There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

''JE VEUX ÊTRE SÛR QUE CE SOIENT LES FAITS QUI MOTIVENT LES DÉCISIONS SCIENTIFIQUES ET NON L'INVERSE'' Barack Obama


Obama semble voir clair en ce qui a rapport à ce qu’on ose appeler la science. «Avec mon administration, les jours sont révolus où la science cédait le pas à l'idéologie [...] Je veux être sûr que ce soient les faits qui motivent les décisions scientifiques et non l'inverse», s’exclame-t-il !

Va-t-il réussir à ramener un peu d'intégrité à la science ? Il faudrait peut-être qu'il commence par faire le ménage de ce qui doit être qualifié comme science et qui est rapporté par tous les médias ad nauseam sans aucune recherche ou même vérification des faits et des études elles-mêmes par les journalistes, à un point tel que le peuple ne croit plus à rien y compris ce qui risque d’être vrai.

Avec un peu plus de budget consacré à une recherche neutre peut-être aurions droit à de la science dans le vrai sens du terme au lieu de la science politisée souvent financée par des intérêts corporatifs qui ne font que servir leurs propres intérêts en biaisant les recherches ou en utilisant des prête noms pour propulser leurs produits. Peut-être aussi que les scientifiques n’auront pas à se travestir pour gagner leur vie en acceptant les dictats de leurs bailleurs de fonds corporatifs.
Cela relève du devoir des politiciens de par le monde entier et non seulement des États-Unis. Il nous est permis d’espérer.

Obama veut redonner à la science la place qui lui revient...

Sunday, 26 April 2009

LETTRE DE C.A.G.E. AU MINISTRE DE LA SANTÉ YVES BOLDUC

Docteur Yves Bolduc
Ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux
1075, chemin Sainte-Foy, 15e étage
Québec (Québec) G1S 2M1

Objet : Projet de loi du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux sur l’interdiction de l’usage du tabac dans la voiture privée en présence de mineurs.

Monsieur le ministre,

Nous avons pris connaissance de votre projet de loi aux fins d’interdire l’usage du tabac en voiture en présence de personnes mineures.

En premier lieu, nous tenons à vous mentionner que nous sommes tout à fait d’accord que fumer en présence des enfants peut leur causer de l’irritation et de l’inconfort. Ainsi, la plupart des parents ont pris la décision de ne pas les soumettre à la fumée. Nous croyons que ceci est tout à fait correct tant que cette décision est basée sur leur propre jugement et sur l’avis du pédiatre de l’enfant, puisque la fumée secondaire peut empirer l’état de santé de certains enfants malades.

Dans un contexte du cas par cas, il existe déjà des lois bien implantées pour protéger les enfants de la négligence parentale et qui sont beaucoup plus sévères qu’une simple contravention lorsque la santé de l’enfant est sérieusement compromise. Cependant, voter une loi qui vise la collectivité et qui n’a que comme seul appui l’épidémiologie biaisée et non concluante serait, à notre avis, très irresponsable et irréfléchi.

En effet, le Québec ne devrait pas davantage se voter une loi interdisant de fumer en voiture que des lois contre des pratiques réellement dangereuses, comme par exemple interdire à un parent de promener son enfant en voiture lorsque la visibilité est réduite ou que la chaussée est glissante, ou encore de permettre à son enfant de manger de la malbouffe, de le laisser traverser la rue avant un tel âge, de s’occuper de son enfant malgré qu’on est soi-même porteur d’un virus, de le laisser jouer dehors sans surveillance ou de le faire sortir de la maison lors des périodes de smog, pour ne nommer que quelques-uns des nombreux risques que des parents tout à fait normaux prennent au nom de leurs enfants dans la vie de tous les jours.

Des lois répressives basées sur la rectitude politique et sur la chasse aux sorcières dans le but de se donner bonne conscience finissent par avoir des résultats tout à fait contraires à ceux recherchés. Voir à cet effet la mise en garde du Professeur Robert Molimard, expert tabacologue, sur le lien suivant (1).

