The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'

The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'

The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials.

In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour.

He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos.

Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Practical Survival Trapping, by Jason C.

There is nothing more soothing to the soul then quietly enjoying a stroll through the woods, forests, and outdoor areas of this great countryside. And having a rifle or shotgun over your shoulder for the chance opportunity at a squirrel, deer, dove, or pheasant is nothing short of perfection for many of us. However, in a survival situation, a hard day of hunting with nothing to show for it is not only depressing but can be downright dangerous. A person in a survival situation must conserve their energy at all costs. Any activity that doesn't produce something towards the goal of food and water is a risk of losing all of that energy with no way to replace it.

There is only one way to maximize your effort for the return that it provides: trapping. This skill is as old as we are. And as such there has been more knowledge lost to the world than is currently written down. Of course there are still people who have a vast knowledge of what it takes to be successful as a trapper. And surprisingly this has become a fairly recent job skill. In the last 10 years the Urban Wildlife Nuisance Removal Technician has become a much more in demand career. With more and more people not able to handle things for themselves, and local Animal Control Departments being overworked on domesticated animals such as dogs and cats, this has left a large demand for men and women who can trap nuisance wildlife out of homes and commercial buildings.

I was fortunate enough to spend a few years after college working for a company that provided nuisance animal removal services to the metro area of Atlanta. While there, I was able to hone my skills in not only urban trapping but in rural areas also. Since that time I have continued trapping recreationally and occasionally for friends and neighbors who have had problems that needed help. This is not always an easy task but the rewards are many.

Trapping in its essence is time efficient. Traps work even while you are sleeping. Or working on other things. You can also add trapping to a hunting trip or vice-versa. Moving from one trap location to the next can always be used as hunting time, so you are maximizing your effort towards the main goal of surviving. Trapping is typically going to be best served in a long term situation. If your lost in the woods for a few days before rescue, or forced out of your home because of bad weather, trapping just may not be needed. But after 2-3 days it starts to become very important to look for the food sources that trapping can provide.

Let's look at a typical overview of trapping and the systems that are typically applied to its use. The first thing to understand is that trapping for food is all about numbers. The more traps you have out, the more effective they will be. Each trap placement is referred to as a "set". This describes the area you have prepared and the trap that is placed in that area. Multiple sets are described as a "line". Trap lines can have as few as two sets and as many more as you can fit in an area. Although I have found that more than 20 makes it difficult to check daily in a survival situation. And that is an important point. Do not over set an area to the point where you can't check all of your traps daily. Leaving animals suffering, or making them easy targets of predators is not only unethical it is wasteful. If coyotes, hawks, badgers, or weasels are stealing and eating your caught prey, then you don't get to. Also if you know you will not be able to check your trap lines for a few days then it is best to go and leave them unset until you have the time to regularly rechecking them.

Anything that moves can be trapped, but I will be mainly focused on the most common types of traps and the general animals that are targeted. Everyone has their own specialties and preferences when it comes to trapping. And every situation needs to be adapted to. The following information is designed as a starting point to get you some success and help improve the odds of getting that first meal when needed.

Before looking at types of traps we must begin with baits. Baits can make your set a lot more enticing to an animal. And with minimal preparation you can have a great bait ready to go. This is the recipe I have used for years with great success on everything from skunks to field mice and most everything in between. Even coyotes and other predators can be lured in with it. This should make approximately two [quart] jars about 3/4ths full. If stored in a cool dry place it will last for years. And one jar can easily be used for months worth of trapping. It does not require very much to draw an animal in and often a lesser amount will work better than big globs of bait.

Multi-Species Trap Bait Ingredients and Instructions:

1 [quart] jar peanut butter (crunchy works also)

1 handful birdseed with sunflower seeds

3 tablespoons of Vanilla Extract

3 pieces of bacon

2 pieces of white bread

2-5 tablespoons of maple syrup

To make this bait you may need to warm all wet ingredients in a pan to combine.

Fry bacon until very well done. Save grease to add and crumble bacon

Cut up bread slice into very small pieces

Mix all ingredients together and stir well.

