If you have, you will know that your mobility rights are under heavy attack from the Criminal Syndicates selling off your rights and resources like their own personal property - you being 'at best' a house slave.

Biometrics eyed for border U.S. anti-terror officials to meet with ICBC this week David Carrigg, with a file from Frank Luba Monday, January 29, 2007 - The Province CREDIT: Jason Payne, The Province Craig Hare: 'Overall, I'd say it's a good idea." U.S. anti-terror officials are to meet with the Insurance Corp. of B.C. this week to discuss the introduction of high-tech biometric driver's licences as an alternative to passports. "They'll be heading north on [Thursday] to discuss the [biometric-licence] plan with our Canadian counterparts," said Kristin Jacobsen, spokeswoman for Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. She said Department of Homeland Security officials will meet with the Washington government and its licensing department before going to Victoria to meet with ICBC and B.C. government officials. The meetings are a result of work by the B.C.-Washington Working Group. It is trying to find ways to delay a U.S. government plan requiring everyone, including Americans, to have a passport to enter the U.S. starting in January 2008. Starting last week, all air travellers to the U.S. must have a passport. U.S. visitor John Poore, 35, of Portland, Ore., who drove to Vancouver with his wife Erin, said yesterday he is "absolutely" in favour of using biometrics on a driver's licence. "[It's] so much easier than a passport," he said. "No worry of identity theft. "Actually, we use it now to get into work," added Poore, who uses his thumbprint to get access to his laptop. "I think it's easier than having to reset a computer every 90 days or whatever it is. I like no muss, no fuss." Poore has a passport, but his wife doesn't. She also backs biometrics on a driver's licence. "I think that sounds a lot easier," said Erin, 31. "It's probably a lot cheaper." Craig Hare is from New Hampshire and also drove to B.C. "I don't have a passport so I would definitely be in favour of [biometrics]," said Hare, 28. "I just don't know how much capital it would cost the American government to implement. But overall, I'd say it's a good idea." Last summer Premier Gordon Campbell and Gregoire sent a letter to the U.S. and Canadian governments urging a delay in introducing new passport requirements. "There is no proof that requiring passports is going to improve border security," Campbell said at the time. "Uncertainty over the passport requirements is already having a negative impact on cross-border [travel]." B.C.and Washington have a combined population of 10 million and more than $10 billion a year in cross-border trade. It's estimated a quarter of visitors during the 2010 Winter Olympics will come to Vancouver through Washington. Jacobsen said the working group, which is looking at technology that might avoid the need to have passports for identification, is focusing on biometric technology that can be used on a standard driver's licence. Biometrics refers to technologies that use a person's distinguishing traits as the ultimate form of identification. To date, scanners have been equipped to recognize such traits as fingerprints, the face, retinas and the geometry of the hand. The technology being explored by the working group and the Department of Homeland Security is facial recognition. Facial recognition is considered a less intrusive form of bio-recognition. "[Homeland Security] are interested," Jacobsen said. "They'll head up to B.C. to talk about the plan." In B.C., licence photos were upgraded a decade ago with digital systems to shoot and store them, but biometrics have not been used. A biometric licence would likely cost about $25 a year more than the current licence. ICBC spokesman Doug Henderson would not confirm the Thursday meeting. He said ICBC has been studying the biometric driver's licence concept and monitoring what other provinces are doing. Manitoba and Ontario are considering adding biometric data to driver's licences and health cards. B.C. information and privacy commissioner David Loukidelis has no problem with biometric licences. "I've got an open mind on biometrics," he said. "They can, in fact, by securing identification, actually arguably protect privacy in terms of identity theft by making it tougher for people to forge your ID." This is global folks.... [just a small sample] -Driver's Licenses As National ID? -Heathrow begins biometric trials -Faces and eyes rival passwords -Millions to get ID cards within 3 years -Biometric comes to Topeka -ID cards don't work – even Tony [Blair] says so -Secret services to be given access to ID card database   GOTO OUR: CHIPS COMING SOON PAGE FOR A LOOK AT YOUR FUTURE. Have a look at the BC connection to the coming North American Union. Let there be no doubt that you will be forced to have biometrics, and these cards will be used to control you, just like every government in history has done with similar power. In fact, they are already targeting those who believe that governments and their agents are servants, not a god. [Click HERE now]

Communist style enforcement of insurance contracts are not only totally unlawful, it costs you more...

[Is this what they believe is a free market? A few crumbs from the "masters table"?]

