Below: Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights Watch is interviewed as she leaves the courtroom on Day 1 of Obama’s first big pretrial for a military commission into the possible terrorist actions of a 14-year old. Terrible sound, I know, but well worth it for her explanation of how after Khadr has been tortured to confess at Bagram, the “clean team” comes in and tries to elicit the same “confessions” under friendlier conditions so that the new clean confessions will be admissible in court.

 
A word about Khadr’s confessions under torture. According to Eviatar, FBI agent Robert Fuller

elicited from Khadr the identification of another Canadian, Maher Arar, who Khadr during interviews by Fuller claimed was training with al Qaeda operatives at a training camp at a time that, it later turned out, Arar was actually at home in Canada.

Shortly after Fuller reported the identification of Arar to the government, Arar was apprehended at JFK airport and rendered to Syria for interrogation there.

FBI agent Fuller also got Khadr to confess to throwing a grenade at US forces.

Well so much for confessions elicited via sleep deprivation, denial of pain medication, stress positions, being forced to urinate on himself and being used as a human mop, being terrorized by barking dogs, and being threatened with rape and torture. Khadr’s defence team has only been allowed to interview three of Khadr’s 30 interrogators at Bagram and Gitmo, two of whom admit the 15-year old Khadr was threatened with rape.

In the vid above Eviatar also mentions no one knowing what the rules are. This is because Secretary of Defense Robert Gates only signed off on and issued the 2009 Manual for the Military Commissions Act on Wednesday night, 12 hours before the pretrial began, meaning that no one involved had time to read it beforehand and consequently no one knew what the rules were. After a four hour adjournment to read it, now they can’t agree on whether or not the US Constitution applies.

Mike Berrigan, deputy chief defense council : “We don’t know what the law is.”

You don’t really have one, sir. That’s why it’s called a kangaroo court — it leaps over the law to a foregone conclusion. That’s the whole point.

Why is the mainstream media not covering this story? Why have The Globe and Mail, CBC, The National Post, Maclean’s et al. seemingly missed out on the fact that Hollinger Publishing — Conrad Black’s former newspaper holdings company — has been forced into bankruptcy protection? Why have these national news organizations not reported that more than 3,000 retired newspaper workers — former employees of the Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen and other papers now owned by Canwest — were advised by letter just before Christmas that their pension and benefit plans could be in jeopardy?

There are many more questions that demand immediate answers:

· What happened to the $3.5 billion that Hollinger received for the sale of its newspapers to Canwest in 2000? In a court filing (Hollinger Canadian Publishing Holdings Co., File No. 09-8503-00CL. Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Toronto), the company says it has no assets and about $24.5 CAD million in cash. We do know what may have happened to about $6.1 million of it (currently the subject of a US Supreme Court appeal) but what about the rest?

· Why was not some of this money set aside to take care of Hollinger’s existing liabilities when the sale took place?

· What happened to the money that the Southam and Hollinger retirees paid into the pension fund in good faith over a period of many years (in my case, 27)? We were told the money was being held in trust and would not be affected by any future financial problems of the employer. Was this a lie?

· Why did Canwest not assume continuing responsibility for Hollinger’s pension obligations when it bought the company in 2000?

· How did Hollinger expect to continue meeting its pension obligations when, as the letter to retirees now says, it had no “ongoing business activity” to bring new revenue into the company?

· Why did Hollinger tell the retirees in 2007 that the “events” affecting the financial status of the company (i.e. the indictment of certain directors for defrauding shareholders) should not have any impact on the pension and benefit programs administered by the company?

· Why did a Hollinger employee subsequently tell me that my pension plan was fully funded and protected when, in fact, it is “not insured or prefunded”?

· Why is the Sun-Times Media Group, the parent company of Hollinger, not assuming responsibility for the debts of its subsidiary?

Somebody knows the answers. The mainstream media has the resources — and surely as much interest as those of us who used to work for the Southam and Hollinger newspapers — to find out what they are. Canwest is also in what it euphemistically calls “creditor protection.” Could its retirees find themselves in the same situation a few years hence? It’s in their interest to start seeking answers now.

An enthusiastic supporter of the Beijing Olympics who posted his photos online at Flickr under a creative commons licence – which allows anyone to use them for free with attribution – received a cease and desist letter from International Olympic Committee lawyers:

“Images of the Games taken by you may not be used for any purposes other than private, which does not include licensing of the pictures to third parties …

“In addition, please be advised that the Olympic identifications such as the Olympic rings, the emblems and mascots of the Olympic Games, the word `Olympic’ and images of the Olympic Games belong to the IOC and cannot be used without its prior written consent.”

