Sandra Finley

Dec 062012
 

Return to Anchor, or

Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

Ashu Solo, emails sent January 02, 2014

These emails follow the sequence listed at: THE EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

 

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

 

January 2, 2014  3:28 AM    (two hour time diff  5:28 AM),  Finley,  You’re wondering why

 

From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]

Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:28 AM  (two hour time diff).   3:28 AM

To: Sandra Finley

Subject: You’re wondering why I don’t want information on my family given out

 

Finley,

 

You’re wondering why I don’t want information on my family given out.  Because I don’t want them attacked or their property vandalized.  I have millions of hostile enemies.  Nobody else but you is gonna figure out who they are.  Nobody else but you is gonna find out my family last name.  People don’t have time to search through thousands of pages like you do.

DON’T TELL ZIMMERMAN THAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT HER HAVING INFO. ON MY FAMILY OR SHE WILL PURPOSELY SPREAD IT AROUND.

BECAUSE OF YOU AND GALL BEFRIENDING ZIMMERMAN AND TAKING HER LIES SERIOUSLY, SHE MAJORLY INCREASED HER ATTACKS ON ME.  YOU CAUSED THIS.  ‘

YOU BETTER NOT GIVE THE INFO. ON MY FAMILY OR FAMILY LAST NAME TO ANYONE.

 

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

 

January-02-14 3:29 AM  IT’S NOT YOU TAKING THE RISK

 

From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]

Sent: January-02-14 3:29 AM

To: Sandra Finley

Cc: Larry Waldinger

Subject: RE: You’re wondering why I don’t want information on my family given out

 

IT’S NOT YOU TAKING THE RISK, FINLEY.  IT’S ME.  DON’T TAKE RISKS WITH MY FAMILY, FINLEY.  DON’T GIVE OUT INFO. ON MY FAMILY TO ANYONE.

 

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

 

2014-01-02, at 7:23 AM   Who put this up  and why? 
On 2014-01-02, at 7:23 AM, “Ashu M. G. Solo” <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us> wrote:

 

What is this Green Party of Saskatoon page on Facebook?  https://www.facebook.com/greenpartysaskatoon

Who put this up  and why?  Is this federal or provincial?

I’ll bet Elvin Lau or Tonia Zimmerman put this up.  Finley and Gall befriending them after they spread lies about me has made them think they can get away with anything.

Whoever put this up is violating the party’s trademarks.

 

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

 

From: Patricia Farnese

Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:44 AM

To: <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>

Subject: Re: What is this?

I hadn’t seen this. I don’t know who set it up. Pf

Sent from my iPhone

 

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

 

Jan 2, 2014 at 10:05 AM   Victor said Elvin Lau was complaining

 

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Ashu M. G. Solo <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>

Date: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Subject: RE: What is this?

To: Patricia Farnese, Victor Lau, Vicki Strelioff, Larry Waldinger, Kaitlyn Harvey, Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd, Marlene Wells

 

Victor said Elvin Lau was complaining to him and Vicki about the Saskatoon GPS Association Facebook page and Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association page.  Maybe he decided to create his own Green Party of Saskatoon Facebook page because he didn’t like our pages.  I just took a look at Elvin Lau’s Facebook timeline and he complains repeatedly on there too about the Saskatoon GPS Association Facebook page.

Tonia Zimmerman was also complaining about me being allowed to post on the Saskatoon GPS Association Facebook page and Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association page.  Maybe she decided to create her own Green Party of Saskatoon page.

Both of these morons, Elvin Lau and Tonia Zimmerman, don’t understand the difference between the federal and provincial parties.  And the creator of this Green Party of Saskatoon Facebook page obviously doesn’t understand the difference between the federal and provincial parties.

Both of these imbeciles, Elvin Lau and Tonia Zimmerman, have a mistaken understanding and think that I’m the leader of a Green Party in Saskatoon.  They don’t appear to understand that Victor and Elizabeth are the provincial and federal leaders, respectively.  The creator of this Green Party of Saskatoon Facebook page may have wanted to create this page to “compete” with me.

Whoever created this Green Party of Saskatoon page really has a lot of time to waste and customized the header picture of the GPC Facebook page to say Saskatoon instead of Canada.  Tonia Zimmerman has wasted a helluva lot of time attacking me.  She was even creating custom graphics of me, so she could probably do it.

My guess is this page is a joint creation of Tonia Zimmerman and Elvin Lau:  https://www.facebook.com/greenpartysaskatoon

What legal actions can be taken against whoever created this page?  I think the GPC should sue them for trademark violation.

It looks like I got another impersonator on Facebook too:

https://www.facebook.com/ashu.solo.5

I have a unique name.  I saw a jerk posting in Facebook threads about my civil rights cases and pretending to be me before.  I made a criminal complaint against him for impersonation last year, but the cops couldn’t track him down.  The address associated with his Facebook account was for a set of townhouses and they didn’t know which one the person was posting from.

Is this Zimmerman impersonating me?  Is this impersonator attacking Zimmerman and making Finley think I’m doing it?  Is Zimmerman attacking herself while pretending to be me and making Finley think I’m doing it?  Why the hell hasn’t Finley shown us the proof of attacks yet?  Or are the attacks a figment of her imagination or delusions?

This is all extremely strange.  The people doing all this strange bullshit need to get a life and find something more productive to do with their time.

Ashu

Return to Anchor, or

Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

Dec 052012
 

November 14, 2012, Vancouver and New York—

Today, four torture survivors filed a complaint against Canada with the United Nations Committee against Torture for the country’s failure to investigate and prosecute former President George W. Bush during his visit to British Columbia last year.

As a signatory to the Convention against Torture, Canada has an obligation to investigate and prosecute a torture suspect on its soil. This is the first time a complaint concerning torture allegations against a high-level U.S. official has been filed with the U.N. Committee. The Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) and the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the complaint on the men’s behalf.

“Canada has the jurisdiction and the obligation to prosecute a torture suspect present in Canada, including a former head of state, and even one from a powerful country,” said Matt Eisenbrandt, CCIJ’s Legal Director. “Canada’s failure to conduct a criminal investigation and prosecution against Mr. Bush when there was overwhelming evidence against him constitutes a clear violation of its international obligations and its own policy not to be a safe haven for torturers.”

The four men – Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurna – found their long quest for justice stymied in October 2011. Canada’s Attorney General refused to conduct a criminal investigation against Mr. Bush, and the Attorney General of British Columbia swiftly intervened to shut down a private criminal prosecution submitted to  provincial court in her jurisdiction during Mr. Bush’s visit.

This occurred despite the group’s submission of a 69-page draft indictment and approximately 4000 pages of evidence against Bush consisting of extensive reports and investigations conducted by multiple U.S. agencies and the United Nations. The Committee against Torture can require Canada to explain the actions that led to the case being closed without any investigation and can then issue a decision on whether Canada has breached its obligations under the convention.  If the committee finds Canada in violation, it can specify appropriate remedial measures.

“Through this process, the world can learn whether Canada’s actions were grounded in law or in politics. Canada’s refusal to investigate and prosecute George W. Bush marked a low-point in the ongoing struggle to end impunity for torturers and denied these men the opportunity to achieve some measure of justice,” said Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at CCR and legal representative for the men. “They now call upon the Committee to send a clear message that states must uphold their obligations under the Convention against Torture and cannot allow other factors – including political considerations – to interfere with the commitment to end impunity for torturers.”

Ratified by 153 countries around the world, the U.N. Convention against Torture requires states to investigate alleged torturers present on their soil and submit them for prosecution—or extradite them to another country for prosecution. Canada implemented this provision of the Convention into its domestic criminal code and explicitly authorizes prosecution for torture occurring outside Canadian borders. Canada, along with 55 other countries, allows individuals to file petitions with the U.N. Committee for alleged breaches of the Convention; the United States has not signed on to this provision.

In both Afghanistan and Guantánamo, the four men who submitted the complaint survived inhumane treatment including beatings, being hung from walls or ceilings, sleep, food and water deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures. U.S. officials eventually released Kurnaz after five years, and both el-Hajj, a reporter with Al-Jazeera, and Khan Tumani, 17 at the time of his detention, after approximately seven years, without ever bringing charges against them. Bin Attash, only 16 when he was detained, remains at Guantánamo, though he has never been formally charged with any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, CCIJ and CCR submitted a report about the Bush torture case to the Committee against Torture during an examination of Canada’s compliance with the Convention. The Committee, in its concluding observations, called on the Canadian government to “take all necessary measures with a view to ensuring the exercise of the universal jurisdiction over persons responsible for acts of torture, including foreign perpetrators who are temporarily present in Canada.”

In February 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights, on behalf of two survivors and supported by CCIJ and other human rights organizations, attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against Bush ahead of a scheduled visit to Switzerland. Bush cancelled the trip after news of the prosecution, and the apparent unwillingness of Swiss authorities to stop it, became known.

