First smoking, now texting what else is our government going to step in and kindly restrict us from doing. After the smoking ban I asked this question, “which civil liberty is next,” now we have the answer, it’s where and when we use our cell phones and other electronic devices (http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/publications/docs/electronic-devices-while-driving-info.pdf). I am not here to debate the safety issues in regards to texting while driving as we all can agree some people lack the common sense as to when it is safe to take their eyes from the road thus causing an safety concern; which in past medieval times was dealt with by Section 144, the act of careless driving (http://www.caa.ca/driventodistraction/what/distracted.html#bc). So my question is why step in and actually regulate the usage of our own personal property so specifically? The simple answer is cinching the noose of control around our already tightly confined personal space. My aim here is to think about the implications of this type of ban on electronic devices and how far it can extend into your personal life.
First off using your electronic device to text, email, dial, or otherwise access data is often personal. In many cases a police officer will not actually know you have been doing any of these things with your phone by just seeing it in your hand. To prove you have been texting, emailing etc they will need to examine it and check the history, but to do so they should need a warrant as it would be equal to unlawful search and seizure, since suspicion is not grounds for a search (http://rightscity.org/tag/search-seizure/).
Unlawfully examining our electronic devices will infringe on many of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). Forcing us to modify the ways in which we communicate private information with our electronic devices out of fear.
We also need to take into account the financial impact this will have on us. First the new law states that you need to have your phone fixed to the car or on your person in order for it to be legally used and in addition to this you need to have a device that either amplifies the sound over a speaker or allows you to use an earpiece. So to start you will need a hip holster or a car mount kit, which we will value at an average of 30.00 cdn and an ear piece which range anywhere from 15.00 cdn to 200.00cdn depending on the quality (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/class.asp?logon=&langid=EN&catid=23285). So you can see how the cost can add up. At a time when many people are having financial difficulties we have our government forcing us to spend money to use our own personal property, this is wrong.
As we continue along this road of allowing the state to bully us into letting them infringe on our civil liberties we are giving them license to push it even further. I ask what is the point of constitutionally protected rights if they are slowly taken away? Each instance robs us of a little more freedom. I ask again what is next? And I will wait in a quite state of horror for the next law that eats away at our freedom.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, February 6, 2009
Boycott a certain Irish Pub On Yale Road
I am personally boycotting this establishment simply because the owners and management apply practices that go against the Employment Standards Act. For example they charge the waitress’ for dine and dashes which is in complete conflict with the Employment Standards Act that stipulates “The only lawful deductions that can be taken from pay cheques are those for Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, Income Tax and any other deductions authorized by the employee in writing to pay on their behalf money to a union, charity, social fund, insurance company (medical, dental, insurance plan) or to meet a credit obligation.”
They do not allow breaks for their employees that are mandatory according to the Employment Standards Act “ An employee is entitled to a half-hour meal break so that the employee does not work more than five hours in a row without a break. This meal break is unpaid unless the employee is required to work or be available for work during the break.”
They have terminated employees under false pretences citing reliable sources but admittedly have no proof of such allegations, the Employment Standards Act states that “upon terminating an employee, the onus is on the employer to prove that just cause for termination exists.” The only thing these employees are guilty of is that they have opinions of their own and argue that the management must follow the Employment Standards Act.
One plus for this establishment is that they did follow the procedure as laid out in the Employment Standards Act for termination without notice and paid the appropriate amount of severance. Although this proves the argument that they had no just cause to fire these employees because, “An employer does not have to give written notice or compensation for length of service to an employee who is dismissed for just cause.”
They have employed employees off the books, often paying well under the minimum wage (as low as five dollars an hour) as outlined by the Employment Standard Act, “B.C.'s minimum wage is $8 an hour for all employees regardless of age.” Just so those reading this are aware of the dangers to employees when paying them off the books, they are not covered by workers compensations and often these employees were in position that put them at risk for personal injury such as bouncers, day labourers or security thus keeping their premiums down. These employees have no rights according to the Employment Standards Act since they have no proof of being employed there.