Add maple syrup until the consistency is a very thick paste

If you do not have time to prepare a bait blend, you can use a lot of other options. Naturally available seeds, berries, and nuts can be used. Also, other animal carcasses can be used. The guts and entrails from a fish is very effective on raccoons and other scavengers. Strips of hide from a road kill or previously trapped animal can attract a host of animals as well as insects which also can draw in birds. The key to using baits is adaptability and presenting it in a way that entices your prey to investigate. And of course some types of sets require no bait, but these are difficult and can take a long time to eventually have success.

There are four main types of commercially made traps. The leg hold, conibear, box trap, and the snare. Each one has its advantages so lets examine each one and the types of sets they can be used for.

Leg hold: This trap is one of the oldest styles and in larger versions have been called bear traps. The two metal arms are opened and put under tension by a spring. The trigger is a lever or flat plate in the center of the trap. Older models use metal straps folded over as springs, and newer ones have actual springs under the levers. Both styles are effective. These traps come in several sizes but a good selection would be those with a 4-6 inch opening.This opening will then close or snap shut on an animals leg and hold it firmly. This will handle most anything short of big game animals in North America. I have found antique ones at yard sales for just a few dollars and even new ones can be had for under $10 on many web sites. I would suggest having 10-15 of this type for any long term survival situation you are preparing for.

Setting these are very simple and after a few tries you should be proficient in their use. Actually making a set to catch an animal is another story altogether. And something I will discuss at the end of this article.

Conibear: These traps are essentially two squares of heavy gauge metal wire connected to act like a scissor action. One or both sides may have coil springs to give it the strength to close on the intended animal. These also come in different sizes and small to medium will work well for food gathering. Although at least one larger one for beaver, fox, and coyote may be desirable. An important note on this style of trap is that on the larger models the springs can be very hard to depress by hand and may require a "setting tool" which acts like a pair of large pliers to compress the springs. This tool will be required if you are trying to set these larger ones by yourself. Other than that this trap is extremely adaptable as the animal crawls through it to trigger the mechanism and it will humanely kill them instantly which also prevents the animal from escaping. Anything from squirrels to beavers can be easily harvested with this style of trap.

Box trap: You will find this trap routinely used to catch and release animals such as cats, dogs, and other wildlife that does not need to be killed. Many Animal Control companies use this style because of the humane removal and relocation of the trapped animal is preferable to their customers. But they are more expensive and very bulky so for survival needs they are not as efficient as the other styles.

Snare: This is probably the easiest to carry and make or buy. Either made from scratch or purchased this trap is one of the oldest traps ever conceived. And works off of the animals own force to close around the legs or neck. Snares can be very effective in skilled hands, however for a beginner it is unwise to count on snares to be productive. If it is all you have then you better be a quick learner, have some good bait, or a lot of patience to wait for success.

Miscellaneous Traps: There are also pitfall traps, deadfalls, whipstick traps and many other styles that can be used but without practice and a true knowledge of trapping these will do nothing more than waste your time and frustrate you to no end. But I would highly recommend you research these styles and if you have the time to give them a try before you may need them.

Now that we have covered the basic traps you can use it is time to move onto sets. There is no way to give you every type or style of set in a short article and in fact many books have been written on just this subject alone. So I will attempt to give you some helpful ideas on how and where to set your traps. Your first decision is what will you be trapping for. This is the most important because just "trapping" will leave you with very little game on the table. Try to learn what animals may be around. Try checking for sign such as prints, feces, holes, fresh diggings, et cetera. When you locate fresh sign but are not sure what it may be then you can start with multiple sets from a few feet to a dozen yards apart. Try adding bait to some and some just in an open spot. You do want to avoid disturbing the area whenever possible. And multiple sets may take a few days to produce if the animal becomes wary of your presence.

For leg holds you can try to set 2 or 3 in a 2 foot area, lightly sprinkle leaves, loose dirt, or pine needles over them to hide their outline. Then hang a pinecone smeared with a good peanut butter bait about 3 feet off the ground above the traps. As the animal comes in to investigate it is looking up at the lure/bait and is less likely to see the traps until he steps in one and then the others. This set will work for many types of animals. Another bait option is a can of dog or cat food wired above the traps with a hole poked in it to allow the juice to drip out. I have seen a raccoon actually jump into the air to lick the can only to fall back onto two leg holds I had set under some leaves.