Even the “O” word can’t be used now without prior written IOC consent?

I knew words like “winter” and “gold” and “Vancouver” were off-limits — but, somewhat inconsistently, not words like: boondoggle, evictions, SROs, homelessness, or cost over-runs.

Very well, have it your way. “Owelympics” it is then from now on.

Out here in BC at Owelympics Central, we’ve moved up from criminalizing 2010 Five Ring Circus protest in public places and stalking nursing students on campus who happen to know somebody who doesn’t support the Owelympics.

Now the BC government wants to remove signs and graffiti from inside your home even without your consent: (h/t Waterbaby by email for Bill 13):

Bill 13 Part 9 – Enforcement of bylaws in relation to signs

32 (1) Subject to this section and section 34, an officer or employee of a specified municipality [Vancouver, Richmond, Whistler] or a person authorized by the council of a specified municipality has the authority to enter on property, and to enter into property, without the consent of the owner or occupier for the purpose of enforcing, in accordance with subsection (4), the specified municipality’s bylaws in relation to signs.

(2) Except in the case of a significant risk to the health or safety of persons or property, a person
(a) may only exercise the authority in subsection (1) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, and
(b) must take reasonable steps to advise the owner or occupier before entering the property.

Now note the following wording : “if any of the following applies”

(3) A person may only exercise the authority in subsection (1) to enter into a place that is occupied as a private dwelling if any of the following applies:
(a) the occupier consents;
(b) the specified municipality has given the occupier at least 24 hours’ written notice of the entry and the reasons for it;
(c) the entry is made under the authority of a warrant under this or another Act;
(d) the person exercising the authority has reasonable grounds for believing that failure to enter may result in a significant risk to the health or safety of the occupier or other persons.

(4) A person who has entered on property, or entered into property, in accordance with this section has the authority to enforce the specified municipality’s bylaws in relation to signs by removing, covering or altering the sign that is in contravention of these bylaws.

Ditto for “graffiti”, covered in section 33.

(34) The powers in sections 32 and 33 may be exercised only during the period of February 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.

CBC: “City officials have said the law is intended to clamp down on so-called ambush marketing, and it includes an exception for celebratory signs, which are defined as those that celebrate the 2010 Winter Games and create or add to the festive atmosphere.”

For the rest of us “uncelebratory” types, there’s the prospect of a $10,000-a-day fine and six months in jail if we don’t keep our little heads down from Feb 1 to March 31.

And if, as spun by city officials, they were only worried about “businesses trying to exploit the games logo,” why also make a separate provision for busting graffiti?

Answering questions about Olympic security back in June, city manager Penny Ballem told the Vancouver council. “The city has no accountability in terms of the role and policies of the 2010 Integrated Security Unit. We are only able to ask questions.”

A week ago I heard BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Kash Heed give the same excuse on CBC radio about the stalking of the nursing student : “There’s nothing we can do. It’s a global thing,” he said.

Fun fact: Two of the RCMP who presided over the tasering and killing of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport two years ago – Monty Robinson and Bill Bentley – have been reassigned to Owelympic detail.

“A lot of people love me, though most of them think I’m strange.”

He’s right. Johnston is nearly as well-known to the citizens of Victoria, BC as Batman is to Gothamites. If they haven’t encountered him personally, they’ve read about him in the newspaper or seen him on the news. And many do consider him decidedly strange — for his decision to leave his job as a baker and live without income, for his campaign to earn the homeless “The Right to Sleep,” adequately sheltered, on public property. He’s been described both as a man on a mission and a public nuisance.

“It’s ostracizing somewhat,” he says of his crusade and the high profile that has come with it, “just because every conversation leads back to the same thing.”

Lately those conversations have been about Johnston’s astonishing pair of legal victories. Late last year, after several years in and out of court, jail, and the media, he scored an upset win when BC Supreme Court Judge Madam Justice Carol Ross overturned Victoria’s anti-camping bylaw on the grounds that it prevented homeless people, forced to sleep outdoors due to a shortage of beds in shelters, from protecting themselves from the elements. Inadequate protection, Ross stated, can lead to fatal health conditions.

