’m honestly not sure, but I am encouraged by the fact that Doug Christie, a well-known Victoria lawyer who fights for freedom of speech and other civil liberties, was able to help him fight this battle. Christie is known for a strong professional dedication to his clients (many of whom hold some rather extreme views), and has all-to-often been unfairly portrayed by the Canadian media as a “Nazi” or “fascist,” even though the principles he fights for are anything but.

Overall, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of a victory for Montague, but I’m happy to see that he and people like him are willing to fight for the cause of freedom. I don’t advocate the use of firearms, but I feel that each individual must decide for himself how to protect and defend his property. That’s what the Montague family is fighting for, and for that they have my sincerest congratulations.

Mitt Romney Makes Disappointing Comments on Civil Liberties

I’ve been casually following the U.S. presidential nomination race for a couple of months now, and had begun to form an opinion that former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, might be a good man for the job. He has an impressive background in business and is a strong fiscal conservative, supporting a free market economy with limited taxation and a parallel public-private education system.

Romney also supports tough anti-crime and terrorism policies, which is often a good thing, but some of his comments at this week’s Republican candidates debate in South Carolina were nothing short of disturbing.

“My view is we ought to double Guantanamo,” Romney asserted when asked about the infamous Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the island of Cuba, which for the past several years has been used to house suspected terrorists and other militants captured by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. “I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.”

This shows just how little respect Mr. Romney has for the idea of a fair and balanced justice system, where the onus is on the state to prove the guilt of an alleged criminal. He actually sees it as an inconvenience to give proper legal assistance, or even a fair trial, to someone his country is holding prisoner.

Guantanamo Bay may not be located on American soil, but it is operated by Americans, who ought to live their lives by the concepts of liberty and freedom. If the prisoners of Guantanamo are guilty (which most of them likely are), they should be tried and convicted in a fair and just fashion, and properly punished for their actions.

As for Mr. Romney, he is right in saying that intelligence and prevention are crucial to the War on Terror, but preventing terrorism shouldn’t involve sacrificing the very legal and ethical principles that the western world was founded upon.

Judge Dismisses PageRank “Defamation” Lawsuit Against Google

A California judge dismissed an infamous lawsuit against Google last week, ruling that a parenting website called Kinderstart could not seek damages after the search giant downgraded its rankings for certain keywords.

Kinderstart filed the case back in March 2006, claiming that Google had punished its website without reason, adversely affecting its revenues and violating “libel” and “defamation” laws.

Judge, Jeremy Fogel, however, ruled that KinderStart had failed to explain how Google caused injury to it by a provably false statement, as opposed to an unfavourable opinion about KinderStart.com’s importance.

“PageRank is a creature of Google’s invention and does not constitute an independently-discoverable value,” Fogel explained. “In fact, Google might choose to assign PageRanks randomly, whether as whole numbers or with many decimal places, but this would not create ‘incorrect’ PageRanks.”

Although this is an important victory for free enterprise on the internet, the outcome was never really in doubt. No webmaster likes to see his site drop in the search engine rankings, but it’s important to remember that without the ability to maintain a fluid, ever-changing ranking system, search engines simply wouldn’t work.

As I stated last year on SitePoint Forums, dismissing this case was the only decision that would have made sense to maintain the integrity internet search technology. With this verdict on the books, and Google expected to go after Kinderstart for legal fees, I don’t imagine that any more internet companies will try pulling this stunt anytime soon.

Apple Attacks Bloggers over iPhone Copyright Issue

Apple Inc. is launching an all-out legal battle against the distribution of several “skins” designed to mimic the look and feel of its recently unveiled iPhone device on competing smartphones.

Developed by savvy coders, the skins don’t add any actual iPhone or iTunes features to existing devices, but simply incorporate icons from the iPhone device into a Windows Mobile or Palm OS-based mobile operating system. This has angered the computer giant immensely, causing it to lash out at everyone involved, however indirectly.

The company has reportedly been sending intimidating letters to bloggers and online journalists for simply reporting the existence of the iPhone skins and posting pictures of them on the web.