D’ailleurs, Statistique Canada rapporte que le taux du tabagisme stagne au Canada (2) depuis 2005, année où le Québec et l’Ontario ont adopté des lois anti-tabac draconiennes. De plus, et comme vous le savez certainement, la contrebande est devenue un fléau incontrôlable et les mêmes mineurs qu’on tente de « protéger » avec des lois qui envahissent la vie privée se procurent des cigarettes et autres produits du tabac auprès des contrebandiers et ce, avec une facilité déconcertante et à une fraction du prix légal.

Par la présente, nous sollicitons donc respectueusement une invitation aux tables de réflexion à ce sujet afin d’exprimer les avis et les revendications de nos membres.

Dans l’attente de votre invitation, nous vous prions d’agréer, Monsieur le ministre, l’expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.

Iro Cyr
Vice-présidente de CAGE


1) http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html
2) http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 5b-fra.htm

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

ABOUT GUN CONTROL

We asked a newly registered C.A.G.E. member who is a member of the Canadian Shooting Sports association and currently active in lobbying for our ancient right to keep arms in our defense, to explain to us why he disagrees with gun control and particularly with the views of the police forces.

His reply is the side of the story you will not read too often, if at all, in the mainstream media since gun control is an emotionally loaded issue and the media do not want to ruffle any feathers. You will however read it right here complete and unedited:


‘’It is a question of credibility. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is a lobby group in the guise of a professional association like the society of automotive engineers. With the resignation of CAPC's ethics adviser over their sponsorship practises it then begs the question just how honest are they? Since one of the generous sponsors of their annual meeting was the CGI group the company responsible for selling the computers and software to the CFC would suggest that their considered opinion of the Registry was bought and paid for by their benefactors the CGI group. Two things suggest that this is the case, First is the statement on record by Chief Julian Fantino when he was still the Chief of the Toronto Police Service "The registry has neither prevented not solved a single crime". Then his ringing endorsement of the use of Tasers. I should mention that TASER International was also a major contributor to the annual conference. Now as a member of CAPC he is part of the endorsement of the registry. Why the about face? Indeed they have used their position in society to the benefit of their corporate sponsors.

The Police Association is a Union, again it is not a professional development association in the classical sense of the word either. They would not be the first Union to cross the line into the political arena. I suspect and I say suspect only because proof remains to be seen, that there is some political bone waiting for them in the wings. What they seem to forget is that they are "Our employees" the fact that they are armed is a privilege granted to them by the public. In mother England the police are not armed and have not been armed for 178 years. They make the claim that the registry is used 9400 times per day, well as it turns out the way in which the system is set up that every time a police officer makes a routine traffic stop and the drivers licence is ran through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) it also registers a hit on the registry.

The CFRO computers get "hit" 9,413 time a day on average.

Where this figure falls apart is in the breakdown of these "hits" as follows:

Individual Name: 6440
Address: 2574
Serial#: 202
Licence#: 141
Certificate#: 19 <-- This is the ONLY one that relates to an acutual FIREARMS INQUIRYTelephone# :15
Certificate# = Firearm

This is from the Canadian Firearms Centres own figures. So there is at the least a deliberate misrepresentation of numbers, at worse just a bald face lie.

Which brings me to the next claim that they use the registry to know if a firearm is present at the scene of a call. This is only true if the firearms are registered. Since the gangbangers and other n'rr do wells do not register their firearms how is the registry so indispensable? It would only work where the firearms are registered. Secondly since the bill does not do away with the licencing requirement it is still possible to ascertain that a firearm might be present. This renders the argument moot. I have also read that the concern of the Police Association is the safety of their members. But that is the reason that we allow them to openly carry a firearm and access to other arms as well. Are they suggesting that if they get a negative on a firearm they proceed without caution?

Finally on this point I have to ask what did they do before the registry? Indeed we only need look south of the border where there is not a universal registry and in some states not even the requirement to get a licence, life goes on their. Contrary to what is seen in the news and Hollywood the streets are not running with blood.