Read the complaint at www.ccrjustice.org/20Canada%20Petition%20.pdffiles/CAT%

—

The Canadian Centre for International Justice works with survivors of genocide, torture and other atrocities to seek redress and bring perpetrators to justice. The CCIJ seeks to ensure that individuals present in Canada who are accused of responsibility for serious human rights violations are held accountable and their victims recognized, supported and compensated.

For more information visit www.ccij.ca and follow @CCIJ_CCJI.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Visit www.ccrjustice.org and follow @theCCR.

###

Djia Mambu,  Communications and Outreach Coordinator —

Canadian Centre for International Justice/ Centre canadien pour la justice internationale

312, Laurier Avenue East   Ottawa, ON K1N 1H

www.ccij.ca

+1(613) 744-7667 ext 266;  +1 (613) 265-8600(cell)

Follow us! / Suivez nous!

Facebook:  http://www.ccij.ca/fb

Twitter:  http://www.ccij.ca/tw

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

In Canada: Matt Eisenbrandt, CCIJ, (604) 569-1778, meisenbrandt  AT  ccij.ca

Djia Mambu, CCIJ Communications, (613) 744 7667 x266, dmambu  AT  ccij.ca

In the U.S.: Jen Nessel, CCR, (212) 614 6449, press  AT  ccrjustice.org

David Lerner, Riptide Communications, (212) 260 5000, dlerner  AT  riptideonline.com

Dec 052012
 

Return to Anchor, or

Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

TITLE:  Ashu Solo, regarding Elvin Lau, emails sent January 3

 

These emails follow the sequence listed at: THE EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

 

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

 

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:19 AM  Below Tonia Zimmerman’s defamation assistant,

 

From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 5:19 AM
To: Marlene Wells; Mark Bigland-Pritchard; Vicki Strelioff; Larry Waldinger; Patricia Farnese; Victor Lau
Subject: [FWD: Elvin Lau commented on Saskatoon GPS Association’s status.]

 

Below Tonia Zimmerman’s defamation assistant, Elvin Lau, is repeating on a Green Party of SaskatchewanFacebook page the rumors she started that my military service is a hoax.  Oh, why don’t we waste Green Party time doing an investigation about my military service?  Because Elvin Lau said so on an Internet group without any proof, it must be true.  Only Sandra believes these lies.  I don’t know who these people are and they know nothing about me.  I don’t even know if they really exist.  I have most of Zimmerman’s lies about me saved for my civil claim against her, but I’m not gonna forward them because I’m not in the business of helping people defame myself.  Zimmerman and Elvin Lau must be immediately banned from all federal and provincial Green Party social media and events.  Victor Lau and Larry Waldinger know these are nothing but lies.

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

 

January 6, 2014 1:04 PM    I confronted Elvin Lau

 

From: Ashu M. G. Solo [mailto:amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us]

Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 1:04 PM

To: Patricia Farnese; Kaitlyn Harvey; Larry Waldinger; ‘Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd’; Vicki Strelioff; Victor Lau; Marlene Wells

Subject: Admission of guilt from Elvin Lau

 

I confronted Elvin Lau on his Green Party of Saskatoon Facebook page and he admitted setting it up.  I think Crocels News should report what Elvin Lau is doing like they reported what Zimmerman is doing.

 

What the hell is the matter with you? You set up an “official” Facebook page for the Green Party. Do you want me to tell the media what you’ve done? Do you want to get sued by the Green Party? If you don’t delete the page right away, that’s what’s gonna happen to you.

The media can report what you’re doing like they reported what Zimmerman was doing:

http://www.crocels.info/news/5086/tonia-zimmerman-saskatoon-troll/

                        

Tonia Zimmerman engaged in Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking of Civil Rights Activist

www.crocels.info

Saskatoon’s Tonia Zimmerman has been bullying, cyberstalking, and harassing an equality and human rights activist, who has been fighting for the separation of the church…

 

 

12:25pm

Expand

Show Images

Elvin Lau

I consider it more of a “fan page”. I’m just really passionate about the Green Party, Ashu, and think it deserves the very best online representation that it can get. Right now, it is my opinion that it’s not being done properly–as you know we disagree on this. I feel the page should be a resource for information about the party and related news stories.

Green Party officials can decide which approach they like better. Judging from the high number of “likes’ the fan page has gotten (from REAL PEOPLE no less!), it looks like people like the other page’s approach.

 

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

 

Jan 7, 2014 at 2:43 AM   If you accept a fake official site 

From: Ashu M. G. Solo <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us>
Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Subject: What won’t you take?
To: Kaitlyn Harvey, Larry Waldinger, Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd, Vicki Strelioff, Marlene Wells, Patricia Farnese

 

If you accept a fake official site from Elvin Lau, what won’t you accept?  Will you accept him selling fake official memberships on the page or if people contact him?  Will you accept the media contacting him for fake official Green Party interviews?  Will you accept him posting fake official media advisories on his fake official Facebook page?  Will you accept him promoting positions outside the party platform on his fake official page?  Will you accept him promoting positions that contradict the party platform on his fake official page?  The GPC has laid down over this like a bunch of pathetic wimps.  This is absolutely pathetic.  Is it negative politics to stand up for your intellectual property?  Another party would have informed Facebook the next day about the trademark infringements and got a restraining order against Elvin Lau within days.  And you’re encouraging his behavior by liking his page and posts.

Return to Anchor, or

Return to The list of EMAILS SENT BY ASHU SOLO

Nov 272012
 

By Jason Warick

An offer by uranium giants Cameco Corp. and Areva could soon deliver jobs, cash payments and other benefits to the northern community of Pinehouse, but some residents worry it’s a thinly veiled attempt to buy their silence.

Gary Merasty, Cameco’s vice-president of corporate social responsibility, said “collaboration agreements” are being negotiated with Pinehouse and several other northern Saskatchewan communities. Merasty said the deals will formalize decades-long partnerships on jobs and other issues.

“We’re trying to update our relationship with northern communities,” Merasty said Monday.

But some Pinehouse residents point to several clauses in the draft agreement that would force Pinehouse to support the companies to regulators, investors and the public.

The agreement would prohibit Pinehouse from criticizing the companies now or in the future, a measure that amounts to an indefinite “gag order,” said Pinehouse resident Fred Peterson.

“I really don’t like this. I hope we can get it stopped,” Pederson said of the deal, which could be signed by the end of December.

Peterson and other residents fear the so-called gag order will extend beyond their elected officials. One clause obliges leaders to “make reasonable efforts to ensure Pinehouse members do not say or do anything that interferes with or delays Cameco/Areva’s mining.”

“They are trying to take away our voice as individuals and as a community,” said John Smerek, a resident of Pinehouse, a largely Metis and First Nations municipality of 1,000 people located about 400 kilometres north of Saskatoon.

According to the draft agreement, discussed earlier this month at a meeting in Pinehouse, Cameco and Areva would make one-time cash payments to a Pine-house community trust after the agreement is signed, after production begins at the Cigar Lake mine and after the construction of the Millennium mine begins.

The Cigar Lake mine, expected to be the world’s largest, is scheduled for initial production in 2013, with full production in 2017.

The Millennium mine project was expected to begin initial engineering this year.

The companies would also make annual payments to Pinehouse based on annual production levels.

Areva, Cameco and Pine-house officials declined to disclose financial details, although Merasty said payments might be similar to the $430,000 that Cameco has given Pinehouse in the past few years for a new arena, sidewalks and other projects.

Cameco would also provide jobs and training to Pinehouse residents and use Pinehouse businesses to supply the mines. Merasty noted Cameco has paid $26 million in salaries to Pinehouse residents since 2004 and has done $11 million in business with Pinehouse businesses in recent years.

Areva spokesperson Jarret Adams said the goal of such agreements is to build stable, long-term relationships with northern communities.

“We’re trying to make this arrangement more predictable,” Adams said.

“We really value the support of residents.”

Adams and Merasty said there will be no “gag order” on residents or leaders in Pinehouse.

Merasty said that the companies simply want to try to communicate more effectively and to address any concerns at the earliest possible stage.

“We would never ask to gag anybody,” Merasty said.

Pinehouse Mayor Mike Na-tomagan lauded the deal. He said he wasn’t worried about the clauses obligating him to support Cameco and Areva because they are good companies.

He said the companies are operating in the north anyway, so he needs to strike the best deal possible for his community.

“If we can find ways to both benefit, that’s a good thing. We’re breaking new ground here,” Natomagan said.

“We want our kids to have the same opportunity as the rest of the province.”

He said that the deal is not perfect, “but it’s better than welfare.”

AT A GLANCE

Highlights of the draft agreement between Pinehouse, Cameco Corp. and Areva:

. Cameco and Areva will make one-time and annual cash payments to the Pine-house Community Trust.

. Cameco and Areva will provide jobs and training to Pinehouse residents, and give supply contracts to Pine-house businesses.

. Pinehouse promises to “fully support” Cameco and Areva’s current, proposed and future projects in public, to investors, to regulators and with other groups. Pine-house leaders must make reasonable efforts to ensure community members “do not say or do anything that interferes with or delays” the companies’ operations.

. Pinehouse agrees to not make any future financial requests or claims against the companies.