“It has come to our attention that you have posted a screenshot of Apple’s new iPhone and links that facilitate the installation of that screenshot on a Pocket PC device,” wrote law firm, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, to one webmaster on Apple’s behalf. “While we appreciate your interest in the iPhone, the icons and screenshot displayed on your website are copyrighted by Apple.”

“Apple therefore demands that you remove this screenshot from your website and refrain from facilitating the further dissemination of Apple’s copyrighted material by removing the link to http://forum.xda-developers.com, where the icons and screenshot are being distributed,” the letter went on to say.

Although it’s not hard to see why Apple is upset with those who are creating and distributing this material, they should try not to make “demands” that are impossible to back up or act on. (They do have a history of this sort of thing after all.)

In terms of legal and practical reality, Apple has absolutely no control over who links to who on the web, or how people distribute graphics that they themselves released to the public less than a week ago. If the company wants to go after those who deliberately misuse its intellectual property, that’s all well and good, but there’s no excuse to attack freedom of the press in doing so.

Originally published at TeleClick.ca.

Research In Motion Gets Trademark-Paranoid

The future of Samsung’s BlackJack smartphone may be in jeopardy due to a new lawsuit from Research In Motion, claiming that the “BlackJack” brand name is too close to that of its own popular BlackBerry device.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit alleges that the new phone’s name “constitutes false designation of origin, unfair competition and trademark dilution.” RIM is using this to seek an injunction against the sale of BlackJack devices in the United States.

It is true that the RIM and Samsung devices are targeting nearly identical markets, with both the BlackJack and BlackBerry Pearl featuring wireless email capability and built-in QWERTY keyboards. Both are offered exclusively by Cingular Wireless in the United States.

Despite the striking similarities, however, it’s very difficult to see how any one company’s trademark can extend to cover the word “black.” Both of the devices are primarily black in color after all, and I can honestly say that I didn’t draw any connections to the BlackBerry brand name upon hearing about the BlackJack’s release.

All things considered, I can’t see how RIM really expects to win this lawsuit. It seems more like an attempt to establish their brand superiority complex, and assert a “we were here first” kind of message than to pose a serious legal threat to Samsung.

Don’t get me wrong; BlackBerry is perhaps one of the most iconic brands in the world, and represents a great family of products, but there comes a time to draw the line between brand protection and immature paranoia.

Originally published at TeleClick.ca.

Bloggers Can’t be Sued for Quoting Others, California Court Rules

Bloggers in California have gained protection from misdirected libel lawsuits, after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that a newsgroup owner could not be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

This confirms a federal law granting internet service and content providers immunity from libel suits, and is a victory for online publishers and free speech advocates.

“People who contend they were defamed on the Internet can seek recovery only from the original source of the statement, not from those who re-post it,” the court stated, noting that “subjecting internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech.”

The unanimous ruling is a victory for online publishers and internet free speech advocates, and further entrenches the principle of “don’t shoot the messenger” into U.S. common law.

Federal Government Screws Income Trust Investors

If you follow the Canadian stock market you likely know all too well that the federal government sprung a dramatic decision on investors earlier this week, which will see “income trusts” taxed at about the same rate as any registered corporation.

Trusts have long been exempt from normal corporate tax laws, allowing them to pay out larger dividends to investors than other publicly traded companies. In short, they are… sorry, were… a good option for the mid-risk income-oriented investor looking for a steady flow of cash from their investment holdings.

Although one could argue that the tax benefits of income trusts have been, on occasion, abused by big corporations, the fact remains that these investment vehicles have become an important component in the Canadian investment economy, upon which many people rely for regular income.

That’s why I was a little taken aback when Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, made the sudden decision to impose heavy taxes on trusts, effectively rendering them obsolete for tax purposes. In the closely fought election battle earlier this year, the Conservatives promised quite clearly that they would not be taking this move, and that investors had nothing to worry about.

By doing a complete 180 on this issue, however, (and gaining the all-to-eager support of some minority parties in parliament), the federal government has betrayed the trust of Canadian investors, after wooing them into a false sense of security.