The weapon of Choice? This is another little phrase that gets trotted out but when you look at the numbers, in fact guns barely make it over a quarter of the homicides. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others. Putting it into perspective 406 people out of 594 were murdered without guns. This also tags their argument as silly because if you follow their logic the flip side of that coin is that it is okay to be murdered as long as it is not with a gun. It also assumes that had their not been a gun present another method would not have been used. Logically if someone is angered to the point of wanting someone dead do you honestly think not having a gun changes that? four hundred and six murders say otherwise.

I almost left out one of the most pernicious statement made by Chief Chabot of the Sûreté du Québec also president of CAPC? "All guns are potentially dangerous, all gun owners need to be licensed, all guns need to be registered, and gun owners need to be accountable for their firearms.". There are three ways to analyze this statement, if you follow the obvious logic he uses, then it could be said that everyone is a potential criminal therefore we should lock everybody up. We live in a society governed by the rule of law, the fundamental principle of that is the presumption of innocence until proved beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. Again a statement designed to cultivate fear rather than reason. The second manner is the underlying bigotry that Mr Chabot possesses swap "gun owner" and "gun" for Jew, blacks, foreigners or any other ethnicity to read," All ____ are potentially dangerous, All ______ should be licenced and registered. All of a sudden the statement becomes less acceptable, less palatable to ordinary Canadians. Lastly Chief Chabot makes a very telling statement of himself he in fact is projecting his own fear of self onto guns and gun owners. Maybe he is the one who should in fact be disarmed? Firearms are inanimate objects they posses no will of their own and cannot influence human thought, they are after all just junks of metal, wood, and or plastic. They have no arms, legs nor consciousness. Are both the CAPC and CPA suggesting they do?

On a final note it is often said that we register cars, boats and children, This of course is true up to a point, There is not a law compelling anyone to do so. We do not have to register any of these. We do however have to register cars if we wish to drive on public roads, or want your boat recovered should it be stolen. We register our children if we wish to partake of the social benefits our society affords to us. A couple living in the boonies can deliver a child and never once have the local authorities come busting through their door with a warrant for their arrest and seizure of their offspring. (The Romani and donkuburs come to mind not that they don't have their scrapes with authorities). When you get a parking ticket or a ticket for a moving violation they do not automatically suspend your licence and seize all your cars and vehicles. Nor do you face criminal prosecution for a speeding ticket. We can also own as many and of different types able to travel at speeds well beyond the speed limits of most of our highways. Rarely is someone charged criminally when they have an accident even if someone dies in the crash. So no, we are not comparing things equally when make this observation. Oddly enough driving your car is not a right, where as keeping arms is.’’

Monday, 20 April 2009

SABOT DE DENVER VIRTUEL OU LES PLAISIRS DE LA NOUVELLE TECHNOLOGIE

Nous avons récemment commenté sur le nouveau permis de conduire avec puce RFID qui peut être obtenu sur demande en remplacement du passeport désormais obligatoire pour voyager aux E.U. Nous avons parlé des risques qu’un tel permis présente et nous avons invité la population à répondre avec un NON retentissant à cette technologie.

Pourquoi une telle antipathie envers certains gadgets technologiques ? Parce-que la technologie de plus en plus sophistiquée, aussi attrayante qu’elle puisse paraître en raison de quelques avantages certains, finit presque toujours et très certainement par nous soustraire de beaucoup de liberté et d’intimité.

Dans notre article en anglais, nous avons prophétisé que si bon nombre de citoyens se prévalaient de cette option pour leur permis (il est facultatif pour le moment), on finirait sûrement par nous l’imposer tout en éliminant le passeport traditionnel car tous les pays tôt ou tard suivront la tendance -- mondialisation oblige. Non seulement, avons-nous mis en garde la population contre le risque d’une ingérence indue de la part du gouvernement dans notre vie privée puisque nos déplacements pourraient être suivis au gré des bureaucrates, mais nous avons aussi exprimé nos craintes face à l’usage que le secteur privé pourrait éventuellement en faire.

Bien sûr le permis de conduire à puce intégrée est encore trop nouveau pour pouvoir observer des abus quelconques, mais le GPS qui l’est moins, commence à devenir un vrai sabot de Denver pour des citoyens à qui on a caché une fonction sournoise du GPS.

