After Nine Years Of Censorship, Canada Finally Unmuzzles Its Scientists

from the justin-trudeau-strikes-again dept

Here's something we don't see enough of here on Techdirt: a long and dispiriting saga with a happy ending. Over the years, we've reported on how Canada's previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, tried to stifle dissenting voices among government scientists and librarians, all of whom were expected to self-censor, even outside their work. But as most people know by now, the new Canadian administration under Justin Trudeau has a rather different style, and fortunately that also applies to how it treats its scientists. As an article in Nature reports, things may be moving too slowly for some, but at least they are moving:

the [Canadian] government is loosening its grip on communications but the shift at some agencies has not been as swift and comprehensive as many had hoped. And with the newfound freedom to speak, the full impact of the former restrictions is finally becoming clear. Canadian scientists and government representatives are opening up about what it was like to work under the former policy and the kind of consequences it had. Some of the officials who imposed the rules are talking about how the restrictions affected the morale and careers of researchers.

As well as filling in the background to this welcome move, Nature explores some of the stories that are starting to emerge, like this one:

During the 1970s, [Ian Stirling, a prominent biologist with Environment and Climate Change Canada] had gone to meetings in Canada that were also attended by Soviet scientists. The visiting researchers would arrive, he says, "with a KGB guy, who would stand there with no smiles, a scowl on his face and arms crossed". Stirling still finds it unbelievable that the Canadian government used similar tactics at conferences. In 2012, for example, the Canadian news outlet CBC reported that media minders had shadowed scientists from Environment Canada at a meeting of the International Polar Year in Montreal.

It's important to remember that Canada is not alone in having these muzzling problems. The article notes that during the administration of President George W. Bush, US government scientists complained that inconvenient data was being altered or simply suppressed. More recently, the UK government unveiled plans to forbid its scientists from lobbying for changes in their own field. Although it has now introduced some exemptions from the controversial "gagging clause", these seem half-hearted and possibly temporary. It obviously needs to pay more attention to Justin.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: canada, dissent, free speech, justin trudeau, opinions, policy, scientists, stephen harper

Canadian Scientist Muzzled For Writing And Performing Song About Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists

from the Harperman-meets-Streisand-Effect dept

Techdirt has been following for a while the Canadian government's unabashed attempts to muzzle scientists and librarians who work for the state, as it tries to deny them the right to express their views if those happen to disagree with the Prime Minister Stephen Harper's political agenda. That battle over freedom of speech is not only continuing, but escalating according to this story in The Globe and Mail:

An Environment Canada scientist is under investigation for allegedly breaching the public service code of ethics by writing and performing a political song that criticizes the Harper government.

Tony Turner, a physical scientist who most recently was working on a study of migratory birds, has been put on administrative leave with pay over allegations that his participation in his song Harperman puts him in a conflict of interest, the union representing him said.

Turner's song, with its opening lines "Who controls our parliament? Harperman, Harperman. Who squashes all dissent? Harperman, Harperman," and a refrain of "It's time for you to go," is pretty mild stuff. A former head of the Ontario Public Service defended the government's actions as follows:

The public sector's ethics code states that federal public servants are expected to "[carry] out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner." Mr. Dean said the non-partisan nature of the public service offers protection that goes both ways: It prevents government officials from pressing public servants to act in partisan interests, and public servants make a commitment to do their jobs regardless of the political stand of the government of the day.

For one thing, it's not the case that the ethics code "prevents government officials from pressing public servants to act in partisan interests". As a BBC story on the muzzling of Canadian scientists reported:

The [media] protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.

Sources say that requests are often refused and when interviews are granted, government media relations officials can and do ask for written questions to be submitted in advance and elect to sit in on the interview.

That's not allowing scientists to speak in a "non-partisan and impartial manner": the "media protocol" is clearly designed to cow government scientists and to ensure that they toe the official line in everything they say, regardless of what the science may indicate.

But the other point is that Turner was not performing his Harperman song as a government employee, but as a citizen -- he is described on the YouTube page as an "Ottawa folksinger", and there is no reference anywhere to his work as a government scientist.