A good set for a conibear is to place over a fresh den hole. As the animal comes out it will trigger the trap and instantly kill it to prevent it from going back down. Or you can dig a hole slightly smaller then the traps opening, then leave some bait in the hole, place trap over hole, and as an animal sticks his head into the hole to smell or eat the bait the trap will be set off. This set is extremely effective for carnivores such as raccoons, coyotes, skunks, and possums, if you have guts or rotten meat to use as bait. This trap is also great for beaver. The best set I have used is to find a beaver dam and kick out a hole just big enough for the trap to sit down in. Stake both sides down through the springs and leave overnight. Beavers will always repair their dams and as they poke their noses in to the break to see what needs to be fixed the trap is waiting for them.

Box style traps are best if baited to lure an animal in. To make an effective set the cage needs to be hidden under natural materials like leaves and sticks. The best tip for this trap is to lay a nice amount of soil, moss, leaves, or sand in the bottom so as the animal walks into the trap they do not feel the metal wire of the cage on their feet. This can increase your catch rate dramatically. A good bait set in the back behind the trigger will have the best result.

Snares can be used in a lot of different ways, but essentially you are trying to get them to either step into the loop or walk into it to tighten around the animals neck. Setting along game trails, den openings, narrow gaps can eventually pay off. A great set is to either lay a log over a creek or use an existing one and set snares at both ends. These logs are high traffic areas and sooner or later an animal will use it to cross. Another good set if you have squirrels around is to use a fine wire snare and attach to a tree limb leaned up against a tree known to have squirrels. They will sometimes climb down the stick and snare themselves.

One rule for all of these traps is to securely attach them with wire, cable, or chain to something solid. A tree trunk or large rock will work. Using rope can be a hazard as the animals will try to chew through it and drag your traps off with them. And also remember that most states require your name and address to be attached to your trap using metal tags. You must study your local and state laws regarding trapping and any required licenses, tags, markings, and various trapping season dates before heading out to practice. Also there are some very well-done trapping videos on YouTube. And of course as with most outdoorsmen, if you meet a trapper they usually would be happy to help you get into the game and let you learn some tricks from them.

A final survival hint is for those of you preparing your bug out bags. Why not add 4 or 5 of the larger snap traps used for rats? They take up very little room, and with a little bit of peanut butter can catch small rodents and birds very effectively. You could set out 5 every day/night and I am willing to bet that most mornings you would have a tasty meal waiting for you in the morning.<

Beware 'cosy relationships'

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/06/28/9959216-sun.html
28th June 2009, 3:38am
Often, when climate hysterics and global warming alarmists don't like what I write -- but don't know what they're talking about and thus have nothing intelligent to say in response -- they come back with what they think is their knock-out punch.

It's always words to the effect of: "I hope you're happy getting your blood money from the oil companies, Mr. Goldstein. How can you look at yourself in the mirror every morning? Don't you care about your grandchildren? What happened to journalistic integrity?"

Sometimes, they include in their missives their membership in some obscure organization, usually built around the idea that if we would all just give all our money to the government, or to some other collection of wise elites, and let them spend it for us on our behalf, the world would be a cleaner, safer and "cooler" (pardon the pun) place.

That's pretty much the theory behind carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, by the way.

However, I'm afraid these rants don't have the desired effect, because while their obvious aim is to make me angry via cheap smears, they just give me the giggles.

That's because the idea that I've been sitting here for over two years reading book after book, doing hours upon hours of independent research and pounding out column after column, trying to get people to calm down about anthropogenic climate change before we do something really stupid, all because I'm secretly in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, is simply, utterly, laughably absurd. Plus, it's a lie.

Besides, if you really want to skim the fiscal cream on the issue of man-made global warming these days, the last place you want to be is in the camp of the so-called skeptics, or, as I prefer to call us -- sane.

No, where you want to be if you're in it for the money, is in like flint with the politicians, environmentalists and energy companies who constantly preach that they're all about saving the planet, even if it costs us every last cent we own.

