Quebec's Language Bill 96 and Others All Unconstitutional

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Quebec's language Bill 96 is deemed unconstitutional, and the Prime Minister must invoke the disallowance power, an integral aspect of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

When will we see a political party and its leaders with the wisdom and courage to defend Canada and its citizens by utilizing the disallowance power entrenched in the existing Canadian Constitution? This power, enshrined in the Constitution Act, of 1867, remains vital for safeguarding minority rights and preventing the enactment of discriminatory laws by provincial governments, such as Quebec’s Bill 96.

It is a fundamental principle that provisions within the Constitution retain their legal force regardless of whether they are frequently exercised. They persist until modified through the prescribed Canadian Constitution amendment procedures, not through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

While scholars may engage in academic discourse about the legitimacy of constitutional powers that lie dormant, it is essential to recognize that such discussions do not alter the constitutional framework itself. The disallowance power, explicitly outlined in the Constitution Act of 1867, remains valid unless formally renounced through established conventions.

As no Prime Minister has officially declared the disallowance power obsolete, it retains its legal validity as a crucial component of Canada's constitutional framework. Therefore, it can and should be employed to ensure all provinces adhere to the principles outlined in the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

Moreover, debates among academics concerning whether a constitutional convention can nullify a written law present complex legal questions. It is challenging to argue that a lack of exercise could invalidate a constitutionally established power, particularly given legal precedents such as the 1990 court ruling that upheld the appointment of eight additional senators, despite the previously unused section of the Constitution Act of 1867 being invoked.

Background:

1.        https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2.      https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

 

 

New York Executive Law § 63(12) Felonious?

 

In challenging the constitutionality of New York Executive Law § 63(12), several aspects of substantive due process should be implicated.

Privacy Rights: If the law infringes upon individuals' fundamental right to privacy without a compelling government interest and lacks narrow tailoring, it conceivably raises substantive due process concerns.

For instance, if it enables the Attorney General to target individuals or businesses without adequate justification, privacy rights are at risk.

Property Rights: Substantive due process safeguards property rights by demanding that government actions affecting property be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If the law permits the Attorney General to pursue injunctions or remedies against individuals or businesses without due justification, it might infringe upon property rights and thus be subject to challenge.

Liberty Interests: Substantive due process protects against arbitrary or unreasonable government interference with individual liberty interests. If the law excessively restricts individuals' lawful business activities or encroaches upon their liberty without sufficient justification, it conceivably faces challenges on substantive due process grounds.

Overbreadth and Vagueness: Substantive due process mandates that laws be clear and narrowly tailored to their intended purposes. Should New York Executive Law § 63(12) contain overly vague or broad language, or if it criminalizes constitutionally protected conduct to a significant degree, substantive due process concerns conceivably arise. If the language of the law is overly vague or broad, it could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement and thus violate the principles of due process. Additionally, if the law sweeps too broadly and criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it might be considered overbroad.

Additionally, concerning excessive fines, laws or actions imposing penalties disproportionate to the offence committed can be deemed unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. 

Cases such as United States v. Bajakajian (1998), Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), Austin v. United States (1993), and Timbs v. Indiana (2019) illustrate how the Supreme Court has addressed such issues, underscoring the principle that fines must not be grossly disproportionate to the offence and that property cannot be confiscated without due process of law.

In addition, the New York Executive Law § 63(12) could be considered unconstitutional depending on various factors, including how it is applied and interpreted in practice, and whether it conflicts with constitutional provisions or principles. Here are some potential areas where constitutional concerns might arise:

Due Process: The law allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions and other remedies against individuals or businesses engaging in fraudulent or illegal acts. In applying such remedies, it's essential to ensure that affected parties receive due process rights, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

First Amendment: If the law restricts speech or expression in a manner that is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, it could raise First Amendment concerns. For example, if the law is used to target protected speech or political expression, it might be subject to challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Equal Protection: The law must be applied in a manner that does not discriminate against individuals or groups based on improper classifications such as race, gender, or religion. Unequal treatment in enforcing the law could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Powers: Depending on how the law interacts with the powers of other branches of government, particularly the judiciary, concerns about separation of powers might arise. If the law grants the Attorney General excessive discretion or authority without sufficient oversight, it could raise separation of powers issues.

State Constitutional Concerns: It's also possible that the law could be challenged under the New York State Constitution, which may provide additional protections or impose different requirements compared to the U.S. Constitution.

The "general principle of proportionality" is a legal doctrine often applied in various contexts, including constitutional law and international law. It essentially states that any government action or restriction on individual rights must be proportionate to the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. 

