Rights and Freedoms Bulletin (ISSN 1923-998X) is a public service of provided by RightsAndFreedoms.org and KM Publishing Inc., P.O. Box 21004, Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A9

Hackers, the malicious idiots who like to cause trouble for folks simply because they can, found a way to take down ChristopherDiArmani.com.

On January 5th I received a notice from Google that ChristopherDiArmani.com contained a link to a site that contained malware (software that might harm your computer) if you visited my website. After investigating, I found and removed the link and asked Google to review their findings the next day.

No sooner had I submitted that request than my own anti-virus software began issuing warnings that a virus was rampant on the website.

Now, while one might like to think it’s a malicious conspiracy trying to take down a pro-gun, pro-free speech, pro-Rights and Freedoms voice, I find it hard to put on my tin-foil hat and blame a conspiracy when simple human stupidity provides an adequate answer.

Sure, there may be some truth to the notion that I’m making some headway in the battle for our Rights and Freedoms, but the more likely reality is, I believe, that there are many stupid (albeit talented) people out there who have nothing better to do than cause aggravation for people they don’t even know.

Thankfully, I implemented a daily backup system back when I first started this site, so the WordPress database was safe. Then it was just a matter of re-creating the software for the entire site from scratch. It’s not as daunting a task as it sounds… Download a clean copy of WordPress, download clean copies of all the plugins used on the site as well as the WordPress theme used here, and then re-build the site on a new server.

Sounds like a lot but it’s really not.All the configuration is contained in the WordPress database backup. Once the clean files are uploaded

and secured, it literally only takes a few minutes to import the database and everything is back and running just as though nothing had ever happened. Of course the constraints of work get in the way, adding to the delay of all this, but that’s life.The longer delay was getting Google to review the website and remove their “Attack Site!” warning.

As of January 10, 2013, the new virus-free ChristopherDiArmani.com is once again online, along with some new security enhancements that will hopefully prevent this kind of annoyance in the future.

Now that Google has reviewed the site and given me their stamp of approval, I can now get back to my daily routine of protecting our Rights and Freedoms!

Yours in Liberty,

Surviving the 2013 Hacker AttackAdvocate for Freedom, get your website hacked?

ChristopherText like this is a link to

online content. These links are provided

to give you easy access to the original news story or other relevant information.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

2 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

Self Defense

Ian Thomson’s acquittal is nothing more than common sense by Lorne Gunter

All Canadians should be relieved that Ian Thomson of Port Colborne, Ont. was acquitted last week on trumped-up charges that he failed to store his firearms safely.

Thomson’s was as clear a case of self-defence as there could be. So Ontario prosecutors determination to put him behind bars can only be judged as an ideologically driven attempt to extinguish ordinary citizens’ right to protect themselves, their homes and loved ones from attack.

In late August 2010, Thomson was awakened by a pre-dawn commotion outside his rural home. When he looked out, he saw a group of masked men lobbing Molotov cocktails at his house and shouting death threats. Police later determined the attack was the result of a long-simmering property dispute between Thomson and a neighbour.

Thomson called 9-1-1 as one of the firebombs crashed through his kitchen window. Then the retired crane operator, who is also a trained firearms instructor and licensed handgun owner, retrieved a pistol and a revolver (both legally registered) from his gun safe.

He loaded both, left the more powerful pistol on his bed and went outside with the revolver, which he used to fire three warning shots — one into his lawn and two into the air. His attackers ran off.

When police arrived, Thomson’s pistol was still on his bed and his revolver was tucked in the waist band of his pajamas as he used a garden hose to put out a fire on his veranda.

Because of the ongoing property dispute, Thomson had installed security cameras around his property. So he was able to give the police video files of the attack.

You might think that would have been the end of it. Officers would give Thomson a pat on the back for the quick action that saved his home and possibly his life.

But when police saw that Thomson had used guns to deter his attackers, they charged him with pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm and two counts of unsafe storage. Indeed, the charges against Thomson were issued even before his attackers were charged.

Realizing they were unlikely to make the pointing and careless use charges stick, Crown attorneys quickly dropped both. But they pursued the unsafe storage cases with fervour for more than two years. So now Thom-son is out of pocket nearly $60,000 for legal fees.