Of course, the great thing about the Canadian government's absurd overreaction to this gentlest of private protests is that many more people will now learn that Turner is an environmental scientist who is being muzzled by a bunch of desperate control freaks who are frightened that the Canadian people might be told the truth about important scientific issues. Thank goodness for the Streisand Effect….

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: candada, harperman, stephen harper, streisand effect, tony turner

While Other Countries Debate Copyright Terms, Canada Just Takes Record Labels' Word That It Needs To Increase

from the because-of-course dept

Pretty much since the dawn of copyright, there have been debates about what the proper length of copyright's term should be. Sometimes these debates can be heated and passionate. Go all the way back to 1841, in the UK, where Thomas Macaulay gave his famous speech against copyright term extension, in which he noted how it was being done based on no actual evidence of necessity:

Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly. My honorable and learned friend talks very contemptuously of those who are led away by the theory that monopoly makes things dear. That monopoly makes things dear is certainly a theory, as all the great truths which have been established by the experience of all ages and nations, and which are taken for granted in all reasonings, may be said to be theories. It is a theory in the same sense in which it is a theory, that day and night follow each other, that lead is heavier than water, that bread nourishes, that arsenic poisons, that alcohol intoxicates.

If, as my honorable and learned friend seems to think, the whole world is in the wrong on this point, if the real effect of monopoly is to make articles good and cheap, why does he stop short in his career of change? Why does he limit the operation of so salutary a principle to sixty years? Why does he consent to anything short of a perpetuity? He told us that in consenting to anything short of a perpetuity he was making a compromise between extreme right and expediency. But if his opinion about monopoly be correct, extreme right and expediency would coincide. Or rather why should we not restore the monopoly of the East India trade to the East India Company? Why should we no revive all those old monopolies which, in Elizabeths reign, galled our fathers so severely that, maddened by intolerable wrong, they opposed to their sovereign a resistance before which her haughty spirit quailed for the first and for the last time? Was it the cheapness and excellence of commodities that then so violently stirred the indignation of the English people?

I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Companys monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essexs monopoly of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.

Since then, of course, there have been many, many debates on the proper length of copyright terms. But usually, at the very least there is some debate about it, with people weighing in on various sides.

That's why it was somewhat astounding, last month, when Canada just announced with no warning that it was extending copyright as part of a budget update. There was no discussion around it. No public debate. Nothing at all.

And, now, as Michael Geist has discovered, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's correspondence with the recording industry shows that he just decided to ratchet up copyright term himself, without even asking for public input or even bothering to consider how such a move might harm the public.

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the copyright term for sound recordings. I have reviewed this material carefully, and share your view that the current term of copyright protection for sound recordings falls short of what is required to protect artists and ensure they are fairly compensated for their work.

Please know that, as announced today in Budget 2015, our Government will extend copyright protection for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. The extension will be incorporated into the Budget Implementation Act, and will be in effect immediately upon passage of the legislation.

This is quite incredible on many different levels. Harper must know that any change to copyright law is controversial and deserves public debate and discussion. After all, he's been through a few debates concerning copyright reform in Canada. Did he really think that he could just do this without anyone noticing?

And, really, considering that this is a move to flat out take away the public's rights, you'd have to think that it's only appropriate to at least hold a public discussion about whether or not extending copyright in such a manner makes sense. But, nope. The head of the Canadian recording industry lobby sent a letter, and Harper said "Sure, let's slip that into the budget."

As Michael Geist notes, the whole thing is incredible on many levels:

The letter is remarkable as it confirms that the copyright term extension for sound recordings was strictly the product of behind-the-scenes industry lobbying with no broader public consultation or discussion. While other countries spent years debating the issue with careful study, the Canadian government simply caved on the issue based on a little lobbying from foreign record labels. The Conservative government did not consult with Canadian companies or retailers about the impact of their changes, nor did they dig into the data that would have revealed that this change will decrease revenues for many artists. Instead, the major record labels pulled out all the stops to block competitive new records from entering the marketplace and the Prime Minister obliged by including copyright reforms in a budget bill.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, copyright terms, debate, lobbying, stephen harper

Canada's New Anti-Terrorism Legislation Echoes The PATRIOT Act, Expands Spying Powers And Government Reach

from the let-no-tragedy-go-unexploited dept

Canada looks to be next in line for broadly-written, government-expanding "anti-terror" legislation. This new legislation was prompted by a couple of recent attacks on government employees. The first attack involved a man said to be "inspired by the Islamic State" who ran over two soldiers in a Quebec parking lot before being killed. The second attack struck a bit closer to home, when a gunman shot a soldier at the national war memorial before making his way into Parliament.