En effet, on apprend par l’article lié ci bas, qu’on peut immobiliser à distance le véhicule de quiconque est en retard avec ses paiements. Très commode pour le créancier vous en conviendrez, mais peut-on en dire autant pour les endettés que, si ils disent vrai, n'étaient pas mis au courant de la présence d'un tel dispositif dans leur véhicule lors de la signature du contrat ?

Friday, 17 April 2009

A MESSAGE FROM LEAP


Have you noticed that there's been a great awakening about the harms of the "war on drugs"? The media and politicians are paying attention like never before.

I'm writing to tell you about a new way you can help keep this wave going and show your support for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at the same time.

When I co-founded LEAP seven years ago I used to say I would not see the end of the "war on drugs" in my lifetime. But over these past weeks I've changed my mind about that, because things are changing. And fast.

Just look at all the media attention LEAP has been getting lately: 30-year veteran federal anti-drug agent Terry Nelson was recently on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, Judge James Gray was on Fox Business Channel and CNN, and LEAP speakers have recently been featured in newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald and the Houston Chronicle.

More people are talking about the "drug war" than ever before, and you can help continue this conversation by wearing an official LEAP badge lapel pin just like our law enforcement speakers do. When you wear the LEAP shield, people will ask you about it, giving you the opportunity to talk about the harms of prohibition and invite them to join our movement.

Please go to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MtxIF5BV6XVb209vk%2BreE6yAi7OtaU7a right now and make a donation of just five bucks (or more, if you can afford it), and we'll mail you a badge so you can start wearing it and helping to build our movement.Of course, our efforts aren't just all talk. LEAP is making a real impact on prohibitionist policies both on a national level and regionally:

On Capitol Hill, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia just introduced a bill to create a blue ribbon commission to investigate whether we should keep sending so many people to jail for drugs (you and I already know we shouldn't, but the commission will help more politicians to realize it). This is exactly what LEAP's education specialist Howard Wooldridge has been advocating in the halls of Congress; last year, he met with all 535 congressional offices, asking them to create a commission -- and now it's happening!

In November, LEAP was proudly involved in helping pass - by a two-to-one margin - a voter initiative to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. Now, citizens there no longer face arrest just for possessing small amounts.

These are just two examples of how our cops are making more of an impact than ever before. But we simply cannot do this important work by ourselves. We need your help.

Imagine for a moment what we can accomplish when thousands of citizens stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our law enforcers, not only with their dollars but by being advocates on the street and helping to build this movement through one-on-one conversations sparked by simple gold badges.

Please make a one-time donation or monthly pledge of just five dollars today to receive your official LEAP badge lapel pin.

Of course, it's great if you want to donate more, because we sure need it. It costs money to put our speakers in front of legislators, media and other audiences around the U.S. and the rest of the world. Whether you can give $5.00 or $500.00 to get your LEAP badge, this type of grassroots effort is how this movement has gained so much momentum and it's how we'll win the war against the "drug war." We will succeed because no one can make a legitimate argument against what our law enforcers and civilian supporters have seen with our own eyes. So please, show your support for LEAP today with a donation so you can show your support for LEAP tomorrow by proudly displaying our shield on your lapel, shirt, backpack or hat. It's fast, it's easy and it's time.

Sincerely,
Peter Christ
Co-Founder
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

P.S. Five dollars probably isn't a lot of money to you, but it adds up to a lot for LEAP when combined with generous donations of hundreds or thousands of other supporters just like you, especially if those gifts are sustaining monthly pledges. So, please, go to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Zp%2FBFOi05MQZjWoUr0abCqyAi7OtaU7a to do your part by chipping in today.

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

THE YEAR THE CUPCAKE BECAME A KILLER


It is mind boggling how public health can justify their outrageous fear mongering using vulnerable children. Children take at face value anything they hear, see or read and can’t tell the difference between propaganda and fact. As if parents didn’t have enough in their hands to properly educate their children against a number of real dangers in society, they now have to fight exaggerated public health messages coming from their own government paid for with their own taxes.