The true tragedy is, he should never have been charged in the first place. Not only was he entirely justified in preserving his own life and home, neither statute nor case law in Canada makes it a crime to have your guns out of your gun safe when you are home — even if your house is not under attack.

The zeal of Crown attorneys in Thomson’s case goes way beyond prosecution. It is persecution, pure and simple.

As in the case of Toronto green grocer David Chen who was arrested in 2009 for forcibly detaining a shoplifter until police could arrive (i.e. performing a citizen’s arrest), this case shows that the professionals in the criminal justice system don’t like competition from regular folks. They see citizens who defend themselves as greater threats to public safety than the criminals themselves.

In Chen’s case, the Crown even made a deal with the criminal, Anthony Bennett, in return for his testimony against Chen.

Thomson’s acquittal does not completely restore citizens’ right to self-defence. It will take years to remove the mistrust of citizen action that has built up in the legal system.

But at least Ian Thomson is no longer being harassed and the rest of us are a bit freer, too.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

3 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

Search and Seizure Violations

You have the right to remain silent … and film the proceedingsby Karen Selick

What have cops got against cameras these days? Increasingly, people are getting arrested, charged or even assaulted by police officers, merely for attempting to take photos or videos of officers at work. Often, police simply command people to stop photographing. Scared into thinking they must be breaking some law, citizens comply.

When Polish visitor Robert Dziekanski died after being tasered at the Vancouver airport in 2007, police seized the now famous video by witness Paul Pritchard, who had to hire a lawyer and threaten court proceedings to get it back.

The American Civil Liberties Union has won numerous court cases against police who illegally harass photogra-phers and videographers, but says nevertheless: “A continuing stream of incidents … makes it clear that the problem is not going away.”

The phenomenon struck close to home on August 2 when I got a phone call at 7:30 a.m. from my client Montana Jones telling me that numerous officers were at her farm with a search warrant. Ms. Jones is suspected of complicity in making 31 rare Shropshire sheep disappear from her farm before they could be seized and killed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on suspicion of disease. (Incidentally, when 26 of the missing sheep were eventually found and killed two months later, all tested disease-free.)

Although Ms. Jones has not been charged with anything, the only phone call the police would let her make was to me, her lawyer. She asked me to call a couple of her friends who live nearby and have them come over to videotape the proceedings. Two friends arrived at separate times with their cameras, but an officer stationed at the farm gate denied them entry and forbade them to take photos. “I have my orders,” was his only explanation.

One of the friends returned later carrying only a pen, her wallet and identification. After being threatened with arrest if she dared walk up the driveway, she was finally allowed entry by a more senior member of the investigation team, but was again warned that she had better not be carrying a cell phone or any other data recording device.

There is no law in Canada that prohibits people from openly photographing police. Section 129 of the Criminal Code prohibits “wilfully obstructing” police in the execution of their duty, but it is hard to imagine how standing by peacefully and videotaping as police searched the premises and piled up items for seizure could be considered obstructing. After all, the police themselves were videotaping on Ms. Jones’ premises — but selectively. They prob-ably didn’t capture themselves ordering her friend to refrain from taking the pictures she was legally entitled to take.

That same day, three other search warrants were executed at the homes of other individuals the CFIA suspects of conspiring with Ms. Jones to save her healthy sheep. At Michael Schmidt’s residence, all cell phones were immedi-ately confiscated.

When a visitor from outside arrived with his cell phone, Schmidt’s wife borrowed it and took photos of police inside her home. Officers seized the phone even though it was clearly outside the scope of the warrant. They returned it three hours later, with the photos erased. When the victim of this apparently illegal seizure objected, police responded, “We can do whatever we want.” But of course, that arrogant response was not permitted to be recorded.

That willful destruction of data by police probably constitutes the offence of mischief under section 430(1.1) of the Criminal Code. The possibility of the victim laying charges is being investigated.

Police must be made to understand that being on duty or executing a search warrant does not transform an officer into a petty dictator with carte blanche to issue arbitrary orders to everyone in sight. Police cannot do “whatever they want.” Citizens have the right to hold them accountable for their actions. Personal cameras are important tools in implementing that right. Bullying people out of using them must cease.