The City immediately reshaped its enforcement policy to allow camping on public property only between the hours of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. (later revised to 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Johnston and some others promptly broke the new ban and were arrested. But on January 28, 2009, Judge Brian McKenzie found them not guilty, ruling that the City was enforcing a bylaw that, because of the earlier decision, effectively no longer existed. “I would like if the city sat down with a map,” Johnston wrote later the same day in his online journal. “I would like a well advertised public forum to discuss where to go from here and the feasibility of areas where enjoying the liberty of survival can be legal.”

In other words, sections of cities set aside for tents. The alternative, he says, will eventually be internment camps for the poor.

January 20, 2004: From David Arthur Johnston’s Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann’s Academy

It was a good night— got some sleep that I had been needing— there wasn’t a lot in the dumpster (few apples, some mustard, tomato basil dip, some bread, case of diet 7-up(yik))…

cool thing- take a larger can (one up from a regular ‘Campbell’s soup can’, pineapple or chick peas size)- keep the lid- poke three small holes on the side near the bottom- poke three small holes on the side near the top- poke a few tiny holes in the end- place a candle inside- have the flame supported about halfway up the can- you can put the lid on top if you could fry- or you can use a smaller can with water/liquid to boil— just a candle- it’s so cool

I first met David on a crisp autumn day in October, 2007. He had arranged the use of a small seminar room at the Victoria Public Library, where we spent over an hour discussing his life, philosophies, and court cases. David sports a long, curly brown beard that covers most of his face and neck. His long, straight hair is tied in a ponytail at the base of his neck. That day, he wore a pair of patched, brown pants, rolled up mid-calf, and a brownish yellow V-neck sweater with a collared shirt beneath it. Had I not already read about him, I might have assumed him to be a hippie, or perhaps a musician or artist.

He had been living off the economic grid for 10 years. “I knew contentment was impossible with the nine-to-five and knew that I needed to really think about that, so I gave everything away and put myself into a position where I could think without distraction,” he told me. So in the summer of 1997, he quit his job and moved out of his Victoria apartment. He hasn’t chased a paycheck or paid rent since.

David ended up back in Alberta, where he grew up and where the majority of his family still resides. He bounced around the province from 1997 to 2000, when he returned to Victoria because “it was a place I knew and an international high traffic spot.”

He lived outdoors and, in 2003, ended his relationship with money. “I was probably getting by on $1000 a year. So my progression into not using money anymore was gradual. And then come the time that I did it, the only thing I was spending money on was cigarettes, marijuana, beer, and coffee.”

Most people panic when money is tight, worried about car payments and phone bills and groceries, but for David, letting go of money meant finding freedom. He says he now lives “moment by moment. I’d rather be dead than use money.”

Next page: “He’s not afraid to die for the truth, and that’s a rare quality these days.”

January 24, 2004: From David Arthur Johnston’s Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann’s Academy

Last night I had gone to bed early (around 8PM). Around 9PM a security guard came up and fervently asked me to leave.

SG- “Please leave. I must ask you to leave. You cannot stay here. Please leave.”
me- “I cannot. I’ve nowhere else to go. I sleep in peace.”
SG- “Please! You cannot stay here. If you stay I will have to call the police.”
me- “I’ve nowhere else to go. Do what you must.”
SG- “Please! I am going to call the police.” (begins to leave)
me- “Do what you must.”

In late 2003, David was about to bed down for the night in Victoria’s Beacon Hill Park when he noticed an unusual smell. “I found the ground covered in fertilizer [ground up fish] and subsequently my blanket was filthy,” he later wrote in his journal. “It was obviously placed there on purpose and from then on the fertilizer came to be known as ‘bum-away.’ To hold those responsible accountable, the ‘right to sleep’ campaign began in earnest on January 16, 2004.”

David began spending his nights on the grounds of St. Ann’s Academy, a former convent now owned by the provincial government. He was eventually joined by others, who brought along tents. When St. Ann’s was granted an injunction forcing the inhabitants to move, the encampment relocated to Cridge Park, a small green space nearby. For two weeks, it boasted “35 tents at peak” and served as shelter for “about 70 or 80 people,” David says.