The managers have at one point continued to employ a man for several weeks after he was caught by a server in the women’s bathroom with an extremely intoxicated woman who was partially naked whom he did not know while he was on shift; despite this being brought to the attention of the managers right away by the server who caught him in there and several employees expressed their concern. Even though this hopefully falls under “what may constitute just cause: fraud and dishonesty, breach of duty, serious wilful misconduct, serious breach of company rules or practices, Serious undermining of the corporate culture and unsatisfactory performance.”
I have either experienced or witnessed these things as a former employee who left on his own accord or have close friends and family who have experienced most of these things. Regardless of any protest these things cannot truthfully be denied and any attempt to deny them simply helps establish what kind of people own and run this pub furthering this cause.
I am not endorsing a full boycott because I have several friends who work there and I don’t want to see them lose any income from tips or reduced hours. I just simply want people to know what kind of people own and run this business and hopefully provide enough pressure to encourage them to reform their practices according to the Employment Standards Act.
All research was gathered from this website http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/esaguide/
They do not allow breaks for their employees that are mandatory according to the Employment Standards Act “ An employee is entitled to a half-hour meal break so that the employee does not work more than five hours in a row without a break. This meal break is unpaid unless the employee is required to work or be available for work during the break.”
They have terminated employees under false pretences citing reliable sources but admittedly have no proof of such allegations, the Employment Standards Act states that “upon terminating an employee, the onus is on the employer to prove that just cause for termination exists.” The only thing these employees are guilty of is that they have opinions of their own and argue that the management must follow the Employment Standards Act.
One plus for this establishment is that they did follow the procedure as laid out in the Employment Standards Act for termination without notice and paid the appropriate amount of severance. Although this proves the argument that they had no just cause to fire these employees because, “An employer does not have to give written notice or compensation for length of service to an employee who is dismissed for just cause.”
They have employed employees off the books, often paying well under the minimum wage (as low as five dollars an hour) as outlined by the Employment Standard Act, “B.C.'s minimum wage is $8 an hour for all employees regardless of age.” Just so those reading this are aware of the dangers to employees when paying them off the books, they are not covered by workers compensations and often these employees were in position that put them at risk for personal injury such as bouncers, day labourers or security thus keeping their premiums down. These employees have no rights according to the Employment Standards Act since they have no proof of being employed there.
The managers have at one point continued to employ a man for several weeks after he was caught by a server in the women’s bathroom with an extremely intoxicated woman who was partially naked whom he did not know while he was on shift; despite this being brought to the attention of the managers right away by the server who caught him in there and several employees expressed their concern. Even though this hopefully falls under “what may constitute just cause: fraud and dishonesty, breach of duty, serious wilful misconduct, serious breach of company rules or practices, Serious undermining of the corporate culture and unsatisfactory performance.”
I have either experienced or witnessed these things as a former employee who left on his own accord or have close friends and family who have experienced most of these things. Regardless of any protest these things cannot truthfully be denied and any attempt to deny them simply helps establish what kind of people own and run this pub furthering this cause.
I am not endorsing a full boycott because I have several friends who work there and I don’t want to see them lose any income from tips or reduced hours. I just simply want people to know what kind of people own and run this business and hopefully provide enough pressure to encourage them to reform their practices according to the Employment Standards Act.
All research was gathered from this website http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/esa
Response to the Ignorant Squawkers
Like many Canadians I have been bombarded with talk about the political turmoil our country faces in the next few months, from this barrage there are a few themes that keep popping up. It is surprising how much noise is being made over the possibility of a coalition government being formed in lieu of the current minority government. Neither side of the debate can be ultimately sure of the agenda of the incumbent or the proposed coalition government, but one thing is certain those people who are arguing from a place of ignorance should be politely asked to shut up and allow those who understand the Canadian political scheme to argue to their hearts content. Those who understand the dynamics of our political system are worth listening too, as their opinions are valid poignant to the discussion. There are three main mistakes the public is making surrounding the proposed formation of the coalition.