The Baltimore City Police Department is being sued for allegedly seizing and deleting the contents of a man’s cell phone after he recorded officers making an arrest. Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice — which appears to have intervened in the lawsuit — issued guidance to the Baltimore Police recommending that it affirmatively assert individuals’ constitutional right to observe and record police while discharging their duties. Let’s hope this triggers a sea-change in police attitudes not only south of the border, but here in Canada too.

Karen Selick is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

4 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

Privacy Rights

Ottawa police confirm secret test of licence scanner

City police won’t discuss their plan to outfit patrol cars with optical scanners that automatically record and inves-tigate the licence plate numbers of thousands of passing motorists and their movements.

Since fall, Ottawa police have twice denied to the Citizen the testing of an automated licence plate recognition (ALPR) system on an unmarked cruiser patrolling west-side streets.

Confronted with that information again last week, the service admitted it just concluded a successful trial of the technology and hopes to purchase one of the units.

Otherwise, though, it seems police want to keep the public in the dark about the crime-fighting technology that privacy advocates say could be misused as a indiscriminate surveillance tool.

“It would not be appropriate to release any news to the press at this time,” an Ottawa police spokesman wrote in a Friday email cancelling an anticipated interview on ALPR.

How Ottawa plans to use and safeguard the technology remains a mystery, though basic information about how it works is well known.

ALPR was pioneered in Britain to combat the Irish Republican Army. It typically involves up to four all-weather, high-resolution infrared cameras mounted near each corner of a patrol car’s roof. Whenever another car passes the cruiser — in either direction, or parked — the cameras record the licence plate numbers, time and locations, plus a photograph of the vehicles.

The system can operate day or night and supposedly read up to 5,000 Canadian or international plates a minute, up to a differential speed of 320 kilometres an hour and across three lanes of traffic.

The plate number is automatically cross-checked with various databases for matches related to outstanding crimi-nal warrants, stolen vehicles and driving infractions, such as uninsured or suspended drivers.

If a plate receives a positive “hit,” an alert sounds to notify the officer, who then manually re-enters the plate into the database from an in-car computer to confirm the violation.

Several Canadian police departments use the technology, including some RCMP detachments, some Ontario Provincial Police cruisers and municipal police in Toronto, Sudbury, Gatineau and Cornwall.

Police say the system simply automates the existing manual method of checking licence plates on an in-car computer, reducing officers’ driving distractions and catching more criminals, dangerous drivers and other offend-ers.

In the Ottawa trial, it’s believed the system scanned about 2,800 plates during a typical shift, resulting in about 30 hits a day. Each unit costs about $25,000 to $30,000.

But privacy experts say there are hidden costs, especially when the identities and locations of law-abiding motor-ists or “non-hits” end up in police databases.

That was the case in November when British Columbia’s privacy commissioner said the collection of data on non-offenders by Victoria police violates privacy laws.

Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said changes must be made to the police department’s plate recognition program after an investigation suggested the technology could be used as a surveillance tool. The decision could lead to stricter laws to prevent police from keeping data on drivers with no criminal backgrounds or those under no suspicion.

In the case, Denham found Victoria police transferred “hit” as well as “non-hit” data to B.C. RCMP, which deleted the data after 30 minutes. But Denham said any extended use of the information would not be authorized under B.C. law. And she concluded sending the non-hit data to the RCMP is not in line with privacy laws.

“This information is not serving a law enforcement purpose and therefore, VicPD cannot disclose it to the RCMP,” Denham said in her report.

She wants Victoria police to reconfigure their system so data can be deleted immediately after the system deter-mines a licence plate and driver are not under suspicion for any offence.

“Collecting personal information for traffic enforcement and identifying stolen vehicles does not extend to retain-ing data on the law-abiding activities of citizens just in case it may be useful in the future,” she said.

Meanwhile, a politician in the South Carolina legislature last week unveiled a bill to ban the technology altogether in the state.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

5 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

The Firearms Act

Discretionary Powers Part 2

There is a second person that the Firearms Act gives sweeping powers. His (or her) title is Governor in Council (GIC). This person is actually the Governor General. He (or she) can order changes in legislation where the authority is given by the legislation. This is called an Order In Council (OIC).

Under the legislation in the FA, sec 117, the Governor in Council can use an Order In Council to decide why, when, how, and even IF you can own firearms.