An attack on the government's turf will always provoke a legislative reaction. One might think some security fixes at Parliament would be in the offing, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has much bigger plans.

Canada will introduce new anti-terror laws that will make it a crime to encourage terrorism against Canadians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday in response to two recent attacks.

The laws will also allow anyone suspected of being involved in a terror plot to be detained without charge for up to seven days, and empower Canada's spy agency to thwart attacks directly in a significant expansion of their powers.

If this sounds eerily close to the laws enacted after the 9/11 attacks, there's a reason for that. For those with government expansion and broader spying powers on the mind, a scary, but ultimately ineffectual, attack on prime government property is an opportunity -- not an isolated incident. Peter Watts (an "an awk­ward hy­brid of bi­ol­o­gist, sci­ence-fic­tion au­thor, and [ac­cord­ing to the US De­part­ment of Home­land Se­cu­rity] con­victed felon/tew­wow­ist") sums up the birthing of this horrendous legislation beautifully at his No More Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons blog:

We had a shooting up here in Canada the other day. Like most things Canadian it was a modest, self-effacing affair, nothing that even a couple of losers from Columbine would write home about: a single death, a geriatric hero. A Prime Minister cowering in the closet, scribbling back-of-the-napkin notes on how best to exploit this unexpected opportunity.

He didn’t have to think very hard. Harper’s always seemed almost pathetically eager to turn Canada into a wannabe iteration of the US— think the dweeby eight-year-old, desperate to emulate his idolized older brother— and the Patriot Act has, I suspect, always been his Beacon on the Hill (or his Castle Anthrax grail-shaped beacon, depending on your cultural referents). So our beloved leader is once again trying to resurrect all those measures he couldn’t quite sneak into C-52, or C-10, or C-30— all those measures that no sane citizen would ever oppose, unless of course we chose to “stand with the child pornographers“. You know the list: lowered evidentiary standards. Increased powers of police surveillance. Increased powers of detention and “preventative arrest”. Increased data sharing with the US.

Basically all that stuff they were doing anyway with impunity, only now more of it will be legal.

Canada's Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) will receive broadened powers. It will be allowed to directly perform "police work" rather than turning intelligence over to law enforcement agencies. It will also be able to disrupt Canadian citizens' travel plans unannounced.

The new law will also allow the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the country's spy service, to directly approach terror suspects in order to disrupt their plans. CSIS is currently permitted only to collect intelligence and pass the information on to police.

The spy agency will now be able to cancel plane or other travel reservations made by Canadians suspected of being involved in terrorism. The new activities by CSIS will require approval by a judge. Police already have many of these powers that CSIS will acquire but the government wanted the spy agency to be able to act right away if they see a threat.

We've seen how well secret "no-fly" lists work here in the US. Once you're on the list, you can't get off it, barring an expensive lawsuit. We've also seen how well the US government's "terrorist watchlist" works, what with 40% of those "watchlisted" having "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." If this legislation passes (and seeing that Parliament is stocked with Harper supporters, there's no reason to believe it won't), Canadians can expect the same sort of secretive incompetence. Supposedly, citizens will be able to challenge their appearance on the "no fly" list, but given the wording used in the legislation, they may as well throw their written requests into the nearest wastebasket.

If the Minister does not make a decision in respect of the application within 90 days after the day on which the application is received, or within any further period that is agreed on by the Minister and the applicant, the Minister is deemed to have decided not to remove the applicant’s name from the list.