__________

ICBC terrorists record yet more record profits... and they aren't sharing with the shareholders.

ICBC heads stealing funds?

Bad driving, or not wearing your seatbelt like good little boys and girls means you are a terrorist.

Martial law, seatbelt enforcement, just part of the "new freedom" for Iraq.

Iraq Cracks Down on Seat Belt Scofflaws - April 17/08

Fine leaves student out on a ledge
Police give Victoria native $628 ticket for 'improper' seat in Montreal park
 
Irwin Block, Canwest News Service, April 25, 2008

Victoria native Brendan Jones found out the hard way last weekend that Montreal police can give you a $628 ticket for nothing more menacing than sitting on a ledge.

Jack Knox column: Jaywalk blitz boosts bottom line - By Jack Knox, Times ColonistMarch 2, 2009

So, I'm downtown and these panhandlers are hitting up pedestrians for $109 a pop. "Jeez," I say, "the price of crack must have gone up." But nope, it's the police handing out jaywalking tickets.

Say what? Considering you can't negotiate the sidewalk without playing Heroin Hopscotch, why would the cops focus on jaywalking instead? [full article here]
 

Parking fees now at popular B.C. parks

Some of the Island and coastal parks that will charge parking fees are Bamberton, Englishman River, French Beach, Goldstream, Gordon Bay, Juan de Fuca, Little Qualicum Falls, Miracle Beach, Montague Harbour, Rathtrevor Beach, Ruckle, Sooke Potholes and Sproat Lake, with more to come.

The charges are part of a new tax grab being marketed as a model for fish, wildlife and 'park recreation' that the minister said is designed to provide revenue in order to maintain nature and wildlife, which are helpless without government intervention and control.  The fees will also make it safer for the wealthy to enjoy the parks and help keep these resources in the government control.

"This is a dramatic shift and it's long overdue," Murray said smugly.

Provincial park camping fees will be increased, as will the cost of hunting and fishing licences, and whatever else we can raise.

Most new fees go into effect May 1, but hunting and angling increases will begin in April before the run of Spring salmon gets going.

The basic minimum nightly camping fees will rise anywhere from $9 to $22. Seniors will get a 50 per cent discount during bad weather and disabled campers will still receive camping subsidies, Murray said.

"One half of our camp sites still have a cost of $14 or less a night, so stop your bitching'' Murray suggested.

The ministry estimates their little tax grab will generate about $2.5 million, which it says will offset the $2.4 million now paid to their buddies doing private-service contracts in parks.

Resident angling charges will go up a whopping 20 percent to $36 from $30 and non-resident Canadian licences skyrocket to $55 from $40. A fishing licence for a non-Canadian will rise to a staggering $80 from $55.

The cost of a resident hunting licence will increase to $32 from $21. Canadian non-resident licences will rise to $75 from $46, and non-Canadian annual hunting fees will jump to a never before seen high of $180 from $145.

The ministry said fee changes for hunting and fishing will pilfer$4.5 million in additional revenue from people merely trying to enjoy the outdoors. The ministry tried to excuse their action by claiming the money will help "offset the gap" between what it costs to maintain the growing of trees, watering of deer, etc... and what is currently brought in through fees.

Murray defended the parking charges by suggesting the former model, in which 10 per cent of park users -- those who camp overnight -- have paid almost 100 per cent of fees collected, "wasn't fair". 

The Independent Recreation Stewardship (IRS) panel, appointed by Murray, to come up with recommendations said that all park users will be forced at gunpoint to contribute to supporting services. "And I agree with that," Murray said, basically, we want to be sure and screw over everyone, in other words.

"If you go and spend a day at a park and swim, hike and look at trees, you don't pay (anything, currently). Having 10 per cent of park users paying isn't supporting the system we wish to impose.''

When it was pointed out that B.C. users already pay for park costs through their provincial taxes, Murray drew an analogy to an average homeowner. "Just because somebody has paid the mortgage doesn't mean the person is free of upkeep costs".

The government did admit that previous fees and licence revenue from parks and fish and wildlife recreation has gone into general revenue, not watering trees and feeding deer.

"This is a model that will put those services on sound financial footing and keep them in public control."

The government stated users will have the option of buying a new annual park recreation pass or license for $75, which will permit unlimited parking in B.C. parks.

Ministry spokesman said enforcement of parking compliance will be the responsibility of private contractors.

The ministry plans to use signs and "soft reminders" during an ease-in period. If enforcement is required that will be up to gun toting park rangers, a spokesman said.