Where, oh where will all this lead and when oh when will we see some measure and common sense return? No matter how hard we try to educate our children against hyperbole, no matter how forcefully we try to push back the message of extremists, our children are being indoctrinated by school, governments and their peers to be fearful of anything that is deemed unhealthy by public bureaucrats regardless of how counterproductive such messages have become. All one has to remember is how bulimia and anorexia now afflict children in their pre-puberty years.

In the following link you will read one example of such fear mongering tactics. C.A.G.E. has filed official complaints to different advertizing ethics commitees in the past for similar Canadian advertizements, but they somehow found a way to spin their way out of the necessary sanctions to be taken against the advertizers. Massive complaining however, can and will eventually make a difference. Please do not hesitate to officially complain to the proper authorities any time you consider that a message, public or not, has gone too far.

Sunday, 12 April 2009

LA POLITIQUE ''AU CAS OÙ'' DU GOUVERNEMENT DU QUÉBEC SOUS ATTAQUE


Dans le site de Santé Canada on peut y lire :

L'Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire (ARLA) de Santé Canada, organisme fédéral qui réglemente les pesticides au Canada, a terminé sa réévaluation de l'acide (2,4-dichlorophénoxy)acétique (2,4-D). Santé Canada a conclu que le 2,4-D satisfait aux normes rigoureuses relatives à la santé et à la sécurité et qu'il peut continuer d'être vendu et utilisé au Canada.

Le rapport de l’INSPQ arrive à la conclusion suivante :

Les données de toxicité aiguë disponibles indiquent que le 2,4-D est faiblement à légèrement toxique pour les voies d’exposition orale, cutanée ou par inhalation. Lorsque les règles d’utilisation sont respectées, il devrait y avoir peu de risque d’intoxication aiguë à cet herbicide. Or, il apparaît important que ces règles soient connues de la population qui utilise souvent les pesticides sans se soucier de leur exposition. Même quand ce sont des professionnels qui effectuent les tâches de contrôle antiparasitaire, il n’est pas rare de voir de jeunes enfants jouer sur les terrains peu de temps après l’application des produits.

Le 2,4-D a été néanmoins banni au Québec et très récemment, l’Ontario a suivi. Par la lecture du document complet du rapport de l’INSPQ on peut conclure que le 2,4-D a été banni uniquement par précaution et pour protéger les enfants des parents mal informés ou insouciants puisqu’aucune étude a pu démontrer la nocivité du produit à moins de s’y trouver en contacte directe, en jouant sur la pelouse fraîchement traitée par exemple. Dans quel monde vivrions-nous s’il fallait qu’on bannisse tout produit tel que les arachides, les couteaux, les allumettes, les produits nettoyants, l’alcool, les médicaments pour ne nommer que quelques uns, qui sont laissés à la portée des enfants par des parents insouciants et irresponsables !

Or, en raison de l’irresponsabilité de certains parents qui ne respectent pas les mises en garde qui accompagnent le produit 2,4-D, tous les citoyens du Québec se trouvent pénalisés.

Un autre phénomène très intéressant qu'on a observé est le fait que toutes les études présentées dans le rapport de l’INSPQ arrivent à des failles et des résultats plus ou moins semblables à celles de la fumée secondaire. Or, pendant qu’on accentue et on exagère les méfaits de la fumée secondaire basés sur des facteurs de risque aussi faibles (voire inexistants) que ceux de l’herbicide 2,4-D, les scientifiques sont beaucoup plus objectifs lorsqu’il s’agit de se prononcer sur les méfaits de ce dernier et sur les résultats de ces études qu’ils qualifient de non-concluantes.

Aussi, il serait très intéressant de suivre l’action en justice de Dow Chemicals contre le gouvernement du Québec pour deux raisons : La première est de voir jusqu’à quel point on peut légiférer sur une base de ‘’au cas où’’, la deuxième est de voir jusqu’à quel point ces études épidémiologiques seront acceptées comme preuve légale de part ou d’autre.

Herbicides: Ottawa doit défendre la loi québécoise

Thursday, 9 April 2009

DR. KAMAL CHAOUACHI BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON TOBACCO KONTROL

We refer you to an interview Chris Snowdon from Velvet Glove Iron Fist did with Dr. Kamal Chaouachi.

