Feb 252010
 

(1)  “RECRUITING BY STEALTH”, DAVID GOODMAN

Feb 11, 2010

Wanda writes:

I don’t know if this is helpful, but I just listened to CBC “Dispatches” and one of the interviews was with American Journalist David Goodman called “Recruiting by Stealth”. He describes how the educational legislation passed during the Bush era “No Child Forgotten” actually allowed the recruiters in the Army access to information from the High Schools (student test scores, student career testing answers, student academic information, etc, etc, etc). He talked about how these recruiters got email addresses, phone numbers & all manner of information about all students in Senior High – which the schools never released to any other outside agency before, but they were compelled to under this new legislation.

= = = = = = = = = = = = ==  = ==

(2)  THE STATE OR A MOB ORGANIZED BY THE STATE, FROM HERMAN

Hi Sandra,

Within the last several months, there was a news item about the release of zillions of recorded telephone conversations /before,/ during and after the 9/11 attack. It led me to infer that some body monitors all telephone conversations in the U.S. I passed a copy of this to TomDispatch asking what they thought of it, but did not receive a reply.

My question to you is: /are you aware of anyone in the States pursuing this issue?/  (MY RESPONSE:  sorry, I can’t help on this one.)

Without going into detail, I grew up under the Nazi occupation in the Netherlands. I’ve always said to people : don’t think it couldn’t happen here. Some day the state or a mob organized by the state may come to the door and carry me away or kill me. I have to get that Edwin Black book (INSERT: “IBM and the Holocaust”).

Herman

= = = = = = = = = = = = ==  = ==

(3)  PARTISANS WHO CHANGED THE RULES OF HUMAN CONDUCT, FROM DON

“… I had not read the Canadian constitution or its Charter of Rights and Freedoms by November 2002. However, I had watched and read enough history. I knew the history in pre-World War II Germany had been partisans who changed the rules of human conduct to mark individuals for exclusion from justice. …”

Good luck.

= = = = = = = == = = == = = = = = =

(4)  CENSUS ACTUAL REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATISTICS ACT IS FOR VERY LITTLE INFORMATION, FROM DOUG

Don’t know if I mentioned this before, but Russell Porisky from (Link no longer valid  www.naturalperson.com) has done lots of work re:statutory interpretation of what you actually MUST provide according to the Statistics Act. It’s actually VERY little ie name number of people in your dwelling and number of livestock or animals you own. The rest is not mandatory. If you learn statutory rules of construction that he teaches, it’s  easy to determine.

Good luck.

Doug

= = = = = = = = = = = = ==  = ==

(5)  RE-STATED BY A DIFFERENT DOUG (THANKS!)

Hi Sandra, census of population isn’t defined within the Stats Act, so the next place is a Cdn law dictionary which defines it as a count or enumeration of the people… which goes back to my original understanding… an individual is required by law to tell them how many people in your place and how many cows you have, other than that, I believe the rest is voluntary and the penalties don’t apply, HOWEVER, I haven’t spent a lot of time studying this act, but it stands to reason the only thing they can require by law is a # for the purpose of Fed transfer payments to the Provinces.  Hope this helps.

Doug

= = = = = = = = = = = = ==  = ==

(6)  VOLUNTARY SURVEYS, FROM EDUARD

I had some sense there was a significant difference between the long form and the short, and the ones I as a farmer am subjected to.

Thank-you for pointing out:

“Voluntary surveys

8. The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 (INSERT: jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

. . .   All the best!

Eduard

= = = = = = = = = = = = ==  = ==

(7)  CREDIBILITY OF STATSCAN WITNESS, FROM A GUY

Nice work…you’ve been busy. Just a couple of comments. Statscan has called me last week and coincidentally today. I recognize the number (from Winnipeg) and I just don’t answer. I don’t know if they’ll give up or keep it up…whatever. I don’t buy the argument about just 64 people not in compliance for the 2006 information fest…that sounds like pure bullshit. And then there is this in your commentary

” A. THE STORY OF FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN SOUTHEAST SASKATOON: STATISTICS CANADA CAME INTO THE HOME, QUESTIONS FOR MORE THAN HALF AN HOUR, ENTERED RESPONSES ONTO A COMPUTER. HAD TO SEE THEIR ACTUAL INCOME TAX FORMS.  JANUARY 5, 2010.  NOT EVEN DURING A CENSUS.”

My answer..Over my dead fucking body…or there’s take your pick. Sorry for the language but this doesn’t really sound voluntary to me. Give us info or go to jail. Fuck that. If they ever get to the point where they are going to show up at my door, I’ll answer the door naked, and lets see if they try to charge me with indecent exposure while in my own house. I wonder what box they’ll tick off on the form when they see that.

Anyway , keep swinging away.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)