Not making a decision is one of the easiest things anyone can do. Not making a decision in a timely manner is even easier. The "administrative recourse" process effectively ends the minute it hits the Minister's desk. To take someone off the list is to take a risk. To simply do nothing for 90 days is easier and safer.

Harper himself has been selling the bill to the public, tossing out statements no public should willingly get behind.

Under current law it is a crime to make a specific threat. The new law will make it a crime to call for a terror attack against Canadians generally. It includes any public threat including online.

"We cannot tolerate this any more than we tolerate people that make jokes about bomb threats at airports," Harper said. "Anyone engaging in that kind of activity is going to face the full force of the law in the future."

Wonderful. This is sort of zero-tolerance thinking that gets careless Twitter users arrested. "Joking" about non-specific threats will soon be indistinguishable from actually making terroristic threats -- and subjects jokers to a possible five-year prison sentence.

New problems also arise for website owners.

If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the material is available to the public and is terrorist propaganda or computer data that makes terrorist propaganda available, it may order the computer system’s custodian to delete the material.

So, linking to "terrorist propaganda" is illegal, which would make retweeting anything terrorist-related a potentially criminal act. And the legislation provides no safeguard for websites and platforms that host or transmit third-party content. Instead of addressing the users who post this content, the government is looking to just pin it on whoever's URL happens to be at the top of the webpage.

As for the CSIS, the nation's spy service will enjoy expanded powers to spy on both foreigners and domestic citizens alike. The legislation suggests the spy agency's domestic powers will be more limited inside Canada…

The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law…

before going on to strip away most of these protections by the end of the sentence:

...unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1.

Section 21.1 is being heavily amended as well and ties warrant application rejection/approval to :

...the facts relied on to justify the belief on reasonable grounds that the warrant continues to be required to enable the Service to take the measures specified in it to reduce a threat to the security of Canada…

Goodbye, probable cause and say hello to national security exceptions and a lowered bar of "reasonable grounds." It's the PATRIOT Act all over again. Only the flag in "flag-waving" has changed. It's not that legislators actively wish for attacks on their constituents and fellow government employees. It's just that they're so quick to leverage attacks into expanded government power.

Filed Under: anti-terror, canada, patriot act, privacy, stephen harper, surveillance

Canadian And American Politicians Use Ottawa Shootings As Excuses To Demand More Surveillance, Greater Policing Powers

from the more-arrests dept

As you may have heard, an apparently mentally unstable guy shot up the Canadian Parliament earlier this week, killing a soldier, before being shot dead himself. The attack certainly raises some questions -- about dealing with mental health, about security at the Parliament and probably a few other things as well. However, police state/surveillance state apologists have seen the window to expand their own powers and are taking it. It starts with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who wasn't shy about using this one-off incident as an excuse to massively expand the surveillance and police state:

“Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest,” the Prime Minister told the House of Commons. “They need to be much strengthened. I assure members that work which is already under way will be expedited.”

So, not only will they expand the police and surveillance state, but they'll do it in an "expedited" fashion as a kneejerk response to one guy shooting up the Parliament. That seems like a recipe for bad decision making and the erosion of the rights of the public.

Oh, and some other Canadian politicians are already looking for ways to use this as an excuse to attack free speech online, because obviously that's the real problem here:

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

Down here in the US, at least it's not the President saying this kind of crap, just well-known terrorist appeaser Rep. Peter King who has declared that the Ottawa shootings mean that the US needs to start spying on all the Muslims to find out which ones are radicalized. I wonder how King would react to someone saying that, based on that, we should also spy on "all the Irish to find out which ones are radicalized." Or, you know, perhaps he wouldn't like that so much, seeing as he has a rather long history supporting Irish terrorists, and such surveillance might turn up something he wouldn't like.

King, by the way, also attacks the "morons" at the NY Times and the ACLU for daring to push back against the NYPD's program of spying on Muslims. That now disbanded program, by the way, cost a ton and generated exactly zero leads. And yet, suddenly King thinks bringing it back is the answer?