 

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Nov 122012
 

NOTE 1:  italicized text in bold is a LINK to supporting material.

NOTE 2, 2021:  I deliberately focused on “MY” experience.  I did tell that (the young woman) was forced by concerns for her personal safety, arising from the cyber-bullying, to leave Saskatoon.  She moved to another province.

I did not tell of the woman who underwent assaults by the cyber-bully, simply because she has a connection to me.   The assaults became lies emailed to her long-time employer, to the point of a disciplinary hearing against her.  She was cleared of any wrong-doing.  But the cyber-bully continued his work with impunity, and in spite of complaints filed with the Police.

People, friends, with known connections to me changed their behaviors, out of fear they would be added to the list the cyber-bully would attack.

The number of known complaints filed with the Police is documented.  But nothing happened.  The family of the woman subjected to a work-place disciplinary hearing became very fearful, rightfully so, not knowing what form the attacks of the cyber-bully might next take.  How far would he go?  I started wondering the same after he tracked me down at 6:00 AM in a line-up to get on an airline flight I had booked (Christmas holidays with family).

IF YOU LIVE IN THE SAME COMMUNITY as the cyber-bully,  the experience of the disciplinary-hearing woman, of the (young woman) and another victim whose experience I know:  stalking, assaults on neighbours – – various intimidation tactics to instill fear are used.  Actions are not confined to “Cyber” bullying.

The cyber-bully acts with impunity.  The Police and Justice systems are completely ineffective in dealing with them, in my experience.

I was advised, seriously, and more than once:  hire someone to break his knee caps.  It’s not hard to do.  It will cost you 1/26th of what it cost to use the Justice System, for which you have nothing to show, no results, only the bills you paid.

NOTE 3, 2021:  I changed some “published-on” dates of postings, in order to bring summary postings to the fore.  This posting has a published-on date in 2012.  It was obviously published at a later time.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – –

THE STORY

Long and short of it:

–  In early December 2013 I received and forwarded a complaint by (a 26-year-old woman) to the Green Party of Canada about Ashu Solo.

–  Ashu began attacks on me (harassment) by December 10th.   

–  When it began looking as though he might never stop and I might need proof in future, I began posting under password protection, using titles that disguised the content  (e.g.”listin”, “cr o”, “1920”).   The documentation began as a catalogue of his emails.  (need the password to access)  I started posting shortly before Christmas.  (I routinely use my blog for organizing and keeping track of material I may need in future that will otherwise be lost in my inbox.)   

–  Ashu’s activity continued,  I kept adding to the documentation.

–  I stopped posting material sometime in February.  His actions, not detailed here,  became more egregious.

–  In May – June, Ashu brought ten complaints about me to the Green Party of Canada (GPC) in an attempt to have my membership revoked.  The complaints were being investigated by the GPC.   I viewed it that Ashu has a right to see the documentation I would use in my defence.  Password protection was removed on June 20th, 2014  to permit access.   The postings remained obscure under the categories X1 and X1A and under titles that did not reflect the nature of the postings.

–  On  July 28, 2014 I finally filed complaint with the RCMP.   Ashu was harassing not only me, but GPC officials and people from both Ottawa and Saskatoon with his streams of accusatory and bullying emails.

–  Ashu went after my blog hosting service and domain name registrar in efforts to take down my blog.  He used his usual tactics against them.

–  Ashu brought charges against me for defamation.

– I re-instated password protection on the X1 and X1A postings as an act of good faith working within the Justice system.  The page you are now reading was under password protection until recently, either Dec 2020, or in 2021.

NOTE:  Postings that are under password in the following are identified so you don’t waste time going to them.)

– – – – –  –  – – – – –

BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH  THE STORY,   AN ASIDE RELATED TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

In March 2016 I spoke with the Law Society about application of the Code of Ethics for Lawyers in situations where it appears that the threat of taking a person to court is used to intimidate and coerce.   The Code is not designed to accommodate it, as far as I can see.

Ontario developed legislation to deal with SLAPP suits (Oct 2015).   I would guess that the legislation contemplates corporate use of SLAPP;  it might not contemplate the same tactics when used by individuals.  (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)

 

UPDATE 1:  The Ontario SLAPP legislation was used successfully in 2017.

https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=19715

2017-07-28 How an Ontario mom fended off a $120K libel lawsuit over her Facebook posts, CBC

EXCERPT:

Dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws

. . .  Mohammed said she couldn’t afford to fight a lawsuit . . .   

“Oh my goodness, I was terrified,” she said. “Where am I going to get this money from? Am I going to have to sell my family home to do this? And what about my kids’ education funds?”

She also feared the lawsuit would affect her job as a teacher, if people found out.

“What is the community going to think about this and what are they going to think about me?”

The community, however, had Mohammed’s back. In fact, the mayor called her this week to give her the good news that the lawsuit had been thrown out.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas Lederer ruled in Mohammed’s favour, citing the province’s “strategic lawsuits against public participation” rules or anti-SLAPP measures.

The provincial rules came into effect in October 2015 and are designed to protect ordinary citizens from being silenced on issues of public interest by lawsuits from big companies.

“If this action is allowed to proceed, there is no way of knowing how many people interested in this issue, or for that matter any other public concern, will feel intimidated and not take part for fear of being subject to a similar lawsuit,” the judge wrote.

What’s more, he awarded Mohammed $7,500 in damages, to be paid by United Soils, writing: “I accept that this action unnecessarily caused Katie Mohammed stress that affected her day to day life.”    . . .

“Now that I have the ruling, I feel a lot more confident and I feel that free speech as been protected,” Mohammed said.

“If it hadn’t been for the SLAPP laws, then I don’t know where I would be financially, trying to fight this in the courts.”

UPDATE 2:

2022-08-09  B.C.

 

Legislation to address SLAPP-like behaviors might also be helpful for addressing the void that exists around cyberbullying.   A number of entities are working on ways for our society to address cyberbullying.

I will try to continue the conversation with the Law Society and initiate one with Sask Justice to effect legislation in Sask.  And will provide input to a couple of the entities that are working on legislation on cyberbullying.

(UPDATE:  Feb 2021 – I eventually stopped working on it; it was futile.  I carried the belief that one day,  opportunity would arise.)

It is important to find ways to deal with cyberbullying.   Alternatively, people will find their own means.  Those means will be outside the Justice System;  they will involve violence.  Civil litigation is completely ineffective in this realm.   “Peace, order and good governance” are NOT POSSIBLE without the means for citizens to protect themselves against forms of violence.

Civil litigation is for the wealthy and a few people like myself who believe that Charter Rights have to be defended at all costs.  In my personal and direct experience, the Government and the Justice System WILL NOT do this for citizens.

We must stand in solidarity with others who have defended the right to free speech (Constitutional Rights), and to (critical) privacy of personal information.  Those others have been stoic and brave defenders at huge personal cost, and with their lives and the lives of their family members at risk.

Reference publication of the “Satanic Verses” in 1989 by Salman Rushdie.  The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie.   “Joseph Anton: A Memoir” by Rushdie documents the refusal of himself, a handful of publishers and a few others to bow to the fear instilled by the fatwa.

Their sole motivation was their understanding of the tenets for democracy.   With responsibilities, yes, but not to be abandoned out of fear.  Not even out of reasonable fear for your life.  It is a remarkable story of bravery and determination.

 

BACK TO  THE STORY

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS:

Ashu Solo wanted to run as a candidate for public office.  There is a vetting process.   What was found  (need the password to access)  was troubling, but needed more work.  September, it was set aside; parents returned to family matters.

In early December I received a   message from (young woman), (need the password to access)   very concerned that Ashu Solo was doing serious damage to Green Party support through his use of social media.

I have been active politically.  Through the years I have handled complaints when they came my way.

An initial assessment caused me to forward    the complaint (#1) (need the password to access), December 8th, to the GPC (Green Party of Canada), and to the GPS (Green Party Saskatchewan).  .   This was on behalf of (the young woman.

It suggests to me that this is a serious allegation, demanding of our attention and speedy resolution.

The Ethics Committee in Ottawa would receive the complaint   and advise Ashu Solo of the complaint against him by (young woman).  (As it turned out, the GP of Saskatchewan advised Ashu of the complaint, before the GPC had time to respond.)

The complaint procedure would be the best way to ensure that both parties received due process.  There would be a fair and just outcome if the complaint was heard by people who are arms’ length from the people involved.

(The young woman) prepared her material.

Ashu Solo   discontinued his membership  (need the password to access) in the GPC  (scroll down to the last one in the email thread).

Ashu then began an   assault by email on me    (need the password to access)  because I forwarded the complaint.  The assault began on December 10th, continued through the Christmas season, into January, February and beyond.

He created an illusion of “harassment” attacks on him, by me.

In fact, I did not respond even once to an email or facebook message from him.  A glance through the more-than-a-hundred emails sent by Ashu leaves the impression of a raging duel.  In fact, the emails are a one-sided barrage from one person (him), for the most part.