Also under the plan, docking and mooring rates in B.C. parks will be standardized to $2 per metre per night, and that rate is double what some pay now.

In five years, fee revenue should reach several million dollars annually.

____________

After charging people for the use of free public land, the government now wants to make itself look like they are doing you a "favour" in reducing parking fees.

Please bare in mind that revenue from gasoline is no less than FOUR times the amount required to maintain and build highways, so the pittance it would cost to cut down a few trees and plough a flat space would be more than covered. Then of course we have the fee revenue charged to forest companies for the right to cut down and sell our trees.
 
B.C. slashes parking fees for provincial parks
Every penny raised goes back into the system, minister says
 
Judith Lavoie Times Colonist Sunday, April 01, 2007

The B.C. government is reducing parking fees in some provincial parks, but the controversial parking machines will stay.

Environment Minister Barry Penner said that, starting April 5, the parking fee will be $1 an hour, to a maximum daily rate of $3 a day, down from $5 a day in some parks. The cost of an annual pass will be cut by 50 per cent to $25.

"I think there was resistance to the $5 fee, even though it is lower than in many other jurisdictions," Penner said. "It made sense to streamline the fees and most parks still don't have any fees," he said.

Compared with other jurisdictions, B.C. Parks are a bargain and every penny raised by parking fees goes into the park system, Penner said.

In Ontario, an annual pass is $110 and the daily fee in Saskatchewan is $7, he said.

"I think B.C. Parks are great value. If I had the choice of visiting a B.C. park and paying $3 a day or a Saskatchewan park for $7 a day, the choice is obvious," he said.

"My hope is that local residents will take advantage of it by visiting their parks and paying that fee, which is a modest contribution to the park system."

The government put meters in 28 of the most popular provincial parks in 2003 and added another 13 parks the following year.

In the more remote parks, the meters became targets of vandalism and were frequently out of order, meaning projected revenues fell short.

Maintenance costs increased because some meters were designed for U.S coins and would not spit out tickets when Canadian coins were used.

The parking meters annoyed park users so much that, in one mainland community, someone drove their 4x4 up to the meter, chained it to the truck and dragged it to the mayor's doorstep, said Gwen Barlee. She is the policy director for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, an organization which has spearheaded the fight against pay parking in parks.

Millions of people have been driven away by the fees and there is no way to collect fines except by using scarce park rangers, Barlee said.

A review of the parking fees, conducted for the ministry, was completed last year, but has not been publicly released.

However, Penner said there is now "significant acceptance" of the parking meters and the compliance rate is 75 to 80 per cent.

The fees are raising about $1 million a year, he said. "And I'm not interested in giving up that revenue."

Attendance dropped off initially, but is now increasing, although there is a North American trend showing park visits decreasing as populations age and young people spend more time playing video games, said Penner, a former park ranger.

But, Barlee said the fee reduction is an admission the system is a failure.

"I think this is a recognition that introduction of parking fees has been a disaster from the get-go. Now they are trying to save face, but they can't bring themselves to bite the bullet and remove the fees," Barlee said.

"Washington state introduced the same thing in 2003 and it was a disaster. This year they removed the fees and increased the budget for the parks system."

Penner said Washington state, which has a much smaller park system, is now struggling with its finances and may have to lay off staff.

Making money in parks is ok for government, but not the rest of us...

Vancouver Mayor agrees with parking rate hikes. Sheep getting clipped again.

Plugging parking meters late into the night in downtown Vancouver is a real possibility, according to the city's top leader.

Cope councillor Jim Green is floating the idea of extending meters until as late as five o’clock in the morning. And the mayor is backing the plan.

Money collected from the meters would help cover policing costs, due in part to late night bar closings. Right now, bar owners are absorbing 100 per cent of those costs - a whopping $800,000.

But the people who would be paying the extra parking costs say its a bad idea.

NPA councillor Sam Sullivan agrees with commuters. He says new meters would have to be purchased, costing up to one million dollars.

[So its not that the sheep are getting screwed that bothers this councillor, so much as the initial cost of new meters.

How about the fact that it is illegal (under our Great Constitution) to use the Queen's highways for a commercial purpose? But then the people don't seem to have the courage to assert their rights much these days, do they?]

Earlier this month, council approved rate increases for some downtown meters by as much as one dollar an hour, making it more expensive to park in Vancouver than in Toronto.

http://www.vancouvertelevision.com/displayresults.jsp?id=/news/stories/2004/01/news-20040124-08.htm

Parks so popular you might pay more for them - Jan 19/2008
Levy for buying park land might go up; politicians who used to be wary say there's 'huge community support'

Mileage tax proposal sticks it to drivers.