Dr. Chaouachi, a world renown hookah tobacco expert analyst and an enemy of smoking bans, is outraged by what he observes is happening in Tobacco Kontrol and has become very vocal about it.

He doesn’t have too many good words for any of the Big Pharma puppets starting from the top with the WHO right down to the globalink community – a list serve comprised of approximately 6000 members who among other things give their version of ‘’expert’’ advice to the decision makers in various countries that want to follow the tobacco de facto prohibition trend.

None of it surprises us in the least, but it’s good to have it confirmed from yet another scientist from the inside. Let’s hope Dr. Chaouachi’s actions will motivate more and more conscientious scientists to blow the whistle. Compared to the anti-tobacco industry the tobacco industry is beginning to look like boy scouts.

A global prison?

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

DRUG PROHIBITION CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES

The logic is infallible. By making drugs illegal, you push them underground and create an uncontrollable market. Producers and suppliers cannot solve their problems with lawyers and letters, so they resort to guns and bullets. As long as there is a demand there will be competition to supply the users, and as long as it is illegal, the profits will be huge.

Attacking the demand by jailing drug users is creating a huge problem of prison overcrowding and the costly redirection of resources from other more important needs of society. People's lives are being ruined by Criminal Records in ways fare worse than any token drug use could ever amount to, and drug addicts are being jailed instead of receiving assistance and treatment.

The "War On Drugs" is a failure on almost every count. Certain Canadian provinces as well as Mexico realized how detrimental to society was this failed Drug policy, but failed to implement reform due to pressure from the U.S. and its all-powerful Drug Enforcement Agency.

Now that the U.S. Senate is preparing to take a hard cold look at the facts surrounding drug prohibition, it is important that all lovers of freedom and enemies of Nanny Interventionism speak up and be heard. We encourage you to write to Senator Jim Webb, as per the link provided below leading to an article from L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), and voice your support for a more rational, logical approach to recreational drugs.

Finally, Congress discusses prohibition!

FORUM

FRANÇAIS À SUIVRE

We are happy to announce that through a collaboration between C.A.G.E., Citizens for Civil Liberties and mychoice.ca, we have now reestablished a public forum for our respective members and the public in general. Please don’t hesitate to register and invite your friends to join us in the sharing of ideas.

You can access it at: http://www.civilliberties.freeforums.org or by clicking on the icon FORUM on the right hand of this page.

Hope to read you there often.







Nous sommes heureux d’annoncer que nous avons rétablit un forum public pour l’usage de nos membres et le public en général. Le forum est le fruit d’une collaboration entre C.A.G.E., Citizens for Civil Liberties et monchoix.ca et nous invitons donc tous les membres de ces trois organismes de s’inscrire et inviter leurs amis d’en faire autant dans le but de partager nos idées.


Vous pouvez y accéder en cliquant ici : http://www.civilliberties.freeforums.org ou sur l’icône à la droite de cette page.

Au plaisir de vous y lire souvent.

Monday, 6 April 2009

DANS L'ATTENTE DE MOURIR...EN TOUTE SÉCURITÉ


Voici un exemple parfait d’une société qui favorise la sécurité (réelle ou utopique) à la liberté et à la dignité humaine.

Les personnes âgées autonomes, résidentes des foyers privés, sont soumises par la loi à des règlements dignes de ceux destinés aux enfants préscolaires sous le seul prétexte que c’est pour leur bien. En évoquant l’absence de préposés qualifiés (sic) tels que ceux des CHSLD pour justifier ces règlements, ces personnes âgées, mais entières tout de même, sont ainsi réduites à être tout à fait dépendantes des préposés qui en ont soin, condition qui les soustrait de toute motivation de continuer de s’occuper d’elles même dans la dignité et le respect selon le degré d’autonomie de chacune.