Ashu had one   in-person encounter   with me:  He tracked me down at the Saskatoon Airport at  6:00 – 6:30 AM on December 28th.  I had moved, and was returning to BC from Saskatoon after Christmas celebrations with my family.   He had wakened people whose surname was also “Finley”, at 5:00 – 5:30 AM to obtain two things.  He wanted my phone number; unsuccessful, but he got my elderly Mother’s phone number.   He wanted flight departure time (he was successful in that endeavor).  And showed up at the Airport  (for more, see in-person encounter).

Subsequently, on January 9th I forwarded   Complaint #2  (need the password to access)  to the GPC and to the GPS, this time my own complaint.  I included an excerpt from the   John Gormley email thread.  (John Gormley, Saskatoon Talk Show host email to Ashu Solo.)

WHY would Ashu Solo go after me this way, eventually taking the taunts, lies and threats to the point of tracking me down at the Airport?   . . .  I think there is a reason.  (need the password to access)

The lies, name-calling, taunting and threats by Ashu against me use the same language and tactics as he uses against others.

My firsthand experience removes doubt I might have had about the legitimacy of the descriptions by others about the actions of Ashu Solo.  It’s as though he leaves visible finger prints on his actions.

THE EMAILS SENT TO ME BY ASHU SOLO    (need the password to access)

I have originals (directly copied at the above link), should anyone wish access.  Passwords are required.

I would like to be done with Ashu Solo;  I want to get on with productive work.  Perhaps this documentation will be helpful to other people who might similarly come under attack by Ashu.   It may save them time and frustration.

I have concluded that our help comes from each other.  Do not expect help otherwise.

 

ASHU SOLO

THE CREATION OF ILLUSION  (“HOW” he does it)

Ashu creates the illusion that HE is under attack, being “harassed”, “bullied”, “smeared” and “lied about”.  And YOU are the one doing it.

HOW?    (based on approximately 100 emails he sent about me)  (need the password to access)

He:

  • uses Facebook, twitter, and/or email
  • to address a very small audience
  • delivers a large volume of messages to those people, saying repeatedly that YOU are “harrassing, bullying, smearing, lying about” HIM
  • he tries very hard to draw you into the fray

That is all that it takes to create the illusion that there is a duel going on between you and him.

Whether you are drawn in, or not, HE does to you what he says YOU are doing to him.  That is pretty clear if you go through the 100 emails.

In my particular case, during the time in question, I did not send even one message to Ashu Solo.    I spoke to him once, when he tracked me down at the Airport at 6:00AM on December 28, 2013.

 

EVEN IN HIS BULLYING TACTICS, ASHU USES ILLUSION

It was pointed out to me, “He is litigious”  (he will sue you, take you to Court).

People back down because they don’t want to be, cannot afford the time and money to be in Court.  It will break them financially.

Ashu tries to create the illusion that he knows a lot about the law, quoting a chapter and verse.  He talks about the people that his lawyers in the U.S. are taking to court because they claimed that his conference(s) posted on the internet are not real.  But they paid a fee to attend, before they discovered the scam.

In my case he emailed a “demand letter” to me on December 18th.   At the end of December he laid a complaint with the Saskatoon Police against me.  He emailed:

I am preparing civil claims for $1 million against and you.  Don’t think that you can get away with making libelous statements against me because I’m not a lawyer.  I’m smarter than any lawyer.  When I get a judgment against you in court, the deputy sheriff will seize any assets and property that you own.  Cease and desist lying about me or it will increase the amount of judgment that I get against you.

In today’s world “the mafia” uses the threat of taking you to Court to silence you.  Ashu creates the illusion that he has power – he can bring the force of the law against you.

Gormley called him on it:

I am tiring of your incessant bullying of anyone with whom you disagree, from your misunderstanding of civil litigation to even trying to intimidate me with your fictional story about Zellers.

Ashu is not “litigious”.   What he does is called bullying.  He is trying to intimidate you, by creating the illusion that he has power that he doesn’t actually have.  He uses “litigation” for the purposes of extortion, because he CAN.  Because of the way the system works.  He knows how to do it, by simultaneously bringing charges against (in my case) my blog hosting service.  And then offering to settle with them at a high price, which lawyers will recommend to their business clients to accept:  the cost of them defending against defamation is guaranteed to be thousands of dollars higher,  the cyber-bully will not be able to pay a judgment in your favour. Plus, the amount of any judgment in a defamation case will be very small.

In Saskatchewan, there is mandatory mediation, with attending lawyer bills.  If I tell you that in mediation Ashu Solo lunged across the table at me, in front of adult witnesses including 2 lawyers and a business man, calling me a fucking bitch amongst other niceties, I am breaking the law.  It is illegal to disclose what happens in the mediation process.  Ashu Solo knows I am silenced by the laws that surround Mediation.  Of course, I had an option to “continue the fight”, to argue the grounds for proceeding from mediation to an actual trial.   I had already spent $26,000 in my defence because of the ways in which legal procedure can be manipulated, and mountains of time that included self-representation at some junctures.  I had not yet set foot inside a court room.   I learned what I need to know.  I don’t need more.

 

BEFORE PROCEEDING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CLEAR:

This is my own initiative, arising out of my personal experience with Ashu Solo.  It reflects my personal views.

The GPC (Green Party of Canada), GPS (Green Party of Saskatchewan) and the Saskatoon-Humboldt EDA Executive are not party to this and have not been asked to endorse what I have written.

 

WHY DOCUMENT MY EXPERIENCE WITH ASHU?  (the 100+ emails  from him)  (need the password to access)

I and a couple others spent a lot of time researching Ashu Solo, as part of   the vetting process   for a person who seeks to run for public office.    (need the password to access)

It was later discovered that other people (e.g. the young woman, John Gormley) had done the same thing, but for different reasons.

That was actually helpful.  When researchers, independent of each other arrive at near-same conclusions, there is better confidence in the results.

The next step is to share the information; it is not necessary for others to re-invent the wheel.  They may want to add to the wheel.

HOW WILL YOU BENEFIT FROM THIS STORY?

–  You’ll learn a bit about real, live cyber-bullying.

–   You will also benefit if more people say, “Hey, the world has changed.  Together, we need to figure out how to  deal with the Ashu Solo’s of the world.  (Cyber-bullying)”.  Not just from our own perspective, but from Ashu Solo’s perspective, too.  He is denying himself the richness of life.

OTHER REASONS FOR MAKING THE INFORMATION ABOUT ASHU SOLO ACCESSIBLE:

1.   The  Police are hard pressed to protect people  from him.  (need the password to access)

Which is a pretty drastic statement.   I’d better be able to defend it.

I can, from first-hand experience.   With solid documentation.   Reinforced by the experience of others who have also been attacked by Ashu Solo (e.g.   (young woman) , John Gormley).

The evidence (generated by Ashu himself) speaks for itself.

    • The approximately 100 emails  is a listing of emails sent by Ashu Solo about me (allegations, threats and lies).   (need the password to access)

You may want to skim some of the torrent.

Or, just cut to the nub of it:     Here’s what to expect  if Ashu Solo attacks you (excerpts from my experience).   (need the password to access)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As mentioned, Gormley is a Saskatoon Radio Talk Show Host, and lawyer by training.

A short exchange, about a dozen emails, distills how Solo operates.

But then the hammer comes down.  John Gormley makes it clear to Ashu Solo that he will take it to the airwaves if he hears of “one more incident“.  Gormley mentions (the young woman)  and “two other women“.

Gormley stopped Solo temporarily.

 

    • (THE YOUNG WOMAN’S STORY   http://tzmaxx.wordpress.com/  (UPDATE:   Ashu’s attacks on (the young woman) eventually forced her off facebook.  He put up two more disparaging blogs about her.  I just checked:  her own blog has been taken down.)

(At the time of writing in about January 2014 the following is true.  It is now 2022, 9 years later and I am fractionally closer to defending myself in front of a judge.)

Keep in mind that Ashu Solo is a 42-year old man.

(The young woman) is 26 years old.

My experience is SMALL POTATOES in comparison to Ashu Solo’s more-than-a-year-long assault on (the young woman), using facebook and blogs.  The blogs appropriated her name, and affected her ability to obtain employment.  Appeals to WordPress and to Google  (I forget the hosting service of another disparaging blog he put up about her)  are a waste of time.  A court decision is required.  (How many dollars and years later. . .?)

(Note to self:  add the links to screen captures of the disparaging blogs against (young woman) put up by Ashu Solo, here.  With the information to support that it is Ashu who put them up. UPDATE 2021:  I am not certain I still have the links.)

So there you have the evidence of what Ashu Solo is doing. 

I have spoken at length with the Saskatoon Police.  They express difficulties around determining what is real and what is not.  (It might not be Ashu Solo, but someone who is using his name?)  Or, do they know that the Courts are a bust on this issue?)

The alternative to the Police, then, is to make the information available so that people in the community have at least this tool to defend themselves against him, if they go searching.

OTHER REASONS  FOR MAKING THE INFORMATION ABOUT ASHU SOLO ACCESSIBLE ..  (continuing):

2.  Why bother with Ashu Solo?  Why is it important?    (need the password to access)

Speaks to What I Want for the community:  people should not have to live in fear of what Ashu Solo may, or may not, do to them.