Paradise Post, California | December 7 2004

BRAINSTORMING, according to Webster, "is a group problem-solving technique that involves spontaneous contribution from all members of the group." In other words, people get together informally to discuss how to solve a problem or achieve a goal. There is little structure and everyone is encouraged to express any idea that pops into his or her head.

Sometimes brainstorming sessions produce a unique new solution; however, there are usually many more unworkable or impractical ideas that come up.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is the challenge.

Joan Borucki, the governor's choice to head the Department of Motor Vehicles, headed a group that looked into the state infrastructure. While we don't know if her team held a brainstorming session, they did come up with a cockamamie idea that shouldn't have survived the study.

Borucki advocated taxing motorists for every mile they drive and she suggested one-tenth of a cent per mile. This, she believes, would gain the state Treasury more than $300 million per year, money that could be used for highway construction and repair.

How would the state figure this out, you ask? We wondered the same thing.

But they had a ready answer. There are a couple of options, but all would involve placing a device on every car in the state, all the millions of them. We won't go into the technical aspects, one of which involves using GPS satellites, but they all involve some type of tracking of your personal driving.

Besides the scary Big Brother aspects of such a government program, there is the initial cost involved in installing a devise on every motor vehicle in the state.

Would delivery businesses, such as UPS, be exempt and what about motorcycles and off-road vehicles? And there hasn't been a mechanical device invented that someone hasn't figured a way to disable or bypass.

No, we think this is an idea whose time hasn't come. If this is a harbinger of Borucki's management thinking, we believe that the DMV, inefficient as it is, is in for troubled times. If CalTrans is so desperate for funding to maintain our highways, the governor should have the courage to ask for an increase in the gasoline tax, not attempt to foist such an inappropriate program on the public.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2004/071204taxproposal.htm

Gas tax on miles, not gallons, tested

UPI | March 27 2006

Oregon is testing the idea of collecting highway funds through a tax on miles driven, rather than gasoline consumed.

The test program uses a global positioning system to track miles driven, using a black box to calculate how many miles are clocked in-state, out of state and during rush hour.

"The existence of such a database, which would, for the first time in history, allow for the creation of detailed daily itineraries of every driver, raises obvious privacy concerns," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group in Washington.

__________________________________________________________

Looking for another legal argument for not wearing a helmet? Why is "freedom of religion"

recognized, but not simple "freedom of self determination"? Aren't they the same thing?

Isn't this ruling narrow, capricious and arbitrary with regard to preservation of LIBERTY as

referred to in section 7 of the Canada Act?

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY HELMET
EXEMPTION REGULATION

Exemption

1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:

(a) a person who

(i) practices the Sikh religion, and

(ii) has unshorn hair and habitually wears a turban composed of 5 or more square meters of cloth.

[Provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, relevant to the enactment of this

regulation: section 221 (3)]

------------------------------------------------

Do you even know what your LAWFUL RIGHTS are, with regard to our use of the "Kings Highways" ?

“Among the normal rights which are available to every British subject

against all the world are: (1) personal safety and freedom; (2) one’s

good name; (3) the enjoyment of the advantages ordinarily open to

all the inhabitants of the country, e.g., the unmolested pursuit of

one’s trade or occupation and free use of the highways; (4) freedom

from malicious vexation by legal process; and (5) to one’s own property.”

“The common law doctrine applicable generally to public highways in this country is that the public are entitled not only to a free passage along the traveled part; but to a free passage along any portion of it not in actual use of another traveler.”

The phrase "against all the world" means they (rights which are available) are YOUR

PROPERTY, and will be your descendants property - IF you are brave enough to defend them.

Any party (even the Crown) that infringes those rights, as preserved in our Eternal Magna

Carta, is violating the law of the Land, and is committing an assault. You therefore have a

right to remedy, and the defence of your rights (by force if necessary) as stated in the

Great Charter.

Doctors now say helmet won't protect you from brain injury, even from a gloved punch.

Collision energy varies with the square of impact speed: a typical helmet
will absorb the energy of a fall from a bicycle, an impact speed of around
12mph. It will only reduce the energy of a 30 mph impact to 27.5 mph,

and even this will be compromised if the helmet fails. This energy calculation
is based on the standards, which take no account of the weight of the
rider's body, which may be a factor in headfirst falls.