This, unfortunately, is the ridiculous cycle of kneejerk defenders of the police and surveillance state. Privileged folks, in power, who use any excuse whatsoever to push for ever increasing power, and ever fewer rights by the public. It's a culture of control, paranoia and fear. These people aren't leaders, they're cowards in leadership positions.

Filed Under: canada, ottawa, peter king, police, police state, shootings, stephen harper, surveillance, surveillance state

Canadian Gov't Responds To Spying Revelations By Saying It's All A Lie And Calling Glenn Greenwald A 'Porn Spy'

from the wtf? dept

We've seen various government officials act in all sorts of bizarre ways after revelations of illegal spying on their own people (and foreigners), but none may be quite as bizarre as the response from the Canadian government, following the release late last night from the CBC (with help from Glenn Greenwald) that they're spying on public WiFi connections. That report had plenty of detail, including an internal presentation from the Canadian electronic spying agency, CSEC. In the Canadian Parliament today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, Paul Calandra, decided to respond to all of this by by insisting it's all a lie and then flat out insulting both the CBC and Glenn Greenwald. If you can't watch the video, here's what he says:

Mr. Speaker, last night the CBC aired a misleading report on Canada's signals intelligence agency, Communications Security Establishment Canada. These documents were stolen by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden and sold to the CBC by Glenn Greenwald. Canada's signals intelligence agency has been clear that the CBC story is incorrect, yet the CBC went ahead and published it anyway.

Here are the facts: Before the story aired, CSEC made clear that nothing in the stolen documents showed that Canadians' communications were targeted, collected, or used, nor that travellers' movements were tracked.

In addition, CSEC's activities are regularly reviewed by an independent watchdog who has consistently found it has followed the law.

Why is furthering porn-spy Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than maintaining the public broadcaster's journalistic integrity?

Okay. Where to start? First off, the whole idea that Greenwald "sold" the documents to the CBC is just ridiculous. Every so often we've seen others raise this kind if idiotic argument and it's just silly. Greenwald -- like any other freelance journalist -- gets paid to do journalism. No one is paying him for the documents. They're paying him to work as a journalist, which, you know, is what he does. The attempt to portray it as selling the documents is just a completely bogus smear.

Second, for all the CSEC's denials, note that Calandra makes no effort whatsoever to explain what's in the actual (fairly damning) document that the CBC published. Instead, he's playing games with words -- games that you should be quite used to if you've followed the infamous NSA dictionary. Note that he says that none of Canadians' "communications were targeted, collected, or used." There are a few problems with that. No one's talking about their communications here, but rather details of their locations and the kinds of devices they were using, which is exactly what's shown in the powerpoint presentation.

Next, the fact that the CSEC's activities are regularly reviewed is somewhat meaningless. Was this program reviewed? By whom? What did they find? As we've seen in the US, the claims of independent oversight of the NSA turned out to not mean very much once people looked at the details.

And then... there's that last paragraph. First of all, what is a "porn spy" anyway, and how is Glenn Greenwald one of them? The word makes no sense at all. When government officials are talking gibberish, it does not bode well for them. Maybe he's trying to repeat the smear from a former US government official who bizarrely called Snowden an espionage pornographer, which made no sense, but makes at least marginally more sense than a "porn spy." And, yes, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil. Saying "Brazilian bank account" makes it seem, again, as if there's something nefarious going on here, rather than a well-known, accomplished and celebrated freelance reporter who happens to live in Brazil, doing some work for the CBC.

If this is the Harper government's official "response" to these revelations, they're just asking for trouble. This is so over-the-top silly and defensive, without even remotely responding to the actual issues, that it suggests that Harper has no legitimate response, knows that more is probably on the way, and has resorted to throwing out nonsensical insults at reporters.