This procedure has no parliamentary oversight or control and the Governor in Council acts on ‘advice’ from the government of the day. This section of law is 5 pages long, so I will only highlight and discuss parts of it. To read the full text please visit:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/FullText.html#h-41 117. The Governor in Council may make regulation(a) regulating the issuance of licences, registration certificates and authorizations,

including regulations respecting the purposes for which they may be issued under any provision of this Act and prescribing the circumstances in which persons are or are not eligible to hold licences;

(a.1) deeming permits to export goods, or classes of permits to export goods, that are issued under the Export and Import Permits Act to be authorizations to export for the purposes of this Act;

(b) regulating the revocation of licences, registration certificates and authorizations;(c) prescribing the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or For those of you who have a ‘Restricted’ class firearms licence, do you remember the question on your

application form asking why you wanted a restricted firearm? You have only 2 choices: collecting or target shooting. There is no reference whatsoever to self-defense, a legitimate use of a firearm and for which we have the right under the Criminal Code of Canada, in sec 34:

Self-defense against unprovoked assault 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is

justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or griev-ous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Marginal note:Extent of justification(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in

repelling the assault is justified ifo (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence

with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; ando (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or griev-

ous bodily harm. The first part of Section 117 regulates why you may or may not have a licence and it is the govern-

ment of the day that decides what those regulations are. We have the right to self-defense, but not the right to own the proper tools for an effective defense. As the Ian Thomson case so clearly shows us, the government of Ontario thought Ian Thomson should

NOT have the right to defend himself in the face of grave and imminent assault. That government clearly needs to be changed.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

6 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

However, the government of the day will be “(c) prescribing the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms” and currently Canadian governments believe self-defense is not a legitimate use for a firearm.

Also in this section, “(b) regulating the revocation of licences, registration certifi-cates and authorizations;” could be used to revoke all licences, in which case sec 91 would come into play; 91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who

possesses a firearm without being the holder ofo (a) a licence under which the person may possess it; andShould the government of the day revoke all firearm licenses you (and I) would

immediately become criminals even though we have a valid Possession and Acqui-sition License (PAL).

Guess what would happen next?I explained this to my MP and he told me quite confidently, “But we would

never do that!” The current Conservative government probably wouldn’t, but do you really

believe a Liberal or NDP government wouldn’t? The question remains, however… Why are these regulations in the Firearms Act

if they are never going to be used? One doesn’t need raging paranoia to believe if it was codified into law, it was done so for a very specific purpose.

(i) the establishment and operation of shooting clubs and shooting

ranges,This could be used to limit or shut down any or all shooting ranges. Then ‘target

shooting’ would no longer be a legitimate reason to own a restricted firearm. (g) regulating the operation of gun shows, the activities that may be carried on at gun shows and the

possession and use of firearms at gun shows;Gun shows can be left alone or closed down using this section. (j) regulating the possession and use of restricted weapons;Want to know how the government thinks you should use and where you can possess you restricted fire-

arm? This section covers it and allows them to change it. (l) regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, acquisition, possession, trans-

fer, exportation, importation, use and disposal or disposition of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, prohibited ammunition and explosive substances

Another section that that regulates IF you can acquire a gun, HOW to or if you can transport it, HOW and WHERE it can be stored, and HOW they think you should use it.

(o) creating offences consisting of contraventions of the regulations made under paragraph

(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k.1), (k.2), (l), (m) or (n);As if there were not enough offences to charge you with in the Firearms Act, here they have the power to

create an offence with the stroke of a pen. I find that to be… well… offensive. (p) prescribing the fees that are to be paid to Her Majesty in right of Canada for licences,

registration certificates, authorizations, approvals of transfers and importations of firearms and confirmations by customs officers of documents under this Act;

Although the Conservatives have used this to take some pressure off gun owners, I am fairly sure that the Liberals had intended to make gun ownership prohibitively costly to all gun owners. Expect this section to

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

7 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

be well used when another party comes into power. (w) prescribing anything that by any provision of this Act is to be prescribed by regulation.For me this one really stands out. Just in case anything was missed being regulated, they throw in a ‘catch

all’ regulation that covers EVERYTHING.

There is a ray of hope in this section, however. This power COULD BE USED to gut, declaw, and proverbi-ally neuter the Firearms Act. Complete repeal of the Firearms Act would be preferable.