Helmets are most effective in straight line, or linear, blows to the head at
moderate speed. Helmets are not well designed to deal with high speed
impacts or rotational stresses (crashes that are not centred, and involve
rotation of the head). They are not designed to provide adequate

protection for a collision involving another moving vehicle, (e.g. a car).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

____

Yet another reason for the right to make up YOUR OWN MIND about YOUR private

security and freedom of expression. Stop being a slave!

Study says helmets draw danger A British study suggests that at least in some situations, bicycling with a helmet may be more dangerous than going without. Dr. Ian Walker, a professor of psychology at the University of Bath, was his own subject in a study that measured how closely cars drove to bicycles they passed on the road. Walker, using a bicycle fitted with a well-concealed video camera and ultrasonic sensor, measured his distance from cars as they passed by his bicycle. He rode with and without a helmet, and with and without a wig that made him look like a woman. He covered 200 miles at various times of day and made more than 2,500 observations. The study will appear in a future issue of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Walker found that cars consistently passed closer to him when he was wearing a helmet than when he was bareheaded, that trucks passed closer than cars, and that drivers passed closer to him without the wig than when they thought he was a woman. Cycling farther from the curb, sometimes recommended as a way of keeping cars at a safe distance, did not work. The farther he rode from the curb, the closer drivers came to his bicycle. Walker was hit by a bus and a truck during the study, both times while wearing a helmet. He sustained a minor injury’ in the truck accident. But he warned that abandoning headgear was not the answer. “As for helmets;’ he said, “the advice goes to the drivers rather the cyclists — treat them all with lots of care and respect, because no matter how skilled they are, this doesn’t stop a gust of wind knocking them sideways, or a pedestrian stepping out in front of them.” — New York Times Service See clip of study in this 20/20 segment on how we're officially a massive nanny state.... Nanny states are the first stage in development towards a police state.

Speed cameras fail to halt a rise in fatalities on the roads

City to Seize Homes Over a $5 Parking Ticket
Brooksville, Florida proposes to foreclose homes and seize cars over less than $20 in parking tickets.

The city council in Brooksville, Florida voted this week to advance a proposal granting city officials the

authority to place liens and foreclose on the homes of motorists accused of failing to pay a single $5

parking ticket. Non-homeowners face having their vehicles seized if accused of not paying three

parking offenses.

According to the proposed ordinance, a vehicle owner must pay a parking fine within 72 hours if a meter

maid claims his automobile was improperly parked, incurring tickets worth between $5 and $250. Failure

to pay this amount results in the assessment of a fifty-percent "late fee." After seven days, the city will

place a lien on the car owner's home for the amount of the ticket plus late fees, attorney fees and an

extra $15 fine. The fees quickly turn a $5 ticket into a debt worth several hundred dollars, growing at a

one-percent per month interest rate. The ordinance does not require the city to provide notice to the

homeowner at any point so that after ninety days elapse, the city will foreclose. If the motorist does not

own a home, it will seize his vehicle after the failure to pay three parking tickets.

Any motorist who believes a parking ticket may have been improperly issued must first pay a $250

"appeal fee" within seven days to have the case heard by a contract employee of the city. This

employee will determine whether the city should keep the appeal fee, plus the cost of the ticket and

late fees, or find the motorist not guilty. Council members postponed a decision on whether to reduce

this appeal fee until final adoption of the measure which is expected in the first week of April.

The full text of the ordinance is available in a 605k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Ordinance No. 743 (Brooksville, Florida City Council, 3/19/2007)
 

B.C. getting tougher on drunk drivers - Feb 23/08

Les is inviting police across B.C. to bring him accident cases involving drunk drivers so his ministry's Civil Forfeiture Office can use existing legislation to begin permanently confiscating those vehicles.

New legislation under development would allow B.C. to seize and sell impaired drivers' vehicles even without an accident, and would top an Ontario law that came into effect Wednesday, Les said. Ontario's law permits the province to seize and sell vehicles of people convicted of three drinking-driving convictions in 10 years.

These last set of laws (above) were so successful, not at reducing the rate of accidents directly related to alcohol, but in raising huge revenues, they decided to do it again. This time, they used the tragic death of a young girl, to widen the net to include those not even considered impaired in many jurisdictions, or experts.

Drinking-and-driving rules get stricter in B.C. - By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun April 28, 2010
Two glasses of wine in two hours could put you over.
 