Filed Under: canada, csec, ed snowden, glenn greenwald, paul calandra, porn spy, stephen harper, surveillance, wifi
Companies: cbc

Canadian Government Refuses To Release Any Text Of CETA, While Claiming It's Mostly Finished

from the something-to-hide? dept

Back in November, we reported that the EU and Canada were claiming that "a political agreement" on the key elements of the Canada-EU trade agreement, CETA, had been reached. One of the supposed reasons why the negotiations were being conducted in secret was that it was "obviously" not possible to release texts while talks were still going on -- even though that is precisely how WIPO operates. So, now that key parts of the CETA have been agreed upon, presumably the public will finally get to see at least those sections of the text, right? Apparently not, as the Council of Canadians found when it put in a freedom of information request to the Canadian government:

The federal government has denied an access to information request from the Council of Canadians for the working text of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The grassroots public advocacy organization is accusing the Conservative government of unnecessarily depriving Canadians of the information they need to pass judgement on CETA, and of any opportunity to alter the deal before it is signed.

"It's a new year, but we're seeing the same old secrecy from the Harper government. How is anyone expected to say yes or no to this EU deal if Ottawa is not prepared to release it publicly before CETA is signed, sealed and delivered?" asks Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Prime Minister is misleading Canadians by claiming the CETA negotiations are the most transparent in Canadian history. A fully redacted copy of the text would be more transparent than this."

This exposes nicely the dishonesty of governments around the world when they claim that regrettably they "have" to keep texts secret, but will release them just as soon as they can. Here, we have major parts of CETA that have been agreed upon and where there is no need to keep them secret -- apart, that is, from the real reason why there is no transparency: because the governments concerned know that once the public find out how they have been let down by their representatives, there will be widespread outrage. In a blatant attempt to stifle democratic debate, it has become standard practice with these trade agreements only to release the texts after they have been passed, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

As the Council of Canadians' trade campaigner points out:

"It is not OK to negotiate sweeping corporate rights deals like CETA behind closed doors and then to deny the public or parliament the opportunity to change anything about them before the deals are signed and passed into law," says Trew. "If the government is so proud of this deal they should gladly present it to Canadians for their approval before signing. Otherwise, the Conservatives could find CETA backfiring for them at election time."

That's certainly how it should work, but among the general public, awareness about the important knock-on consequences of agreements like CETA, TPP and TAFTA/TTIP remains low. And that's how the governments involved aim to keep it, not least by avoiding at all stages any kind of real transparency.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: canada, ceta, europe, stephen harper, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, transparency, ttip

After Muzzling Scientists, Canadian Government Now Moves On To Book Burnings

from the return-to-the-dark-ages dept

Techdirt has been tracking the sorry saga of Canada's assault on free speech for a while, as it first muzzled scientists and librarians, and then clamped down on the public expressing its views. Now, it seems, the Canadian government of Stephen Harper is attacking knowledge by dismantling key scientific collections, as this post on The Tyee reports:

Scientists say the closure of some of the world's finest fishery, ocean and environmental libraries by the Harper government has been so chaotic that irreplaceable collections of intellectual capital built by Canadian taxpayers for future generations has been lost forever.

There seems to have been no attempt to find other homes for books, maps and unique collections of historical data, or even to offer them for free to the Canadian public that paid for them. Instead, they are simply being destroyed, some in literal book burnings:

Many collections such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library in Mont-Joli, Quebec ended up in dumpsters while others such as Winnipeg's historic Freshwater Institute library were scavenged by citizens, scientists and local environmental consultants. Others were burned or went to landfills, say scientists.

What's strange is that even though the rationale for this mass destruction is apparently in order to reduce costs, opportunities to sell off more valuable items have been ignored. A scientist is quoted as follows:

"Hundreds of bound journals, technical reports and texts still on the shelves, presumably meant for the garbage or shredding. I saw one famous monograph on zooplankton, which would probably fetch a pretty penny at a used science bookstore... anybody could go in and help themselves, with no record kept of who got what."

In the light of these events, another top scientist made the following comment:

Hutchings said none of the closures has anything to do with saving money, due to the small cost of maintaining the collections. He, like many scientists, concludes that Harper's political convictions are driving the unprecedented consolidation.

"It must be about ideology. Nothing else fits," said Hutchings. "What that ideology is, is not clear. Does it reflect that part of the Harper government that doesn't think government should be involved in the very things that affect our lives? Or is it that the role of government is not to collect books or fund science? Or is it the idea that a good government is stripped down government? "

Hutchings saw the library closures fitting a larger pattern of "fear and insecurity" within the Harper government, "about how to deal with science and knowledge."