Tom Adams, now an independent energy and environmental consultant, who for 11 years until 2007 was the highly respected executive director of Energy Probe, explains it all on a video he's posted on YouTube titled the "Green Energy Act Paradox."

While we agree his presentation skills need work (sorry, Tom), Adams, intimately familiar with the passage of Premier Dalton McGuinty's Green Energy Act, succinctly lays out what's going on.

He describes the "cosy relationship" that exists among governments that want power, energy companies that want profits and environmental organizations that want more renewable energy, but also consulting fees and government funding.

The way it works is governments hand out money to environmental organizations, who consult with and for energy companies, who together advise the government on what green energy laws should look like, and who then praise the government -- ad nauseam -- for the legislation they helped design when the government unveils it.

And who are the losers in this neat little drama, you ask?

Why, the public, of course, who are increasingly being presented with so-called "green" legislation in which all the key decisions have been made behind closed doors, long before the so-called public consultations begin.

BLOWING CONCERN

Take, for example, the increasing number of rural communities suddenly finding themselves prospective sites for industrial wind farms, while their concerns about the possible health affects from noise are ridiculed, requests for adequate setbacks dismissed as "nimbyism" (not-in-my-backyard-syndrome) and demands for full planning and environmental hearings ignored.

Why? Usually because a bunch of politicians who don't know the first thing about climate change, have convinced themselves they've somehow magically become experts in the field.

Take Premier McGuinty. When he promised to close Ontario's coal-fired power generating stations in the 2003 election -- a promise he's broken so many times since we've all lost count -- the only problem he identified with those plants was their contribution to air pollution. Not a word about greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, which is just about all he talks about now.

In reality, McGuinty could reduce the air pollution from those plants he now says he'll close by 2014 -- honest -- by installing scrubbers. But the government's argument now is this isn't worth it, because that won't simultaneously lower greenhouse gas emissions, the issue he didn't mention in 2003.

And these folks are going to "fix" our climate? Sure they are.

When pigs fly.

LORRIE.GOLDSTEIN@SUNMEDIA.CA

Is that a union donation in your councillor's pocket ...

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/06/28/9959346-sun.html

28th June 2009, 3:35am

Seven city councillors accepted more than $4,000 combined in campaign donations from the city's two striking unions during the last municipal election.

CUPE Locals 79 and 416, which represent the 24,000 inside and outside workers who walked off the job six days ago and are fighting for better wages and to keep their benefits, gave $200 and $500 respectively to Councillors Maria Augimeri, Anthony Perruzza, Adam Giambrone, Janet Davis, and council's budget chief Shelley Carroll.

CUPE 4400, which represents workers at the Toronto District School Board, also gave $750 donations to Carroll, Davis, Perruzza and Giambone.

Local 79 also gave $200 donations to Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker and council speaker Sandra Bussin.

According to some of their critics, those donations -- albeit small -- are enough to question their actions during the strike.

But many of those councillors have not been working in City Hall this past week during the strike.

"These are our employees, for whom we have to make major decisions concerning their wages, their benefits and their working conditions," said Councillor Doug Holyday, who didn't accept any union donations in 2006. "I think it's totally improper that councillors be influenced in this way ... Those union donations aren't proper."

And while most critics of corporate and union donations admit a few hundred dollars can't buy a vote on council, it can buy some influence, according to at least two other councillors who want the practice scrapped.

"At a minimum, it's the perception of influence," Councillor Michael Walker said. "In reality, it may be greater than that. It may be that your vote is compromised by it.

"We should try and remove, wherever possible, those corrupting influences of big money," he said.

(Walker, and about 10 other councillors -- including Toronto Mayor David Miller -- did not accept any corporate or union donations in the 2006 municipal election.)

The city's elections financial disclosure website tracks all individual, corporate, and union contributions made to every campaign, even losing ones.

According to the website, although the maximum allowable limit for a campaign donation in a municipal election is $750, Carroll accepted two $750 donations from the Toronto firefighters' union, and three separate donations from the TTC's union, amounting to $800.

Records on the website also show Davis, who tied Carroll for the most union donations with 15, accepted $1,000 from the International Union of Painters.