The City of Victoria and most of its citizens were not pleased with the tent-city, and it wasn’t long before police began enforcing the city’s anti-camping bylaw. With the help of two pro bono lawyers, Cathy Boies-Parker and Irene Faulkner, David and a handful of other defendants challenged the bylaw, asserting that it was unconstitutional and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

His campaign continued to attract support. Kristen Woodruff, 29, identified with the “right to sleep” movement so much that she relocated to Victoria to join the campaign. “David’s journal account of his struggle for the right to sleep came into my hands in the winter of 2008,” she says. “I was inspired by his work, and interested by the similarities between his philosophy and mine. We became close friends shortly after this.”

Kristen has been without a home since June, 2008, around the same time she moved to Victoria. “I have lived simply for years, mostly on Salt Spring Island, in small cabins, often without electricity or indoor plumbing, in a van, or housesitting. I became more ‘officially’ homeless when I left Salt Spring Island to go live in Victoria, to lend support to David and the right to sleep campaign.”

Others remain unenthusiastic. Ask citizens, business owners, or officials in Victoria to comment on David and the Charter challenge and a certain chill sets in. One business owner writes in an e-mail: “I cannot be associated with David and his cause, even though I agree with much of it, because I own a business downtown. In the business community, supporting David could have a negative impact on my relationship with neighbouring businesses and even some of my clientele.” Another e-mail from a resident of Victoria simply reads: “He has no value to me.”

“David is profoundly threatening to the establishment,” says Kristen, “to a degree that can seem absurd, given his gentleness. But he’s not afraid to die for the truth, and that’s a rare quality these days. Loving him is a strange phenomenon, because I know that at any time he may well go to jail, and that he is absolutely committed to not eating in jail, and that if he gets sentenced to longer than 40 days or so, he may well die that way.”

For Johnston, the point is to refuse powerlessness, and to defend oneself and others as human beings. “You can allow yourself to be moved along,” he says, “to live the hell you’ve always tried to avoid by getting a job spending 50 hours a week so you can sleep. Or you sit down and you figure out exactly where your suffering is coming from and you find what to do about it.”

March 5, 2004: From David Arthur Johnston’s Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann’s Academy

This morning I went to court to confirm the trial which happens on March 25 at 10:00AM in courtroom 102. The ‘crown’ stayed the proceedings on the ‘Assault by Trespass’ charge and are going to press the ‘Obstruction of Justice’ charge.

So, essentially, everything is still the same. There will still have to be a ruling for me to be released. The ‘crown’ will recognize pride as a lie; will recognize the illegality of being discompassionate; will recognize that compassion does supersede ‘private property’ and in doing so will set high precedence — every municipality will endorse and establish tent cities within walking distance of their downtown cores; every municipality will recognize the emergent state that has been created because of a dependency on ignorance (the emergent state that will exist when money is no longer used)…… or the ‘crown’ will pretend great offence and put me in jail, where I will not eat and eventually die (even if I am to be strapped down with tubes in me).

On a normal day, David Johnston goes where his feet take him, conversing with friends and acquaintances, often settling at centres like Our Place in Victoria’s downtown, where the less fortunate congregate to drink coffee, and talk. He goes there for its atmosphere of community, of shared experience, struggle, frustration, and mutual respect.

On the street, you won’t find him panhandling, or asking for any kind of handout. Instead, he does his best to provide for himself. “[I eat] karmically. I check what I affectionately call the ‘trapline.’ The garbages — there’s enough food thrown out every day to feed an army.” He’s not alone in his scavenging; social stigma may still attach to a homeless, jobless man subsisting off food found in dumpsters, but a growing movement of freegans also limits food purchases, instead relying on the perfectly edible food discarded daily.

Back in the library in 2007, he told me a little bit about his family. “We’re very prosaic,” he said. “We will talk when there’s news to share; otherwise we just presume there’s love and affection.” His mother “really appreciates” what he’s doing and her support “helps as far as media stuff.” He laughed. “If you have a mother that loves you, you can’t be a terrorist.”

Later, as we exited the library, David told me we had to walk straight through the courtyard and onto the sidewalk without stopping — this the result of his earlier arrest for camping there to protest the “No Loitering” sign posted nearby. Looking over my shoulder, I saw, seated throughout the courtyard, a couple of people reading, a girl talking on a cellphone, an emo kid beside her rolling a skateboard back and forth with his foot, and a man in a shirt and tie eating a sandwich. There’s little
doubt that, if a police officer had strolled by at that moment, the “No Loitering” sign would not have been enforced. Had David or another homeless person been sitting there, though, things might have been very different.