In other words, the means used by the government should not exceed what is necessary to accomplish its objectives and was this case brought against the former US President by a political hatchet job by one political party member seeking a higher public office?

 

 

 

 

USA No Beacon For Democracy

 

USA No Beacon For Democracy

Today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

Further, today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

None of these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those in power.

The weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of democracy are called into question.

At the heart of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world?

The answer, perhaps, lies in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.

Yet, when all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable contention under existing laws and constitution.

When the institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political actors and a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.

In confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up their  (domains), platforms, forums, and media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide, and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who use it.

As such, these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws already on the books.

Based on the text of the New York Executive Law 63(12), it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution: State laws must be compatible with and incorporate the individual guarantees provided by the U.S. Constitution. This principle is known as the doctrine of "constitutional supremacy." According to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law, including the Constitution itself and treaties made under its authority, is the supreme law of the land. This means that state laws and state constitutions must conform to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

As we navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on, nonetheless. In the face of adversity, let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that define us as free and equal citizens.

FACTS:

Based on the text of the executive law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

The provision grants the attorney general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are unconstitutional at least.

Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump” without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing else.

Requirement of Prior Conviction: The law does not explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to act and this absurdity must be challenged in law.  Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based on purely political status or political association.

Scope of "Fraud" and "Illegality": The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally protected activities.

Judicial Oversight: The law requires the attorney general to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet all judicial appointments are politicly made.

The Politicization of law enforcement: When law enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Manipulation of the media and social media Teck companies: When media outlets are controlled or influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion in favour of those in power.

The Undermining of democratic norms: When democratic norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for authoritarian rule.

In Conclusion:  While the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight, and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to the law would likely involve careful consideration of all ethical and constitutional principles by the courts.

 

Navalny, Oppenheimer; Trump Opposition Leaders Against Governments

In the intricate tapestry of the USA and global politics, the thread of justice often seems frayed, with cases of political prosecutions serving as stark reminders of the fragility of democracy in the USA and elsewhere. Recent events involving figures like Alexei Navalny, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and former President Donald Trump cast a spotlight on the complexities and challenges of maintaining democratic principles in the face of power struggles and partisan agendas in the USA. No longer, should one honestly say that the USA is a beacon of democracy, in my view.

Navalny's relentless battle against corruption in Russia culminated tragically in his untimely demise, underscoring the dangers faced by political dissidents in authoritarian or democratic regimes, when it comes to holding onto power by a political party or its leaders. His poisoning and subsequent imprisonment epitomize the lengths to which governments will go to silence opposition voices and maintain their grip on power. The parallels between Navalny's ordeal and the struggles of other opposition leaders around the world, including Trump in the USA or others in Iran, China and beyond, highlight a troubling trend of injustice and suppression.

J. Robert Oppenheimer's story offers a different lens through which to examine the intersection of politics and justice. As the architect of the atomic bomb and a key figure in the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer found himself ensnared in the web of Cold War paranoia, suspicion, and power. His security clearance hearing, marked by trumpeted-up allegations of communist ties and political intrigue, serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of conflating scientific innovation with political dissent for the sake of government power over others. While Oppenheimer's case may not align neatly with contemporary notions of opposition leadership, it underscores the broader challenges of navigating political minefields in pursuit of truth and progress against the weaponization of political party power.

Today in the USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan politics in America.

None of these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those in power.

At the heart of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world? The answer, perhaps, lies in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.

Yet, when all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable contention under existing laws and constitution.

When the institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political actors, a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.

The weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of democracy are called into question.

In confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up their  (domains), platforms, forums, and media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide, and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who use it.

As such, these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws already on the books.

As we navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on nonetheless. In the face of adversity, let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that define us as free and equal citizens.

FACTS:

Based on the text of the executive law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:

The provision grants the attorney general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are unconstitutional at least.

Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump” without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing else.

Requirement of Prior Conviction: The law does not explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to take action. Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based on purely political status or political association.

Scope of "Fraud" and "Illegality": The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally protected activities.

Judicial Oversight: The law requires the attorney general to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet all judicial appointments are politicly made.

The Politicization of law enforcement: When law enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and undermines public trust in the justice system.

Manipulation of the media: When media outlets are controlled or influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion in favour of those in power.

The Undermining of democratic norms: When democratic norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for authoritarian rule.

In Conclusion:  While the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight, and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to the law would likely involve careful consideration of these constitutional principles by the courts.

 

Government Digital Currency = Totalitarianism

#cbdc #canada #legilsation #students #new #explorepage #popularpage #news #law #instgood 

There continue to be discussions and developments regarding Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) around the world. China has already introduced its CBDC for the control of its citizens. 