When asked about the issue of union donations to election campaigns, Davis told the Sun she wasn't the "official" spokesman for the city on the ongoing labour negotiations.

"We're in a labour relations environment right now. No comment," she said.

Carroll, when asked about the $1,450 she accepted from the Canadian Union of Public Employees last election, said all the election donations are on the website.

"We're not commenting on that stuff right now," she added.

All told, union donations accounted for just over 2% of all 2006 municipal election financing, which is up from 1.1% during the 2003 election.

In fact, across the GTA, Toronto's percentage of union donations is second only to Oshawa, which had 4%.

Walker and councillors Cliff Jenkins and Chin Lee made a move at the city's executive committee in January to have corporate and trade union donations banned from municipal election campaigns.

The committee, which Miller headed, has asked for a draft bylaw doing just that to be brought before them in the fall. The request for the draft bylaw passed 7-4 at committee.

De Baeremaeker, who voted for the bylaw, said he is in favour of banning special-interest donations, even though he accepted 13 union donations in 2006.

"I have voted in favour of ending that practice of corporate and union donations because I think it's the right thing to do," he said, adding they haven't influenced his votes on council.

"I hadn't even thought about it until you mentioned it just now," De Baeremaeker told the Sun, about whether union donations made his job more difficult during the strike.

"That shows you how high it is on my radar screen," he said.

Council will vote in the fall whether to ban corporate and union donations.

If they do, which Walker and Jenkins think is likely given the mayor's support, Toronto will be the first city in Ontario to ban them.

---

7 COUNCILLORS WHO TOOK CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM STRIKING UNIONS

1. SHELLEY CARROLL city council budget chief, accepted 15 union donations totalling $7,550 three were from CUPE totalling $1,450

2. JANET DAVIS accepted 15 union donations totalling $7,650, three were from CUPE totalling $1,450

3. MARIA AUGIMERI accepted 13 union donations totalling $8,350, two from CUPE totalling $700

4. GLENN DE BAEREMAEKER accepted 13 union donations totalling $5,900, two from CUPE totalling $500

5. ANTHONY PERRUZZA accepted 10 union donations totalling $4,850, three from CUPE totalling $1,450

6. ADAM GIAMBRONE accepted 10 union donations totalling $5,450, three from CUPE totalling $1,450

7. SANDRA BUSSIN council speaker, accepted nine union donations totalling $5,900, two from CUPE totalling $5007 COUNCILLORS WHO TOOK CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM STRIKING UNIONS