The government claims that income trusts are “damaging” the Canadian economy. If this is the case, however, why did Harper promise to protect such a dangerous and frightening type of investment in the first place?

Personally, I came very close to purchasing an income trust just a few days ago, but ended up opting for a (safe) mutual fund instead. Had I gone the trust route, I would have lost a significant percentage of my portfolio, as many Canadians did.

Although this issue isn’t quite enough to make me want to vote Liberal, it does cause me to seriously question the Conservative government’s economic policies. Overall, this was a very scummy and underhanded course of action that voters won’t be forgetting about anytime soon.

Chinese Government Plans to Tighten Control Over Blogs

China’s communist government is trying to even further restrict the internet activities of citizens by placing stricter controls on blogs and search engines to bar content that might be “immoral” or “unhealthy.”

“As more and more illegal and unhealthy information spreads through the blog and search engine, we will take effective measures to put the BBS, blog and search engine under control,” said Cai Wu, the director of China’s Information Office.

Specifically, Chinese authorities plan to develop monitoring technology to keep tabs on the country’s 37 million blogs, so as to stifle free thought and expression at every possible opportunity.

The Chinese government has also recently proposed a law that would block media (including blogs) from reporting on “sudden events” without first gaining approval. This means that authorities could (theoretically) prevent citizens from hearing any “inappropriate” news that might paint a negative picture of their regime.

The very fact that such restrictions are being considered suggests that China’s authoritarian decision makers are getting more and more intimidated by the unhindered exchange of thought and ideas that comes as a result of blogging. They are now fighting a desperate (and losing) battle against intellectual freedom in the information age.

Energy and Commerce Committee Schemes to Spy on Search

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee is currently investigating the idea of forcing search engines and other internet companies to maintain data about users for at least one year.

In theory, the information collected would be used solely to identify online sexual predators, but once the government has access to things like search data it is sure to go much farther than that.

Even aside from the blatant privacy concerns surrounding this sort of legislation, the government would expect search engines to put up massive amounts of storage space, the costs of which could run into the tens of millions of dollars and put a big dent in the industry’s profits.

Overall, even looking into this type of legislation will likely be seen as a major attack on internet freedom, further reducing the U.S. Government’s popularity among internet users and corporations alike.

The last time a government entity (the Department of Justice) tried something like this they ended up on the losing end of a court battle with Google. If American authorities are wise, they’ll avoid a lot of trouble this time round by avoiding this issue and minding their own business.

Counter-Amendment Seeks to Ridicule Net Neutrality Legislation

In a deliberate mockery of net neutrality, U.S. House Representative, Charles Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, has proposed that the principle be applied not only to Internet Service Providers, but also to the internet itself.

The proposed amendment would restrict and regulate the online business activities of companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, and make it illegal for these entities to discriminate in any way. For example, Google would no long be able to reject undesirable advertisers, and Amazon wouldn’t be allowed to form exclusive relationships with retail partners.

This would obviously make it very difficult for the internet companies to do much in the way of serious business, and effectively cripple the e-commerce world as we know it. At this point, you might ask if this whole proposal is some sort of joke. And the answer is quite frankly, yes.

In reality, Charles Gonzalez almost certainly opposes net neutrality legislation, and is performing a political maneuver to make the big internet giants abandon their support for the cause. Anyone with a brain in their head, however, would see that Mr. Gonzalez’s bogus “proposal” would serve the exact opposite purpose of genuine net neutrality.

The whole point of the principle itself (at least from my perspective) is to keep the web fair and unregulated for both businesses and consumers, by preventing ISPs from filtering or regulating internet traffic.

People like Gonzalez don’t seem to understand that most net neutrality advocates aren’t trying to restrict or regulate the internet, but rather prevent service providers from doing just that. Personally, I don’t see this as a political issue that the government should be involved in at all, but instead, a battle by internet users to conserve the fair and unfiltered medium that we know and love.

I have little doubt that the Googles and Amazons of the world will have no problem seeing through this idiotic attempt by Mr. Gonzalez to ridicule the entire cause and allow ISPs to butcher the web as we know it.