Les bureaucrates versent encore dans la généralisation en considérant que les responsables de ces résidences privées sont trop bêtes pour juger ce que chaque résident est capable d’accomplir par lui-même et on dicte ainsi des lois applicables à tout le monde, autonome ou pas, lucide ou pas, sous le soin des gens responsables ou pas. Les bureaucrates se déchargent ainsi de tout effort supplémentaire de faire un suivi régulier pour détecter les abus et assurer le bien-être de nos ainés et on remplace celui-ci par des cadenas pour ne pas accéder à l’armoire qui contient les médicaments, la salle de lavage ou les marches qui mènent au sous-sol.

Un parking pour personnes en attente de mourir en toute sécurité quoi !

Pour quand le jour que le gouvernement va rentrer dans nos maisons privées et nous exiger les mêmes règlements en tant qu’aidant naturel d'un parent qu’on maintient à domicile ?

Des règles plus strictes dans les résidences privées

CREATING POLICY ON FACT

Letter from one of our members to Mr. R. Liepert, Alberta Health Minister.

Our politicians should be flooded with letters such as this one. They can ignore a handful, but they cannot ignore hundreds and hundreds of them. Sending your letters regular mail will get more attention every time.

Mr. R. Liepert.
Health Minister
Province of Alberta

I heard Mr. Stelmach on the radio last week saying that our Provincial Government MUST base legislation on fact. Why, then, does the Government continue to keep the AlbertaTobacco Reduction law in force?

The anti-smoking lobby based the majority of it's campaign to pass these 'Freedom Crushing' laws on false information, as you are aware. Your administration did the same, using information from this lobby & Health Canada (whom also has lied to us.)

For example: "smoking causes lung cancer" (Health Canada). If this were true, all smokers would die of lung cancer-which they don't. A falsehood!

I've enclosed yet another link in the "false information chain" that proves the smoking laws in this province are based on anything BUT fact.(pdf-courtesy C.A.G.E.)

I ask you again to bring back the freedom of choice for Alberta's Business owners whether to allow smoking or not.

In these times, you would be bringing back some of Albertan's high level of morale which, in the past, has helped us turn things around. Not to mention restoring lottery-charity revenues generated at VLT machines, Casinos & Bingo halls. (This revenue is way down as you are also aware). People would have a CHOICE again.

Sincerely,
D. Watt

Thursday, 2 April 2009

OUR PERSONAL LIVES ARE NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENTS

Support those who are truly and effectively investing time, effort and money into the fight for our personal freedoms and liberties.

Pierre Lemieux is one of those individuals par excellence, and he fights our battles on many different fronts.

Whatever your thoughts or feelings may be regarding firearms, the point of this constitutional challenge is important to us all: OUR PERSONAL LIVES ARE NO BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S.This upcoming court case is quite important and senior members of C.A.G.E. will be there to support him.

FIREARMS LICENSING:
My love-life is no business of the government!
I am Paul Rogan, publisher of Canadian Access to Firearms, and a friend of Pierre Lemieux. I am helping raise money for Pierre Lemieux's fund in his challenge to the Canadian gun controls following the revocation of his right to have "armes for his defence" to paraphrase our English forebears. He will be in court in Mont-Laurier on May 26 and 27.
See http://www.pierrelemieux.org/ and especially http://www.libertyincanada.com/.
More details on Pierre's case are available at http://www.pierrelemieux.org/policecanada/cafc-cfc.html.

The gist of the case is that, in renewing "his" firearms licence (as he is forced to do every five years), Pierre refused to answer a question about his love life. Question 6(d) asks, "During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?" As an answer, he wrote, "My love affairs are none of your business." This form, like all the documents related to his case, is available on-line at the above address.

In the National Post of June 2, 2007, George Jonas wrote a column about Pierre's refusal to answer one of the intrusive questions. And Pierre himself wrote a column in the Ottawa Citizen of November 8, 2007.On December 1, 2007, Pierre received a registered letter from the Québec provincial police, which administers the federal gun control in cooperation with the RCMP's Miramichi bureaucracy. It was a "Notice of refusal to issue a firearms licence". The reason is clearly stated as his refusal to answer the intrusive question.

As a consequence, he was also notified that the "registration certificates" of his legally registered guns were revoked.