Also to the need for communities to protect themselves (Women Who Run With the Wolves)

3.   Ashu Solo may someday benefit by this effort, himself.

4.   We can all help to create a better world.

Especially when we are well networked, sharing, supporting goodness.

But it is also mandatory to deal with the problems, both for the individual and the society.  The society becomes robust and healthy to the extent that its individual members are healthy.

5.  First they came …

It seems to me that this is the same theme as “First they came … ”  BUT!  at the community level.  Ashu Solo went after (the young woman) . . .   others, me, and the list just kept growing.  A society needs to STOP such behaviour, not just step aside if it’s not YOURSELF that is affected.

Eventually, the wholesomeness of the community is affected.  People become pitted, one against the other.  The community is headed in a direction opposite to what is desirable.

(First they came is the famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power . . . (more  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_… ))

 

AM I WRONG?   AM I MAKING A COLOSSAL MISTAKE?

People who are under “cyber attack”  do what you’d expect:  they start looking for information.  They find what I found.  The details are below.

I have confidence in the recording of the background information.  A few people have independently found the same material which has raised the same doubts.

BUT ALSO:  if you get in the cross-hairs of this fellow,  he will HIMSELF send you lots of proof.   He manufactures lies faster than you can say “the big lie of Hitler”.

Any doubt I might have had

that I and others

are wrong

that his business, academic and conference claims are dubious  (need the password to access)

went out the window

when I directly experienced

his lies  (the approximately 100 emails)

 

LOOK AND YOU WILL FIND

Background Information, Ashu Solo

People usually start their research with “Who is this guy“?

Name changes

IMPORTANT:

It is not true, as Ashu claims, that there are “millions” of people out to get him, and that knowledge of his family name puts his family at risk.

He changed his name in 1999, long before any of this started.  He did not change his name to protect his family from the “millions” out to get him.

It is he, himself – HIS actions that put his family’s reputation at risk.

TO THE CREDIT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED BY ASHU SOLO:

I have not heard them say:  But look at what Solo is doing to MY family and MY reputation.

    • What does he do for a living?   (need the password to access)   Ashu Solo says he is an engineer.  He has published research papers.  The number jumps around.   450.  483.  350.  More than 500.  He (claims that he has) organized something around a hundred academic conferences, or “191”.  His company is Maverick Technologies, he is a principal at Trailblazer Systems and Solo Research Labs.  CROCELS.  He gives titles for positions he has held in the military.   But go to What does he do for a living?
    • By self-description, Ashu says he is an  Unemployed activist    (need the password to access)

LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS

This is a real-life story.  We, as a community,  need to figure out how to deal with the personality that is destructive to the community.

The technium has dramatically evolved.

(“The technium” is the umbrella word for all our various technologies, from ones used in communication e.g. the internet, to agriculture to fire-fighting to straightening hair to education – you name it.)

The rapid changes in the technium  mean that strategies employed by communities in the past don’t necessarily work in the changed world.

And the flip-side:  developments in medical technology (neuro science) point to a light in the darkness.  The light will be better than the past.  The source of the destructive motivation can be addressed, and not by using a lobotomy, or drugs, or setting the person adrift on an ice floe!

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT CYBER-BULLYING?
Nov 082012
 

Regarding Proposition 37, on the California ballot during the U.S. Federal Election, to require labeling of GMO food:

  1. from Forbes Magazine, Nov 13
  2. from the Huffington Post, Nov 8

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

1.    http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/11/13/with-california-prop-defeated-gmo-labeling-proponents-look-to-farm-bill/

California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of all food products containing genetically modified organisms within two years, was narrowly defeated last week (53 to 47). The result has largely been credited to the $45 million spent by a coalition including Monsanto, Du Pont, and many others on No on 37 ads depicting farmers, Democrats, and scientists claiming GMO labeling would be detrimental to business, confusing and costly to consumers, and counterproductive to research. Despite the defeat of the bill, GMO labeling advocates are calling the California campaign a victory given that it was outspent 5 to 1 and still managed to get over 4 million votes.

Now the groups behind Prop 37–a coalition of nonprofits, farmers, and organic and natural foods companies–are keeping an eye on the Farm Bill. “Federal GE foods labeling must now be the focus,” said David Bancroft, campaign director of Just Label It, a coalition of 600 businesses and organizations that spearheaded the FDA petition drive for GE foods labeling, in a release about Prop 37′s defeat. The group is not just concerned with passing a Federal labeling mandate, but with language related to the USDA’s authority that was inserted into the House versions of the Farm Bill, which, if passed, would strip federal agencies of their authority to regulate GE crops.

“We believe that consumers have a right to know what’s in their food,” says Britt Lundgren, Director of Organic and Sustainable Agriculture for Stonyfield, a member of Just Label It and longtime supporter of GMO labeling  (more)  . . .

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

2.    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-simon/prop-37-defeated_b_2087782.html

By

Public health lawyer

California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death Tuesday night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the “No” side’s tactics.

As I’ve been writing about, the opposition has waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the “Yes” side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.

While we can always expect industry to spend more, the various groups fighting GMOs for years probably could have been better coordinated. I was dismayed and confused by all the fundraising emails I received from different nonprofits on Prop 37 and wondered why they weren’t pooling their resources.

But would more money and better strategy have made a difference? Given the opposition’s tactics, it seems unlikely. I am not easily shocked by corporate shenanigans, but the “No on 37” campaign is my new poster child for propaganda and dirty tricks. It’s worth recapping the most egregious examples.

Lying in the California voter guide: The “No” campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that “biotech foods are safe.” One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed. (I was attending the group’s annual meeting when this came to light and promptly notified the “Yes” campaign, but the damage was already done.) The other two organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, in fact have more nuanced positions on GMOs than just “safe.”

Misuse of a federal seal and quoting the Food and Drug Administration: This one caused even my jaded draw to drop. In a mailer sent to California voters, the “No” campaign printed the following text along side the FDA logo: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be “inherently misleading.” That is exactly how they wrote it, with the incorrectly placed quotation marks. How can a $45 million campaign make a mistake like that? They can’t; it’s deliberately confusing. It also may even be a violation of criminal law to use a federal seal in this manner. I am told that some California voters were fooled into thinking FDA opposed the measure. Of course, that was the idea.

Misrepresenting academic affiliation: More than once, the “No” campaign gave the false impression that its go-to expert Henry Miller was a professor at Stanford University, in violation the school’s own policy. (In fact, he’s with the Hoover Institute, housed on the Stanford campus.) Only when Stanford complained did the “No” campaign edit the TV ad, but many already saw it, and then they repeated the lie in a mailer.

Deploying unfounded scare tactics: I fully expected the “No” side to use distracting arguments to scare voters while ignoring the merits of issue. But it took this common industry strategy to new heights, making wild claims about higher food prices, “shakedown lawsuits,” and “special interest exemptions.” While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, “that’s not true.”

Additional lies and dirty tricks: 1) claiming the San Francisco Examiner recommended a “no” vote when in fact the paper endorsed “yes”; 2) putting up doctors and academic experts on the dole from Big Biotech as spokespeople without disclosing the conflict of interest; 3) securing a major science group’s endorsement just two weeks before Election Day; 4) somehow convincing every major California newspaper to endorse a “no” vote, often with the very same industry talking points; and 5) placing ads in deceptive mailers that looked like they came from the Democratic party, cops, and green groups.

Each of these tactics, combined with a $45 million megaphone to spread the lies and deceit, simply overwhelmed the “yes” side. Some on Twitter criticized Californians for voting no on 37, but do not under-estimate the effectiveness of scare tactics such as claims of higher food prices. Industry uses them because they work. And voters believe the arguments not because they are stupid or don’t care about the food they eat, but because they are pummeled with ads, getting only one side of the story. This is a problem inherent to the proposition process. (I live in California and have seen scare tactics work on everything from tobacco taxes to gay marriage.)

Indeed, the California experience may seem like déjà vu all over again to Oregonians who recall the ballot initiative there to label GMO foods in 2002. It lost miserably (70 percent voted no) and guess what the winning argument was then? And that measure also enjoyed an overwhelming lead in early polling, but a multi-million dollar ad blitz in the final weeks claiming higher food costs turned that right around.

While a lot has changed in 10 years for the food movement, the same industry tactics still work. (At least we came a lot closer here in California.) Advocates have also tried in 19 states to go through the legislature and failed there too, thanks to industry lobbying.

It’s a shame because we really need a win at the state level to boost the federal Just Label It campaign, which aims to get the FDA to require labeling. I disagree with Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms and leader of Just Label It, for putting all his eggs in the federal basket. While Hirshberg and his company endorsed 37, he donated relatively little to the campaign and was even quoted in the New York Times saying he doesn’t think this problem can be solved state by state. Obviously not, but how does Hirshberg ever expect to get anywhere at the federal level unless and until we can gain traction locally? This is exactly how most policy change is made, especially when we face massive industry opposition. Some are already predicting that the California loss will set back the effort nationally.