For David, that’s the nub of the problem. In his worldview, all people should be treated with respect, dignity, and love. To be “moved along” or arrested for trying to sleep is offensive. “Loitering implies purposelessness,” he told me, as we safely reached the sidewalk. “And I don’t think any person is without purpose.”

Next page: “The anti-camping bylaw will be struck in this town and also the chattel bylaw, and then that would set precedent in every municipality in Canada.”

December 5, 2008: From David Arthur Johnston’s Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann’s Academy

The ‘order’ is something all parties involved in the Charter case must sign to finalize the case. The city says its going to ask the judge to amend the ruling to add the words ‘at night’. They are going to be told to shape up or face the consequences, I presume. Their continued adamance that they have the right to tell people they can’t sleep during the day will be dealt with by the same Supreme Court judge that gave the ruling. Of course, if the judge is compromised or the city finds new ways to delay I will still put them in a position that they must kill me or do the right thing.

The right thing in this case is to accept that the city must provide space for tenting if it wants to regulate it elsewhere. To create new zoning regulations that allow for people with means and opportunity to apply to have tents on their ‘properties’, or even make use out of motorhomes and trailers (and the such). The cities obligation (to not impede) can be quite lessoned with private participation… make no mistake, the city must fundamentally always present the option.

A year ago, I asked him for his prediction, should he win the Charter challenge. After a sigh, he said, “A lot of really beautiful stuff and a lot of huge stuff. Stuff like no Canadian has seen before. Essentially, the anti-camping bylaw will be struck in this town and also the chattel bylaw, and then that would set precedent in every municipality in Canada meaning that anyone who would want to assert themselves in any municipality would have that option — to do it without much obstruction. Essentially it would mean the police to some degree would have to learn some measure of innocence presumption. They would have to be able to determine if someone is actually being peaceful in their attempt to sleep under a tree and, if they are, then they have to leave them alone.”

With his second victory, that is at least temporarily true. As of this writing, Victoria’s police have acknowledged that anyone may sleep, sheltered, in any public space at any time. However, Victoria City Council has already passed an amended bylaw that, put through the appropriate legal hoops, Judge McKenzie has suggested will pass constitutional muster. Johnston is once again preparing to challenge it.

The stress sometimes appears to take its toll. “I’m being made crazy,” he writes in a recent post on his Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann’s Academy, which long ago became a chronicle of his entire five year struggle, “and the looming possibility of never seeing freedom, never seeing a just end to this sleeping court stuff, never seeing the city held accountable hurts real bad.”

He has help now, though, in the person of Kristen, and the momentum of two wins. And perhaps most of all, the talent he has cultivated since the night in Beacon Hill Park when he launched his Right to Sleep campaign. “Patience,” he told me in 2007, his blue eyes lighting. “It’s the key.” In fact, it may not even matter what the next court decision is. To the extent that he’s lived the last eight years precisely on his own terms, and put his belief in the dignity of every human being into convincing action, David Arthur Johnston has already secured a rare sort of victory.

Note the quid pro quo built into The Globe and Mail’s editorial on the subject of Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who showed off his footwear to President Bush. “Mr. Zaidi gained his privileged access to Mr. Bush on the strength of his accreditation as a journalist,” intones the Globe. ” . . . . The price for this access was a duty to treat Mr. Bush, as with any other news subject, fairly and professionally.”

In other words, in return for the “privilege” of access to a democratically-elected leader, and no matter how egregious the behaviour of that leader, news organizations should sit quietly and speak when pointed to.

Now, I don’t think actual shoe-throwing is good journalistic practice, though in this case it is entirely defensible on human grounds. After all, Bush really did create a lot of “widows and orphans,” per Zaidi’s rant, in pursuit of an illegal and cynical war. What’s a shoe or two in response? But let’s agree that too much of this sort of thing will make a mess of our press rooms.

However, I do hope for much metaphorical shoe-throwing from the fifth estate in the months and years to come, as the crimes of the Bush administration continue to come to light.

Let’s have sturdy Florsheims thrown at the President and his men for their blithe dismissal of the Geneva Convention — especially by news organizations who said nothing at the time. Let’s have muddy Timberlands tossed at them for illegal wiretapping, not to mention the legislation they passed to retroactively absolve themselves and their corporate patsies of guilt. Let’s lob Barbara Amiel’s entire closet of Manolo Blahniks, spiked heels forward, at them for creating a culture of cruel disregard for human dignity which inevitably trickled-down to the enlisted ranks.