VICTORIA — The British Columbia government announced a tough new drinking-and-driving law Tuesday that will allow police to immediately fine and suspend drivers caught with a blood-alcohol level as low as 0.05.

Solicitor General Mike de Jong said the new law is meant to dramatically change the behaviour of drivers throughout the province.

This is of course totally and completely unlawful legislation, and is not "a law" but a mere statutory regulation created in the tyrannical minds of politicians who sense that "drinking and driving" is a good Trojan horse from which to bring in new statutes that will (magically of course) grant police the power of judge, jury and executioner. This is just the first of many other statutes to come. They believe that most people will support these "laws", and most narrow-sighted Canadians will, even though their intent is not really to punish truly impaired and incompetent drivers, but largely those who are good drivers who have had a glass or two of wine with their dinner, or at least appears to have done so (in the opinion of the police). There is no appeal process.... and THAT is the key to this latest set of man made statutes.

Global TV was nice enough to emphasise just how easy it will now be for YOU to collect nearly 4,000 (yes, four THOUSAND) dollars in penalties for doing absolutely nothing wrong to anyone, save for enjoy a couple of beers with your dinner... The conduct and ability of your actual movement along the highway has NO BARING on your fabricated (by legislation) guilt or dept to a damaged party - as determined by those nice people who like to taser people who can't speak English. So say goodbye to more of your rights soon... they have set the precedent, and they'll be coming for you soon enough.

Gas gouging as much as 27 cents a litre: study

Idling your car could net a ticket

Vancouver Sun - Published: Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Fines range from $50 for a basic violation to $100 for heavy trucks and unattended vehicles.
The idle-free bylaw was enacted by the city July 18, 2006, with a print media and radio

campaign, along with presentations by city staff to schools and businesses.

Lower Mainland mayors' China trip broke the law, experts say
It's unlikely that the mayors in question will be penalized, legal specialists say

__________________________

In a split-decision, a three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel said the province’s regulation mandating photographs on driver’s licences violated religious freedom.

Conrad said mandating members of the southern Alberta colony to have their photographs taken would force them to violate their religion.

The 142-member colony launched a court challenge when the province made it mandatory in 2003, to have driver’s licences include a photograph of the holder.

Conrad, along with Justice Clifton O’Brien, said the breach could not be justified as a minimal infringement on the colonists’ right to freedom of religion.

But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Frans Slatter said the Charter breach was a justifiable one.

[So what! Create a card for the purpose of ID and shut the #@$# up you two-faced law breaking idiot!]

“The integrity and reliability of the driver’s licence system benefits all Albertans who require, on a routine basis, proof of their identity.

[Ah, this is supposed to be a free country, not a police state. Did you miss your class on presumption of innocence?]

“The presence of photographs is an important part of the integrity of the system,” he said.

[The only thing integral to the system is less dumb-a## judges who think this is the Soviet Union, and have never read our Constitution]

“There unfortunately are significantly large groups of people who seek to exploit the identities of others for financial or other purposes.”

[Fill in your own droll quip here.........]

And, Slatter said, the severity of the sins for those Hutterites who obtain photo licences would be minimized by the fact they were being forced to do so.

[FORCED TO DO SO!!! Tilt!!! TILT!!! Oh what a giveaway.... did you read that, eh!!! That's what we're on about!]

“They will do this under an element of practical compulsion, which will considerably diminish any disobedience to their religious tenets,” he said.

[Yeah the old baton to the kidneys or taser to the groin should show them pacifist scofflaws who's boss.... ah, which is us actually - the people who create governments to preserve our liberty. Or maybe they need to be forced to remember that fact?]

Because of Slatter’s dissenting opinion, the province automatically has the right to take the case to the Supreme Court.

[Governments don't have rights.... People have rights.... but this piece of crap judge obviously had his head in a dark place]

kevin.martin@calgarysun.com

---

Alberta to appeal Hutterites' exemption from licence photos - June 26/2007

The government can't afford to let ANYONE have an ID exemption, or it will hamper their goal to create a command and control grid over all Canadians. Read more here....

See also: BC Connection bookmark on RFID drivers licenses now coming....

Association Against the use of Daytime Running Lights

There is no conclusive evidence to show that DRLs are effective at reducing crashes. Rather, there are a number of safety-negative side effects of DRLs on automobiles, including emitting excessive glare to other drivers, masking of other vulnerable road users, and increased energy consumption. Click headlines for website....

Please help us defend your Freedom and Liberty with a donation of

your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button below. Thank You!