But the campaign is still an important step forward in the larger political fight against Big Food, one that raised a lot of awareness about GMOs, food production, and corporate tactics, both in California and nationally. As Twilight Greenaway noted at Grist, win or lose, the effort to pass Proposition 37 in California demonstrates a “bona fide movement gathering steam.”

Now we have to keep gathering more and smarter steam. It was never enough to just be right, or even to have the people on our side. Not when the food industry gets to lie, cheat, and steal its way to victory.

Nov 082012
 

Hi All,

On November 5th,  I entered the Appeal Court buoyed by your emails of support – – many thanks!

A panel of three Judges.  The hearing was longer than I expected, more than three hours with one ten-minute break.

The prosecutor was again brought in from Ottawa.

I am satisfied.  The questions were probing, whereas in the earlier hearing in Queen’s Bench there was not sufficient challenge to the legitimacy of some statements.

I still have wonder at my good fortune in connecting with lawyer Steve Seiferling.  He knows Privacy Law inside out.  He was able to answer and explain everything that came his way.

His strategy:  (this is the way I understand it, not his words)  there is one gateway.  Build an impenetrable barrier at that one gateway, everything on the other side is irrelevant, if you can’t pass through the gateway.  Keep the arguments clear and concise on that point.  Don’t get entangled in ideas and arguments that only exist if you can pass through the gateway (which you can’t).

The gateway: the case law that establishes the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information says that the COLLECTION of personal information is illegal unless the citizen provides it on a VOLUNTARY basis.  The Government cannot force citizens to provide personal information.

R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

It does not matter to what use the information is put, or how secure or insecure is the data base, and so on  . . .  the citizen has a Charter Right to NOT provide personal information to the state.  To me, it is stated quite eloquently and simply in the R vs Plant judgment.

 

The opening debate was whether or not Section 8 of the Charter applies in this case.  Provincial Court Judge Whelan (first level of trial) said yes, unequivocally.  Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Konkin (second level of trial) said yes and then equivocated at another place in his judgment .

The lawyer and the prosecutor (Nov 5) provided case law examples to support their opposing positions:  Section 8 applies, Section 8 does not apply.

The State collects information from people:

  • suspected of criminal activity
  • in regulatory matters
  • in censuses and surveys

Differences arise because of the conditions that surround the collection of the personal information.  An abbreviated explanation:

  • In criminal matters, investigative powers are subject to (limited by) Section 8
  • In regulatory matters, there is a benefit to the person (e.g. they receive a driver’s license)
  • (Steve argues) In the case of collecting information for statistical purposes there is no benefit to the person, nor criminal activity involved.  The threshold for the protection of personal information should, if anything, be HIGHER in this case.

 

Whether there is a REASONABLE EXPECTATION of privacy was argued.   (This was discussed in our network, see the posting  Charter argument,  Privacy of personal information, REASONABLE   R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128 )

 

Whether there was a “search”.  (Section 8 is protection against unwarranted “search and seizure”, in this case, of  personal information.)   The Crown Prosecutor argued that your breath is “something” but it cannot be captured.  Similarly, an idea is something that cannot be captured.  Personal information does not exist until you are asked to provide it, it is an idea that you have to bring to mind.  Section 8 does not apply because nothing was seized because I didn’t write anything down on the census form!  If I had filled out the census form, there would have been a seizure (Prosecutor’s argument).

The argument fared poorly under questioning.  (I would have liked to add “We would not be here if there was nothing that the State could seize.”)

That the Government, Minister Tony Clement, announced that the census long form is no longer mandatory was raised.  (I always want to add:  but they did not actually change the law.  They did something better (if you want to build detailed information files on individuals):  they changed the census long form (collection once every 5 years) to the “national household SURVEY”, enabling data collection to be carried out every week, every month, every year.)

American jurisprudence (Morales) was raised.  But their constitutional law is quite different from Canadian.  (a cautionary note from a Chief Justice on this topic is found in the legal argument in the posting  Charter argument,  Privacy of personal information, REASONABLE   R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128 )

 

To my mind, the Judges carry the same misinformation (out-dated) as most people.  Fortunately a comment was made in passing by one of the Justices:  the census records are in aggregate.  There are no identifiable, individual records.  This misconception is critical and it is widely held.   By his enunciating it, it was possible to offer a correction:  as of the 2006 census the individual data files are complete with the name of the person a part of the record.  Reading body language, I think this caused an adjustment in thinking.

 

The prosecutor made much of the fact that I didn’t answer ANY of the questions.  I wanted to interject:  “I did not have the option of answering only SOME of the questions!”.  But aaah!  That is on the other side of the gateway.

Well!  I guess you do not want to hear all 3 hours of it!

Expect the Appeal Court decision . . . . (Steve suggests)  four or five months maybe.

Both of us are decidedly cautious in predicting the outcome, after twice having our confidence blown in the earlier court appearances!   How about 51% versus 49% chance of success?!

I believe that the battle to protect the Charter Right to privacy of personal information must be fought.  We are all at risk when our country starts the construction of detailed files on individuals.  History is clear on that point.

Nov 072012
 

Is the GOP stealing Ohio?
Uncertified, “experimental” software patches have been installed on machines in 39 counties of the key swing state

Is the GOP stealing Ohio?Jon Husted (R), Ohio Secretary of State. (Credit: AP/Jay Laprete)

Last week, Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello at FreePress.org reported an important story concerning what they described as “uncertified ‘experimental’ software patches” being installed at the last minute on electronic vote tabulation systems in 39 Ohio counties.

The story included a copy of the contract [PDF] between Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office and ES&S, the nation’s largest e-voting system manufacturer, for a new, last-minute piece of software created to the custom specifications of the secretary of state. The contract itself describes the software as “High-level enhancements to ES&S’ election reporting software that extend beyond the current features and functionality of the software to facilitate a custom-developed State Election Results Reporting File.”

A subsequent story at the Free Press the following day included text said to be from a Nov. 1 memo sent from the Ohio secretary of state’s Election Counsel Brandi Laser Seske to a number of state election officials confirming the use of the new, uncertified software on Ohio’s tabulator systems. The memo claims that “its function is to aid in the reporting of results” by converting them “into a format that can be read by the Secretary of State’s election night reporting system.”

On Friday evening, at Huffington Post, journalist Art Levine followed up with a piece that, among other things, advanced the story by breaking the news that Fitrakis and his attorney Cliff Arnebeck were filing a lawsuit for an immediate injunction against Husted and ES&S to “halt the use of secretly installed, unauthorized ‘experimental’ software in 39 counties’ tabulators.” Levine also reported that Arnebeck had referred the matter to the Cincinnati FBI for criminal investigation of what the Ohio attorney describes as “a flagrant violation of the law.”

“Before you add new software, you need approval of a state board,” says Arnebeck. “They are installing an uncertified, suspect software patch that interfaces between the county’s vote tabulation equipment and state tabulators.” Arnebeck’s alarm is understandable.

Since the story initially broke, I’ve been trying to learn as much as I could about what is actually going on here. During that time, a few in the mainstream media have gotten wind of the story as well, including NBC News and CNN, and have been able to press Husted and other officials in his office into finally responding to the concerns publicly. The Ohio officials have attempted to downplay the concerns, though in doing so they appear to have given misleading information which, at times, seems to conflict even with the contract itself.

I’ve also spoken to computer scientists and election integrity experts, in trying to make sense of all of this, though many of them seem to be scratching their heads as well. My own queries to the Secretary of State’s office have gone unanswered, as had Fitrakis’ and Bello’s before they published their initial story, begging the question as to why, if this software is as benign as Ohio officials are suggesting, they didn’t respond immediately to say as much. Furthermore, why did they keep the contract a secret? Why did they wait until just before the election to have this work done? And why did they feel it was appropriate to circumvent both federal and state testing and certification programs for the software in the bargain?

I’d like to have been able to learn much more before running anything on this at all, frankly. But the lack of time between now and Tuesday’s election — in which Ohio’s results are universally believed to be key to determining the next president of the United States — preclude that.

So, based on the information I’ve been able to glean so far, allow me to try to explain, in as simple terms as I can, what we currently know and what we don’t, and what the serious concerns are all about.

And, just to pre-respond to those supposed journalists who have shown a proclivity for reading comprehension issues, let me be clear: No, this does not mean I am charging that there is a conspiracy to rig or steal the Ohio election. While there certainly could be, if there is, I don’t know about it, nor am I charging there is any such conspiracy at this time. The secretive, seemingly extra-legal way in which Secretary of State Husted’s office is going about whatever it is they are trying to do, however, at the very last minute before the election, along with the explanations they’ve given for it to date, and concerns about similar cases in the past, in both Ohio and elsewhere, are certainly cause for any reasonable skeptic or journalist to be suspicious and investigate what could be going on. And so I am …

The Contract

The first 13 pages of the 28-page contract [PDF] is largely boilerplate legal stuff. The actual “Statement of Work” in the contract, signed on Sept. 18, 2012, by ES&S and on Sept. 19 by Assistant Secretary of State Scott Borgemenke — less than two months before this year’s presidential election — describes the software that is to be created for the state by ES&S, beginning on Page 17.