There are some encouraging signs that this sort of rearguard action on the part of the press is beginning; see this editorial in Thursday’s New York Times, describing the recent Senate Armed Services Committee report on prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay as making “a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.”

Good. The Times was one of those complaisant news organizations in the lead-up to both wars, and throughout much of their prosecution. A few dozen more such editorials, and a couple of investigative series about, oh, I don’t know, take your pick — Haliburton, 9/11, the imposition of The Patriot Act — and they might begin to regain some of their authority.

But who is missing from the the Times‘ list of prospective jailbirds? No, not just the Vice-President, but ol’ “I’m the Decider” himself. The real test of the American press’s mettle will be whether they can set aside their deeply-schooled deference to the presidency and call for Bush to be held to account, in court, for the actions of his administration. Until that happens, their shoes remain firmly, and timorously, fixed to both feet.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in favour of Vancouver broadcaster Rafe Mair was a big step forward for Canadian journalists and their readers. Mair had been sued by a “Christian-values advocate” who thought he’d defamed her, but the Court ruled 9-0 that “an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation” should not “be permitted to ‘chill’ freewheeling debate on matters of public interest.” This brings us a lot closer to the American definition of fair comment (by which just about anything goes, especially when it comes to public figures), and away from the British one, which saw, for example, Conrad Black reflexively suing journalists who’d offended his exquisite sensibilities.

In fact, if it hadn’t done so, I’d have had to think harder about the possible legal ramifications of that last sentence. The Supremes’ ruling means that comment in our sometimes too deferential country is liable to become livelier, not to mention more fractious.

However, in the way of these things, the Feds were only giving back with one hand part of what they had recently taken away with another.

Bill C-61, the copyright reform bill recently tabled in parliament, is not the spawn-of-hell, civilization-ending piece of legislation Michael Geist and his Geistolytes make out. The Internet has spawned an absurd culture of entitlement, whereby a lot of people have concluded that if they want something to be free, it should be. Try out that theory next time you’re in a department or grocery store.

But C-61 is full of flaws, the most pertinent of which, for purposes of this column, is that it makes no provision for fair use of digital content in journalism. In education, yes, but not in journalism. So let’s say I wanted to show you (grabbing a DVD off the nearest shelf . . . hmm, let’s see . . . yes, this will do) this little scene from The Day After Tomorrow (click on the word “tomorrow”) . . .

myvideoplayer.swf

. . . in order to suggest that it’s the most effective piece of anti-Bush administration propaganda ever to appear in pop culture. That would traditionally be fair use, in the same way I can quote from a book I’m reviewing.

But under C-61, I couldn’t do it. Simply by using decryption software to turn the movie into a file I could edit and post, I’ve already broken US law, and will one day have broken Canadian law, if C-61 goes through as written.

Nor could I take a clip of Stephen Harper (assuming it arrived with digital locks, or on a TV with digital locks) and add a little smiley-face to it to satirize his “don’t worry, be-happy” approach to climate change. I couldn’t even take a Coldplay video, change-up the lyrics, ala Weird Al Yankovic, and post it; there’s no provision for parody in C-61, despite parody being a long accepted example of fair use.

It wouldn’t be the satire itself that would be unlawful; making fun of public figures remains legal, at least until Mr. Bush declares himself emperor of North America. It’s the act of using certain software in order to create the parody that would expose me to big fines. If I could figure out a way to do it without cracking the encryption, I’d be okay. Psychokinesis, maybe?

So, the best basis on which to criticize C-61 is not that it protects giant entertainment companies, though it does, but that it’s nonsensical. We can’t expect governments to tell big business to start giving away its products, but we can ask that its laws be internally consistent. Note, however, that making C-61 internally consistent would also have the effect of continuing to allow sufficiently-motivated individuals to do whatever they wanted with their copy of The Day After Tomorrow, at least until some impregnable encryption technology comes along. In which case everyone — except, as usual, the big entertainment companies — would be happy.

By the way, that little clip from The Day After Tomorrow is indeed a good piece of anti-Bush propaganda, whatwith the infernal Dick Cheney figure telling the doofus George Bush character what to do. Have a look, if you haven’t already. And don’t worry; if C-61 passes as is, it’ll be my ass, not yours.