Remember, every single one of these regulations can be changed with the stroke of a pen by a person who acts on ‘advice’ from the government in power at the time. If that doesn’t scare you, you haven’t been paying attention.

These regulations are so wide open to abuse and thuggery that no one person should have this kind of arbitrary power.

These are just some of the highlights from Section 117. Read them over for yourself. Then write your Member of Parliament and demand these sections of law be changed.

Know your rights or you won’t have any.

Todd BrownCo-founder - Concerned Gun Owners of Albertahttp://www.facebook.com/groups/376543929052940/

2013 Index of Economic Freedom

The Heritage Foundation released an interesting ranking of the economic freedom of countries in the world. Canada came in 6th. To read the full report on Canada’s ranking, download the pdf here.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

8 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 117 Jan 12, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

From Our Canadian Courts

Once again, the Canadian “justice” system rewards Police Brutality

A Toronto police bicycle patrol officer has been found not guilty of assaulting a retiree outside a down-town Toronto boarding house. Const. Edward Ing hugged defence lawyer Alan Gold after Justice Steven Clark delivered the verdict Thursday morning in Brampton court.

“There was an air of reality to his explanation,” Clark said in acquitting the officer.Outside court, Ing said he had no hard feelings towards prosecutor Phil Perlmutter. It was the second

time before the courts on the same charge for Ing, who was originally convicted of assault causing bodily harm with his bicycle patrol partner, Const. John Cruz.

Upon appeal, Superior Court Justice Michael Code threw out their convictions last June and ordered a new trial. The Crown later decided to withdraw the charge against Cruz, who was one of several officers who hugged Ing after they heard Thursday’s verdict.

Ing and Cruz were charged after retired ironworker Richard Moore, 61, accused them of severely beating him in April 2009 outside his downtown Gerrard St. boarding house. The officers denied the beating allega-tions and said Ing fell to the ground during the arrest.

Moore was able to prove he wasn’t drunk, as the officers alleged, by asking for a blood-alcohol test at the hospital where he was treated for his beating. The provincial Special Investigations Unit, which probes alle-gations of police causing serious injuries, was alerted to the case by Moore’s lawyer, Barry Swadron.

Clark said Ing could have had a mistaken but honest belief that Moore was drunk because Moore walked with an unsteady gait because of medication. Clark said that Ing did not appear to use unreasonable force in the arrest of Moore.

“His actions were not gratuitous, unnecessary or punishing,” Clark told court.Clark said that Moore displayed “belligerence, lack of cooperation, rudeness [and] stumbling.”“Whether or not he was the author of his own misfortune cannot be determined definitely,” Clark told court.Moore suffered a laceration to his head that required stitches and two broken ribs during the arrest.

Clark noted that Ing and Cruz immediately called for an ambulance and did not try to cover up the injuries.After their original convictions, Ing and Cruz remained on the police force, performing administrative

duties that kept them off the street, pending the outcome of their appeals.They were sentenced to 12-month conditional sentences on June 28, 2011.In their original trial, Brampton court Justice J.E. Allen said he only stopped short of sending them to jail

because he feared for their safety behind bars.After hearing their appeal, Code concluded that Allen made an error when he determined that Moore’s

injuries showed he was roughly manhandled and repeatedly struck.“The medical evidence, standing alone, was equivocal as to the cause of Moore’s injuries,” Code concluded. “The

broken ribs were equally consistent with a fall as with a beating. In other words, the medical evidence was equally consistent with Ing and Cruz’s account as it was with Moore’s account.”

As he passed his sentence on June 2011, Allen unleashed a scathing attack on downtown 51 Division, calling it a “culture which rejects discipline.”

“This behaviour we expect from gang members on the street, not the police,” he said. Allen also blasted senior officers at 51 Division for not reporting the incident to the Special Investigations Unit.

“This crime was committed because Mr. Moore spoke disrespectfully to the officers, calling them the rich man’s army and suggesting they go arrest some gangster,” Allen said.

Toronto cops beat the crap out of a guy, lie in court and get sentenced to house arrest R ?For Toronto Police Services Constables Edward Ing and John Cruz the Special Treatment Just R

Won’t StopToronto Police Service convicted thugs Edward Ing & John Cruz want MORE special treatmen R t