Here’s the beginning of the “Overview” section, describing the scope of the work, which I’ll try to unpack just below it, for non-geeks…

In short, the contract is for an application called EXP, which exports voting results into a specific format after the data from the central tabulator has been organized by the ES&S Election Reporting Manager (ERM). The ERM program itself directly accesses the main tabulator database and the results are then exported, by EXP, to a text-based file.

The text-based file is then sent by the county, via some unspecified means, to the secretary of state for import into its Election Night Reporting System, which is subsequently made available on the Web, where it will be viewed by the media and the rest of the world as the “results” of that day’s election in Ohio.

The unencrypted text-based file created by EXP is a simple CSV (Comma Separate Values) formatted file, which includes field names and values separated by commas, as culled from the tabulated results database. Pages 26 and 27 of the contract detail the specific format for the plain text files created by EXP. Here’s an example:

The Secretary of State’s Explanations

Last last week, a public response was finally offered to Ugonna Okpalaoka of theGrio, an African-American-centric website published in partnership with NBC News.

Okpalaoka write: “Matt McClellan, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, told theGrio that no patches were installed, describing instead a reporting tool software meant to ‘assist counties and to help them simplify the process by which they report the results to our system.’”

McClellan’s reported claim that “no patches were installed,” but rather it was simply “a reporting tool software” to assist counties, seems to be in direct contradiction with the contract itself.

At the bottom of Page 17, the contract states that “the current ES&S ERM Results Export Program (EXP) product version 2.0.6.0″ will be “modified to meet the Customers request.” The contract goes on to say that it “shall be modified” into two different EXP versions, 2.0.7.0 and 3.0.1.0, to work with two different versions of the ERM software variously installed in different Ohio counties.

It’s not entirely clear how the new version of EXP will differ from the existing one, though the contract specifies the older version created XML-formatted files instead of plain-text CSV files. The new version of the EXP program is installed onto the tabulation computing systems of the Ohio counties, which use the ES&S system, so this updated version is a new version of the existing software. It is either a “patch” or an upgrade or a new installation. Distinguishing between those descriptions, in this case, seems to be a distinction without a difference made by McClellan. In either case, it’s new software being applied onto the existing central tabulation system computers, without either state or federal certification, just days before the 2012 presidential election.

By describing it as “experimental” software, it seems the state is attempting to skirt the legal requirements for state testing and certification by the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners. But more on that in a moment.

According to Pam Smith, president of the nonpartisan watchdog group VerifiedVoting.org, her organization also sought explanations for the last-minute software changes from the secretary of state’s office.

She tells me that she was told that “the Secretary of State team installed the EXP tool” themselves in the counties that use the ES&S system. “It was not left to the counties to figure out the installation or the configuration.”

Moreover, she stressed, she was told the software “does not get installed on voting machines.”

But that makes little difference, since the software is installed directly onto the central tabulator machines, where it can affect — either accidentally, or by design — the main results of an entire county’s election. Software residing on the central tabulation systems is, in fact, far more dangerous than software on the voting systems, since it can have direct access to the entire set of county election results.

Jim March, a longtime Libertarian election integrity and software expert, as well as a member of the Pima County, Ariz., Election Integrity Commission (which serves as an official advisory body to the Pima County Board of Supervisors), and a founding and current board member of BlackBoxVoting.org, is highly suspicious of the last-minute installation of software.

In an affidavit [PDF] submitted to Fitrakis and Arnebeck for their legal case, March says he believes “that this custom software is not necessary for the conduct of elections and is in fact highly dangerous.”

March has been involved in numerous cases involving suspicious elections and election software. In 2005 he received part of a multimillion-dollar settlement from Diebold as the result of a qui tam case with the state of California, after it had been discovered that the company had secretly installed uncertified software on its voting systems in the state. The secretary of state decertified the systems as a result.

“What ES&S has chosen to do here is extremely dangerous and exactly what you’d want to do if you wanted to plant a ‘cheat’ onto the central tabulator,” March says in his affidavit.

On Saturday night, Secretary Husted himself attempted to downplay the matter during an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, explaining that there was no danger in installing the software on the county’s tabulation systems. MSNBC’s “Ed Show” played that part of the exchange with the secretary, as well as a response to it from Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner.

As Husted explained to Lemon: “The reporting system and the counting system are not connected in any actual way. And the results that anybody can get at home on their computer are — they’re going to get them at the same time that I do on election night. So we have a very transparent system.”

The “transparency” of a system that counts votes in secret and features a secretly installed piece of software that skirted normal certification procedures aside, March’s affidavit disputes Husted’s explanation about the separation between the reporting and counting systems.

“Their custom application … would have full contact with the central tabulator database on both a read and write basis, while running on the same computer as where the ‘master vote records’ (the central tabulator database — the ‘crown jewels’ of the whole process) are stored,” he says.

“Under this structure a case of accidental damage to the ‘crown jewels’ of the election data is possible. A case of deliberate tampering of that data using uncertified, untested software would be child’s play.”

He describes the process as “criminally negligent just from a standpoint of data security.”

State Sen. Turner was similarly suspicious: “They should not be experimenting in a presidential election. You know the secretary of state had previous years to try to experiment.”

Indeed, one of the unanswered questions we sent to the secretary of state asked why they waited until Sept. 18 to begin this contract, since Husted’s been in office fore nearly two full years, and they’ve carried out many elections, of lesser import than a presidential election since that time during which this software could have had a trial run. Furthermore, we asked, how did they manage without it until now during both his tenure and that of his predecessors?

We received no reply to that and a number of other related questions.

When theGrio asked a similar question, as to why they waited until “so soon before the election” to commission the new software, they were told by McClellan: “I’m not sure the exact timeline of that, but I know we’ve been working with the counties for the past couple of months on getting these in place, testing them to make sure they work properly, and working with the vendors as well.”

There was another point reported by theGrio that seems to be in direct contradiction to the contract between ES&S and the secretary of state, and it’s a troubling one.

They report: “McClellan said the tool serves to cut down on the amount of information precinct workers would have to key in by hand by allowing the results to be output onto a thumbdrive and uploaded at once into the Secretary of State’s system.”

But the contract specifically notes at the top of Page 21 that “Automated uploading or sending of the State Election Results Reporting file” is “outside the scope” of the software called for in the agreement, and that “It is a manual process to upload or send the results file.”

That would seem to contradict McClellan’s claim that the converted file created by the EXP program is “output onto a thumbdrive and uploaded at once into the Secretary of State’s system.”

The way in which that file is sent to the secretary of state, as noted, remains unknown. Moreover, if a plain text file is sent via email, or other similar Internet transmission, it can easily be intercepted and changed before it ever even reaches the SoS Election Night Reporting System. Such an attack is sometimes described as a “Man-in-the-Middle” attack.

Verified Voting’s Smith explained that she had been told that results files from the state’s other e-voting systems made by Diebold and Hart-Intercivic already created files in the format that EXP was being modified to create. Thus, she said, all of the files would be in the same format for uniform import into the Election Night Reporting System.

Another question I’d asked of Husted’s office was, if all that EXP did was simply convert files from one simple format to another, wouldn’t it have been far less dangerous to install the software once at the secretary of state’s office and simply convert files there for the Reporting System, after they’d been sent to them by the counties, rather than install 39 uncertified pieces of software on 39 different central tabulators in 39 different Ohio counties just days before the 2012 presidential election?

I received no answer to that question either.

History and Reason for Concern

Writing in the Oct. 5, 2006, issue of Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in“Will the Next Election Be Hacked?” described a suspect election that took place in Georgia in 2002, just after Diebold’s electronic touch-screen voting systems had been deployed for the first time across the entire state.

“Six days before the vote,” Kennedy writes, “polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss … by five percentage points. In the governor’s race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.”

To this day, Election Integrity advocates cite that 2002 election as suspect, along with the curious software “patch” they later learned was secretly applied to the state’s electronic voting system earlier that year.

In his article, Kennedy quotes Diebold contractor Chris Hood, who was directly involved in the installation of the systems across the state, as describing Diebold Election Systems Inc. president Bob Urosevich personally distributing the software “patch,” which was covertly installed on more than 1,200 Diebold touch-screen systems that year.

No one will likely ever be able to prove that the November 2002 election was rigged, but that infamous software “patch,” along with the anomalous election results from 100 percent unverifiable voting systems (which are still in use today across the state of Georgia and in many other states) has cast an everlasting cloud of suspicion over that election.

Similarly, there remains a dark cloud of suspicion over the 2004 presidential election in Ohio itself, the last one run under the administration of a Republican secretary of state, when blatant voter suppression tactics, ballot tampering, unprecedented counting room lockdowns due to phony Homeland Security “terror warnings,” criminal manipulation of the post-election recount, as well as concern about a possible “Man-in-the-Middle” hack of the state’s Election Night Reporting System have long cast a shadow of doubt over the reported results.