He filed a motion of appeal before the Québec provincial court. While he asks for the licence refusal to be quashed and apologies be issued, he argues that the Firearms Act and related Criminal Code provisions are unconstitutional, and that he does not need any licence to exercise his traditional liberties - his, and our, RIGHT to possess firearms.

His pro bono counsel is Richard A. Fritze, the well-known Alberta lawyer and committed defender of firearms owners and their rights. Financial support for travel and accommodation expenses, including for their high-powered expert witnesses, in what promises to be a long, difficult and protracted battle to reclaim our liberties is needed. The experts are all attending for only the cost of their travel and accommodations, a very generous donation in and of itself, but one which shows the level of dedication and commitment to this vital cause.
Pierre represents the best chance the gun community in Canada has had since Oscar Lacombe in 2001.

Already help is being pledged to his case (more details will be provided in my newspaper, Canadian Access to Firearms, regarding donors and expert witnesses). Richard Fritze is offering his time - for free at this stage of the proceedings (the Provincial Court) - a contribution worth over $50,000. My newspaper is giving three full pages of advertising, worth $500 each, and I have myself thrown another $500 cash in the pot. Mr. Barry Holland, has already donated $1,000. The Canadian Shooting Sports Associations (CSSA) has pledged $500. Other donations are starting to come in. But we need more.

We should be able to keep the out-of-pocket expenses to reasonable limits - we estimate we need around $10,000 in Provincial Court - again excluding Richard's time, which is provided free.

TAX DEDUCTIBILTY FOR ALL DONATIONS

All it will take is for 100 of us putting up $ 100, or 200 of us putting up $ 50.
Better, I suggest that you give $168, $268 (or $568), in "honour" of the 1995 Bill C-68 which brought us this infamy.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/) has graciously agreed to help us, so that any donor of $68 or more will receive a charitable tax receipt making the full donation deductible from your taxable income.

There are several ways to make your donation:
1) You can send your check directly to CCF:
Canadian Constitution Foundation
235, 3545 - 32 Ave. N.E., Suite 641
Calgary, AB Canada T1Y 6M6

Do not forget to indicate on your cheque that that you wish to donate to the "Pierre Lemieux Legal Fund".
2) Go to http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/ and make your donation online credit card.
Go to "Donate to CCF"
Go to "Optional: Designation"
Mark the "Property rights research and court cases" tab, the fifth one down on "Optional Designation" .
ALL donations made under this option will be earmarked exclusively for the Pierre Lemieux's Defence fund.
If you want your donation to be reflected immediately in our statistics, feel free to send me an e-mail ( firearms@northwestel.net ) confirming the amount of your donatio.
Any money over and above what the April 26-27 court case will cost will be spent on the follow-up court battle - or on similar cases. If we win, it is certain the Crown will appeal. If we lose, we will appeal.I know we can do it!
My warm thanks to all for taking the time to acquaint yourself with this case! Looking forward to your kind and generous response!

Paul RoganPublisher of Canadian Access

Nota Bene: Please feel free to forward this appeal to anyone you know who is interested in this cause. With our warmest thanks!

WHO BETWEEN TOBACCO AND ANTI-TOBACCO IS EXACERBATING POVERTY?


Straight from the great masters of public health - the WHO - who in an overflow of limitless compassion and immense concern for these less than fortunate citizens of the world, they state:

‘’Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco's role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields.’’

So God bless them, among others, they came up with two of the most efficient solutions in their exemplary philanthropic efforts to save the most impoverished of the citizens of the world and their families. And this despite their incessant proclamations that tobacco addiction is comparable to heroin and cocaine addictions! (Emphasis ours)

Experience has shown that there are many cost-effective tobacco control measures that can be used in different settings and that can have a significant impact on tobacco consumption. The most cost-effective strategies are population-wide public policies, like bans on direct and indirect tobacco advertising, tobacco tax and price increases, smoke-free environments in all public and workplaces, and large clear graphic health messages on tobacco packaging. All these measures are discussed on the provisions of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

And let’s not forget that they also refuse to hire smokers thus setting the trend for an ever increasing number of employers to do the same!

Who between tobacco and anti-tobacco is exacerbating poverty?

Why is tobacco a public health priority?