The first mistake these ignorant squawkers are making is arguing that the loser from the last election should not be given the chance to govern our country. The flaw in this argument is that the house of commons is made up elected individuals from different parties, not losers. Each region gets to choose who will represent their voice in the house. Clearly more Canadians voted for other parties since the current government is a minority, this means that in a coalition more Canadians will be represented than by the minority government.
The second mistake being made is the idea that somehow another election will be a worthwhile endeavour. Another election will cost us a lot of money and time during a financial crisis where money is a time are of the essence. Looking back at the voter turnout and the overall effect of the last election it is likely that the results will be the same. A minority government which will fall the same way the current government will. This will put Canadians in the exact same situation with an even bigger headache and further behind in the catch-up game we are already playing during this economic crisis.
The third mistake is that a coalition is somehow some kind of evil perversion of the Canadian democratic system. The mistake here is that a coalition is a formation of democratically elected individuals representing a wide array of citizens joining together to bring stability. This formation of a coalition does not distort Democracy, it is Canadian democracy. The Conservatives will not be tossed out of the house of commons they will continue to serve their constituents needs in the house just as the members of the proposed coalition would continue doing if the minority government was fit to lead.
A coalition is the answer to a faltering minority government. If the elected individuals in the house have lost confidence in the current government then they become ineffectual. The current government is a minority, which means they need the confidence and support of the other members in the house to be effective in their role. We need to remember these members of Parliament represent the voice of the Canadian people, so if the majority of the house disagrees with the minority government this means more Canadians disagree with them than agree. In the end it comes down to this argument being an example of the ignorance prevalent in our society. One must remember that as a Canadian you have the luxury of moving if you disagree with how Canada is being governed.
By Lorn R. Kennedy
The Smoking Ban
The smoking ban to be imposed early next month seems to me like a knockout punch to our civil liberties, yes we all can agree smoking is dangerous to everyone exposed to it. Like all other dangerous activities if people are worried they will keep themselves out of harm’s way; if they know it’s dangerous then allow individuals to deal with it how they see fit. My question is which civil liberty is next, what we eat? For the past couple of years there has been attention paid to obesity being an epidemic, obesity arguably is similar if not worse than smoking for causing health problems and shortening life.
Overweight people who are so due to laziness and over-eating are detrimental to the society they belong too; much like smokers were before they were ostracized. There are several ways in which over-eaters damage their society. First, they not only strain our over taxed healthcare systems (much like smokers) with their plethora of obesity related health issues, diabetes, heart diseases etc, but they also psychologically damage those around them. The main concern is ‘children see children do’ the number of obese people a child will see in their adolescent lives may very well make them accept obesity as normal and thus more inclined to join their ranks or at least worry less about their body weight. Obese people over-eating and eating junk food in public is detrimental to those trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle by making the dangerous foods visible to the public eye; one only has to remember the old adage ‘out of sight out of mind.’
In almost every way smoking was a problem, obesity and over-eating fills the void. Anyone who has watched TV knows the dangers of smoking; think of those issues and apply them to obesity and over-eating. Second hand over-eating even comes into play; those who over-eat have an impact on the globe; especially when the over-eaters come from countries the size of the US. First, there is the energy used in growing, processing and packaging the foods the obese eat. the staggering amount of people engaging in over-eating there is little doubt that over a period of time their habit will affect the environment or at least the air quality for non over-eaters. Do not forget the implications of the waste created by these over-eaters, both biological and manufactured. The breakdown of this waste will affect the air quality in surrounding areas while possible contributing to the degradation of ecosystems and watersheds.
Forget the health implications overeating poses on the obese; look to the health implications second hand over-eating poses on non-over eaters. Second hand over-eating is playing a huge role in shaping the economy, the environment and our children’s psyches. Over-eaters need to be stopped; the government needs to act on this epidemic before it is too late, before the damage is irreparable. I for one want the government to regulate what I eat, where I eat and when I eat; if it’s for the benefit of the greater good I feel this is a liberty worth surrendering. The government needs to take responsibility for this deep-seated social issue and impose new laws prohibiting such actions responsible for so much damage already.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)