BRYN.WEESE@SUNMEDIA.CA

ISPs must help police snoop on internet under new bill

Last Updated: Thursday, June 18, 2009 | 4:08 PM ET CBC News Internet service providers would have to make it possible for police and intelligence officers to intercept online communications and get personal information about subscribers under bills tabled Thursday. "We must ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools to catch up to the bad guys and ultimately bring them to justice. Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools," said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as he announced the new bills with Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan at a news conference in Ottawa. The bills are intended to modernize the Criminal Code and help law enforcement officials chase those suspected of using the internet and other new technologies to communicate and commit crimes, as well as maximize the ability to conduct international investigations, Nicholson said. Targets 'safe havens' One bill, announced by Van Loan, would require telecommunications and internet service providers to: Install and maintain "intercept-capable" equipment on their networks. Provide police with "timely access" to personal information about subscribers, including names, address and internet addresses, without the need for a warrant. Van Loan said the bill won't provide new interception powers to police, but simply update the legal framework designed "in the era of the rotary telephone." He noted that police can already get the authority to intercept communications, but the network is often incapable of allowing such interception. "Criminals, child pornographers, organized crime members and terrorists are aware of these interception safe havens. They identify them and gravitate towards them to exploit them and continue their criminal activities undetected, out of the reach of the investigative powers of law enforcement." Van Loan added that internet service providers are currently not required to provide subscriber information to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS), and may be unwilling to provide such data without a police warrant, slowing down the investigation of crimes such as child sexual exploitation or online theft. ISPs must preserve data The other bill, introduced by Nicholson, would: Allow law enforcement officials to obtain transmission data that is sent or received via telephone or internet if authorized by a production order or warrant Require telecommunications companies to keep data related to specific communications or subscribers if that information is needed in an investigation and requested via a preservation order. Make it a criminal offence for two or more people to agree to or arrange child sexual exploitation by means of telecommunications. Modernize the system for tracking warrants. Nicholson said the government believes the proposed legislation strikes an "appropriate balance" between law enforcement's investigative powers to protect public safety and the privacy and rights and freedoms of Canadians. Law enforcement officials at the news conference praised the bill. Calgary deputy chief of police Murray Stooke said police have been requesting the modernization of laws related to interception of communications for a decade. He added that the government consulted broadly with Canadians and interest groups before introducing the new legislation. "We do understand that the privacy concerns of Canadians must be respected," he added, "but at the same time, we have a growing gap in terms of our capacity [to investigate crimes]." However, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote in his blog Thursday that the bills are "pretty much exactly what law enforcement has been demanding and privacy groups have been fearing. It represents a reneging of a commitment from the previous Public Safety Minister on court oversight and will embed broad new surveillance capabilities in the Canadian internet." Cost to ISPs Tom Copeland, head of chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents dozens of smaller Canadian ISPs, said Thursday he fears the bill requiring internet-tapping capability could put some of his members out of business. Van Loan said the companies themselves will have to pay for new equipment to meet the requirements, although the government will provide "reasonable compensation" when retrofits to existing hardware are needed. The companies will have 18 months to make the changes, but there will be a three-year exemption for those with less than 100,000 subscribers. But even that may not be enough time for some small providers, as they usually buy used, older network equipment that wouldn't be tappable, he said. Buying that new equipment could cost $15,000, and even if the government covers half, the remainder would be a "significant burden," Copeland said. "I know a lot of providers who couldn't come up with the other half – it's just not the margins we have." Larger internet service providers such as Bell also expressed concerns. Spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis said in an email that the company "has long been committed to working with law enforcement agencies to find effective and efficient solutions for their legitimate surveillance needs," but policing costs shouldn't be downloaded to one particular industry. "Other funding mechanisms must be found," Michelis said. Copeland said that with respect to providing subscriber information without a warrant, he is glad the bill brings some "clarity and consistency" to the issue. Previously, he said, ISPs were unsure whether providing that information would violate the Privacy Act and leave the companies vulnerable to a lawsuit. He said the other bill introduced Thursday represents no real change to ISPs. Rogers Communications participated in consultations during the drafting of the bills and now that they have been tabled, will study them and provide feedback to the government, said Nancy Cottenden, director of communications for the company, in an email. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/18/tech-internet-police-bill-intercept-electronic-communications.html