The BRAD BLOG was honored with an award from Sonoma State University’s 36-year old investigative reporting project Project Censored for some of our coverage of the mysterous death of Ohio-based GOP IT guru Michael Connell.

In 2004, Connell designed and created Ohio’s Election Night Reporting System for then Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. It was later discovered, ironically enough by Ohio’s investigative journalist Bob Fitrakis and the Free Press, that the results the world were watching on the Web that night, as it became clear that the winner of the Buckeye State would determine the presidency, had been diverted from Ohio down to the servers of a far right-wing company in Chattanooga, Tenn., called SmarTech in the middle of the night.

Computer analysts and security experts, including a Republican who worked with Connell, have speculated, with a fair amount of evidence to support their case, that there could have been a “Man-in-the-Middle” attack that night, in which someone changed the results of the election between the time they were tabulated at the county level and before they appeared on the secretary of state’s website later that evening, as it was then being run out of SmarTech’s servers in Tennessee.

We may never know if that actually occurred, though schematics unearthed during an election fraud case against Blackwell detailed how Connell’s system allowed for “Man-in-the-Middle” access to change the results before they were reported to the world. Despite a federal court order to retain all of the ballots from the election, some or all of them were destroyed in 56 out of 88 counties, so it became impossible to compare the reported results with the actual ballots cast during the 2004 election.

Connell can no longer discuss the matter. He was killed when he crashed near the Columbus airport in his single-engine Piper Saratoga on his way back from Washington, D.C., for his company’s Christmas party in December of 2008. One month earlier, on the Monday before the 2008 presidential election, a federal judge compelled Connell to sit for a deposition in the 2004 election fraud case in which the attorneys believed the man who created the George W. Bush and John McCain campaign websites, as well as the now-infamous secret email system for the George W. Bush administration, held the key to an alleged conspiracy to steal the 2004 election in Ohio for Bush.

Whether or not a similar scheme could be in the works in 2012 is certainly unknown. To be clear, once again, I am alleging no such thing. I am simply reporting the facts that I know, and those that I do not.

Nonetheless, questions about a last-minute secret software patch to be used across multiple counties in Ohio, one that now resides on vote tabulation systems and is said to produce easily modifiable text files to be uploaded to a very partisan secretary of state’s Election Night Reporting System, certainly have a familiar, and to some, a chilling ring just over 24 hours before the next presidential election could well be decided in the Buckeye State.

As the Free Press notes, “Government reports such as Ohio’s Everest study [PDF] [the landmark analysis of the state’s electronic voting systems by world class academic and corporate computer science and security experts, commissioned by Husted’s Democratic predecessor Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner] document that any single change to the system could corrupt the whole voting process.”

Late on Sunday, in a new update from Bello and Fitrakis at the Free Press, the pair describe that “The potential federal illegality of this software has been hidden from public scrutiny by the Secretary of State’s Election Counsel Brandi Seske.” They report that a Sept. 29 memo from Seske describes “de minimis changes” in the ES&S software that allowed for use of the software updates without state testing. “De minimis,” they explain, “is a legal term for minute.”

And yet, they go on to cite a memo from the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, the body tasked with certifying electronic voting and tabulation systems at the federal level, dated February 8, 2012 entitled “Software and Firmware modifications are not de minimis changes.”

“Ohio election law provides for experimental equipment only in a limited number of precincts per county,” they report. “Installing uncertified and untested software on central tabulation equipment essentially affects every single precinct in a given county.”

“The method of execution chosen,” for this effort, notes March in his affidavit for the Fitrakis/Arnebeck injunction lawsuit, “is unspeakably stupid, excessively complex and insanely risky. In medical terms it is the equivalent of doing open heart surgery as part of a method of removing somebody’s hemorrhoids. Whoever came up with this idea is either the dumbest Information Technology ‘professional’ in the US or has criminal intent against the Ohio election process.”

Ernest A. Canning contributed research to this report.

Nov 072012
 

A very important story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYIezJyhGWY

(INSERT:  in the October 2012 municipal election in Saskatoon, the electronic voting system was the same as demonstrated in the documentary where a black marker is used to fill in the oval to mark the voter’s choice.  The page is then run through the reader/computer.)

“The mid-term elections are one week away–will your vote be counted? A new HBO documentary exposes the vulnerability of electronic voting machines. The film follows investigative journalist Bev Harris as she investigates the security and accuracy of electronic voting systems. Harris joins in our firehouse studio.

There is a week to go before millions of voters cast their vote in the mid- term elections. Many are calling this the most high-stakes election in recent years with the possibility of a Democratic takeover of Congress. But since the contested Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, more people have been raising concern about the integrity of our voting system.

We start by looking at electronic voting machines. There have been widespread reports of malfunctions and security lapses even though these machines count 80 percent of the votes cast in America today. Last month, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich called for the state to scrap its electronic voting system and revert to paper ballots in the upcoming election. He cited technical glitches that occurred during the state’s primary election. In that election, electronic voting machines that were built by the Diebold corporation, repeatedly crashed. Ehrlich said that the voting situation is “approaching crisis proportions.” But the problem is not limited to Maryland–a report released earlier this year by the group Common Cause found that Maryland was only one of 17 states nationwide whose voting system is at “high risk” for a compromised election.

Well a new documentary airing on HBO on November 2nd exposes the vulnerability of computers that are counting our votes. The film follows Bev Harris, a Seattle grandmother and writer as she investigates the security and accuracy of electronic voting systems. Her investigation takes her from the trash cans of Texas to the secretary of state of California, and finally to Florida.

Bev Harris, publicist turned investigative reporter. She is author of the book “Black Box Voting.” More information at BlackBoxVoting.org ”

The official website for Hacking Democracy:  http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

= = = = = = = = =

The Results are In: Online Voting Still Too Risky, by Michael Geist, April 2012 following the NDP leadership convention  http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6400/135/

= = = = = = = = = = =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Canada

“It is a common misconception that there is no electronic voting in Canada. While the federal elections still use paper ballots, electronic voting technology has been used since at least the 1990s at the municipal level in some cities, and there are increasing efforts in a few areas to introduce it at a provincial level. Some municipalities provide Internet voting as an option.

There are no Canadian electronic voting standards.”

Electronic voting has even been used in Ottawa municipal elections. It’s very popular in Alberta.

Nov 072012
 

http://www.thestar.com/article/657514

Published on Friday June 26, 2009

Joan Bryden
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–Allowing Canadians to vote electronically may be the remedy for the ever-dwindling percentage of voters who bother to exercise their democratic rights, Elections Canada suggests.

In a report released late Friday, the independent electoral watchdog says it will push this fall for legislative changes that would allow it to implement online registration of voters.

And it wants parliamentary approval to conduct an electronic voting test-run in a byelection by 2013.

The report notes that only 58.8 per cent of registered voters actually cast ballots during last October’s federal election – the worst-ever voter turnout in Canadian history.

“It would appear that voting competes with other daily priorities for a substantial number of electors,” says the report, summarizing the results of surveys, focus groups and other evaluations commissioned by Elections Canada in the wake of the Oct. 14 vote.

“In that sense, Elections Canada’s efforts to make registration and voting more accessible and convenient for electors (e.g., through initiatives such as e-registration and an eventual e-voting pilot) appear to be well positioned.

“By working at ‘bringing the ballot to the elector,’ we may contribute to mitigating some of the reasons for lower turnout.”

A survey conducted for the agency found that 57 per cent of those who didn’t vote in the last election blamed “everyday situations” – such as being on holiday, being too busy, family obligations or work schedules – for their failure to cast ballots.

Thirty-six per cent cited negative attitudes toward politics or political parties, including 14 per cent who said they were too apathetic and eight per cent who said they were too cynical to bother voting.

The survey also found considerable public interest in making it easier to vote. Fifty-eight per cent of electors said they’d be likely to use the Internet to register and 54 per cent said they’d be likely to use it to vote.

Among those who didn’t vote in the last election, the survey found 55 per cent said they’d be likely to use the Internet to vote if the service was available.

Sixty-four per cent of non-voting young people and 41 per cent of non-voting aboriginal electors – two of the groups with the lowest voter turnout – said the same.

The report suggests electronic voting may also benefit Canadian Forces members and other Canadians living temporarily outside the country. If they want to vote, their only option at the moment is to obtain a special mail-in ballot.

However, the report says many out-of-country voters have missed the deadline because of the relatively complicated special ballot procedure, combined with the short election time frame and limitations of the postal service.

Last October, 3,675 special ballots were received two weeks after election day, too late to be counted.

“This is an area where we believe electors would benefit from online services.”

While voters seem to like the idea, candidates are not quite so keen.

A survey of candidates in the last election found 75 per cent believe voters should be able to register online. But when it comes to actually casting ballots via the Internet, 48 per cent of candidates were opposed and 46 per cent were in favour.

“The survey indicates that most Canadians are interested in online registration and voting,” the report concludes.

“In view of the number of Canadians who are interested in accessing electoral services online, our efforts to put e-registration in place and to test e-voting are well aligned to their needs.”