Or it may just be that the Canadian government doesn't want any inconvenient scientific evidence to get in the way of its dogma-based policymaking.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: book burning, canada, libraries, research, science, stephen harper

Canadians To Prime Minister: Don't Censor Our Scientists

from the policy-based-evidence dept

One of the most fundamentally insane things about government and politics is the fact that evidence-based policy is frequently not the norm. It should be common sense that you don't create new laws and regulations without actual evidence that they will work, or even clear evidence on the scope of the problem they aim to solve. But as we know, things don't really work that way—it's a lot easier for politicians and legislators to make their push based on emotion and public perception.

As with any governmental problem, real change has to start with the citizens. We need to demand evidence, and try not to let ourselves or our peers rely on rhetoric when we discuss and debate important issues and participate in the political process. But governments are not blameless: too often, politicians treat evidence as an obstacle to their political goals, when it should be the motivator of them. Here in Canada, this issue has been slowly gaining attention over the past year with growing complaints that the current government requires scientists it employs to vet their results through a media office before releasing them, to ensure that they are politically on-message. The Globe & Mail recently published a firmly-worded editorial calling on the government to end this practice, and citing the many people who want the same:

Ottawa should respond to the growing controversy – outlined in the prestigious journal Nature – by freeing its scientists. The magazine is calling on the government to show that it will live up to its promise to embrace public access to publicly funded scientific expertise. The issue is serious enough that it was the subject of a panel at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held last month in Vancouver.

The Canadian Science Writers Association and the World Federation of Science Journalists have also sent an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, citing examples of researchers being prevented from sharing details about their published work on climate change, natural resources, health, and fisheries and oceans. In the case of studies involving collaborators from other countries, Canada often gets “scooped” by foreign media who are not subject to the same level of bureaucratic interference. That hardly qualifies as celebrating success in science.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has drawn criticism before for exerting tight control over the media and all communications coming from his government, but this situation goes a step further. To censor scientists in this way neuters them and turns them into glorified copywriters, because the objective reporting of all evidence is the crux of the scientific pursuit. If this is how the government treats its scientists, then the government is not employing scientists at all.

This is a betrayal of Canadian citizens. A portion of our tax dollars goes to funding public scientific research, because it is supposed to benefit us by informing smart, effective policy, and that money is being squandered. We must call on the government to put scientists in their proper role: as shapers of the political agenda, not slaves to it. Until that happens, Canada bears the shame of being a country without public science.

Filed Under: canada, censorship, facts, political, science, scientists, stephen harper

Canadian PM Copies Campaign Commercial, Doesn't License Hockey Clips

from the didn't-he-want-stricter-copyright-laws? dept

While the latest attempt at putting forth new copyright laws in Canada didn't survive, I always find it amusing when politicians pushing for stricter copyright laws get caught breaking copyright law. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was already being talked about after it came to light that he appeared to have done a pretty close copy of a campaign ad from US Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty. You can see both ads below:

However, as Rob Hyndman alerts us, now some have discovered that Harper did not properly license the video clips he used of a hockey match between Canada and the Soviet Union in 1972.

Horst Ficel, a partner in the firm, says that Hockey Canada granted the players the rights to all the marketing of the series in the mid-1990s. Today, a committee with player representatives decides who can license the footage.

Ficel is busy fielding requests for permission to use the clips to mark the upcoming 40th anniversary of the historic series.

But decidedly not among those requesting permission was the Conservative Party of Canada, Ficel said..

"It's definitely not approved by me. It's not approved by the committee."

He says the committee is careful to avoid anything that might be considered political.

Now, personally, I think this should be "fair use," but Canada (notoriously) has no fair use. It does have a more limited concept of "fair dealing," but (and I'm certainly not an expert in Canadian copyright law), it's not clear if political commercials are covered by Canada's fair dealing provisions. The fair dealing provisions focus on "research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting," and I don't see how political ads match any of those.

Filed Under: canada, commercial, stephen harper, tim pawlenty