Canadian Jewish Congress Organized Nazis

Ezra Levant A Jewish-Canadian author is in a battle of words with the Canadian Jewish Congress after alleging the organization props up neo-Nazi groups to get “hate crime” legislation passed and expand the role of the country’s Human Rights Commission. Neo-conservative author Ezra Levant claims in his latest book, Shakedown, that the Canadian Jewish Congress hired ex-cop John Garrity to work for the Canadian Nazi Party in the 1960’s. In 1965 and 1966, Garrity was put in charge of membership for the group and organized the dozen or so “rag-tag band of losers” into an outfit that garned a lot of press coverage. That media attention was used by the CJC to build up a precieved public threat that persuaded Parliament to abridge Canada’s freedom of speech, Levant contends. The CJC, which had been advocating restrictions on free speech in Canada since the 1930’s, used the Nazi Party’s publicity to successfully lobby for the 1971 “hate law” (Section 319 of the Criminal Code). The end result was the enactment of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which “empowers the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.” Garrity told all in 1966 Levant’s claim has been floating around for some time now. Garrity came clean in a 1966 article for Maclean’s magazine, admitting that he handed member and donor information over over to the CJC; however, he did not say his final goal was to curtail free speech in Canada. Garrity did admit that the Canadian Nazi Party did not conspire to or implement any violent or illegal activities. In fact, any violence Garrity saw was done by Jewish and anti-racist vigilantes. “Sadly, it is the [....] anti-Nazi extremists who, in their attempts to destroy Beattie, provide him with most of the publicity he craves. If it weren’t for the riots and the assaults and the public protest meetings they hold, there’d be no real news,” Garrity wrote in his article. Back in November 2000, former Canadian Nazi Party leader John Beattie was scheduled to testify at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that he was a “dupe and a patsy” for the CJC. He was also going to explain how an agent from the CJC (presumably Garrity) “proposed legal maneuvers [sic] that were calculated to frighten and cause distress among Jews.” However, Beattie never testified, a point many have speculated upon. Levant then contends that some twenty years after the collapse of the Canadian Nazi Party, Canada’s spy agency infiltrated another neo-Nazi group, The Heritage Front. CSIS agent Grant Bristow wound up running the now-defunct group, using Canadian tax dollars to foment more hysteria that got Section 13 to expand even further. Richard Warman The Canadian Human Rights Commission also actively engages in “hate speech” in order to catch and prosecute people for “hate speech,” Levant contends. The biggest offender of such a practice is former CHRC staffer Richard Warman, who has been the complainant in all but two cases heard by the CHRC tribunal this decade. In addition to making tens of thousands of dollars, the CJC bestowed Warman with a special award for his efforts. The tables were stunningly turned on Warman last month, after the CHRC rebuked Warman for his anti-Semitic postings the White Nationalist website Stormfront.org. Warman defended himself by saying his posts that “Jews are scum” was an attempt to gather information on real Nazis, but the tribunal called his actions “disappointing and disturbing,” and ruled that he risked encouraging Rabbi Reuven Bulka More hateful messages himself. “Warman’s actions appalled the tribunal, but apparently not the CJC,” says Levant. “Just as the CJC did with Garrity, Nazi opponents continue to stir up neo-Nazi incidents — as if there aren’t enough real threats to Jews as it is.” Current CJC co-president, Rabbi Reuven Bulka, has dissmissed Levant’s allegations as “fiction” and that all the group did for the Nazis was “to purchase a bottle of rum” for them. Rabbi Bulka wants a retraction to the allegations published in a second printing of Levant’s book.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/06/15/canadian-jewish-congress-organized-nazis/

Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090530/BUSINESS03/905300338/0/BUSINESS02
WAUSEON - The man who drove his 20-year-old Mustang from Napoleon, Ohio, to Las Vegas and back last year on 39 gallons of fuel will open his first manufacturing facility Monday to allow others to get 110 miles per gallon. Doug Pelmear, owner of Horse Power Sales.net Inc. and Hp2G LLC, will hold an open house Monday morning in the idle 100,000-square-foot factory he has leased in Wauseon to begin manufacturing his revolutionary engine. The factory, on the Fulton Industries Inc. campus in Wauseon, will be tooled to initially turn out 20 of Mr. Pelmear's custom engines per day with one shift of 25 workers. A Decatur, Ind., specialty car company, Revenge Designs Inc., has contracted with Mr. Pelmear to purchase 2,000 engines for use in a new vehicle it plans to unveil at the end of this year at the Los Angeles International Auto Show. The vehicle is to be called the Revenge Verde Super Car, which will use Mr. Pelmear's 400-horsepower engine and its 500 foot-pounds of torque to travel up to 200 mph and get 110 mpg - though admittedly not at the same time. "The engine is going to be a really great partnership with the car," explained Emily Levault, a spokesman for Revenge Design. "The idea behind this was to give people what they want while putting people back in their jobs." Ms. Levault said the Verde will be introduced as both a left and right-hand drive, so that it can be marketed around the world. She said details of its pricing have not been released.

Mr. Pelmear has said that he employs more precise tolerances and manufacturing techniques to decrease heat and energy loss and increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. He said he has more than quadrupled the industry average engine efficiency of about 8 percent.

Mr. Pelmear's company employs eight people, and he said he'll "take resumes" on Monday, but won't accept applications, for what would be his first shift of production workers. Depending on how the plant start-up goes, Mr. Pelmear said, "we'll probably add another 25 over the next three months after that." Mr. Pelmear did not say what workers will be paid. Contact Larry P. Vellequette at:
lvellequette@theblade.com