Therefore, it's important to note that the landscape of financial and technological developments is dynamic, and new information emerges continually. The relationship between Central Bank Digital Currency and totalitarianism is a fact and yet continues to be a debated topic in democratic governments worldwide. Go figure. 

On one hand, proponents argue that CBDCs can offer benefits such as financial inclusion, reduced transaction costs, and increased efficiency in the payment system. 

CBDCs also conceivably enable central banks to implement more effective monetary policies and track financial transactions more closely. And opens the door for increased government surveillance and control over individuals' financial activities. Once designed and implemented then used by governments, like in China, CBDCs pose risks to privacy and individual freedoms. 

Where the government tightly controls and monitors CBDC transactions, the potential for abuse of power and the erosion of personal liberties becomes a reality. 

Totalitarianism is used by democratic and other forms of political parties and governments as a political system in which the government has extensive control over all aspects of public and private life. 

The concern with CBDCs and totalitarianism arises when governments use digital currencies as a tool to exert excessive control, monitor citizens' financial transactions, and potentially limit economic freedoms. 

As citizens, it's essential to stay updated on the latest developments in CBDCs, regulatory frameworks, and discussions around digital currencies to understand how different countries are approaching these issues. 

Keep in mind that perspectives on this topic may vary, and ongoing debates and discussions will shape the future of CBDCs and their implications on individual rights and freedoms to benefit corporations and governments NOT citizens. 

Here are some considerations related to hacking and the potential for government control:

1. Cybersecurity Risks: 

CBDCs are vulnerable to cyber threats and hacking attempts. If not adequately secured, malicious actors could exploit vulnerabilities in the digital infrastructure, leading to unauthorized access, theft, or manipulation of funds. 

2. Government Control and Surveillance: 

CBDCs, if designed without proper privacy safeguards, could enable governments to monitor and control individuals' financial transactions more closely. This could potentially infringe on privacy rights and lead to concerns about government overreach. 

3. Social Engineering and Scams: 

As with any digital system, individuals may be susceptible to social engineering attacks and scams. Phishing attempts, malware, and other fraudulent activities could compromise the security of CBDC users. 

4. Potential for Government Control Over Spending: 

Governments could potentially use CBDCs to monitor and control spending behaviour by imposing restrictions or tracking transactions. This level of control could impact individual financial autonomy and lifestyle choices. 

5. Technological Failures: 

Technical glitches, system outages, or failures in the CBDC infrastructure could disrupt normal financial activities and result in financial losses for users. 

6. Cross-Border Implications: 

The international use of CBDCs could raise concerns about cross-border financial security, as different jurisdictions may have varying levels of cybersecurity standards and regulations. 

7. Balancing Security and Privacy: 

Striking the right balance between maintaining a secure digital currency system and preserving user privacy is crucial. 

Finding the right technical and policy solutions to address these concerns will be an ongoing challenge. 

Also here are some potential pros and cons associated with CBDCs: 

Pros: 

• Financial Inclusion: 

CBDCs could improve financial inclusion by providing a digital form of currency accessible to a broader population, including those without access to traditional banking services. 

• Efficiency: 

CBDCs have the potential to streamline payment systems, reducing transaction costs and settlement times compared to traditional banking methods. 

• Monetary Policy Tools:

Central banks could have more direct and efficient tools for implementing monetary policy with CBDCs, enabling better control over the money supply and interest rates. 

• Reduced Counterfeit Risk: 

Digital currencies are inherently more secure and less prone to counterfeiting compared to physical cash, enhancing the overall integrity of the currency. 

• Innovation: 

CBDCs may encourage innovation in the financial sector, leading to the development of new payment solutions, financial products, and services. 

Cons: 

• Privacy Concerns: 

The widespread use of CBDCs raises privacy concerns, as digital transactions can be closely monitored and tracked, potentially compromising individuals' financial privacy. 

• Cybersecurity Risks: 

CBDCs are susceptible to cyberattacks, and any security breaches could lead to the loss of funds and sensitive financial information. 

• Disintermediation: 

CBDCs could lead to the disintermediation of traditional banks, as individuals might prefer holding digital currency directly with the central bank, reducing the role of commercial banks in the financial system. 

• Operational Challenges: 

Implementing and managing a CBDC infrastructure involves complex technological and operational challenges, including issues related to scalability, interoperability, and user education. 

• Impact on Monetary Policy Transmission: 

The direct relationship between the central bank and individuals through CBDCs may alter the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, potentially making it more challenging to implement effective policies. 

• Cross-Border Challenges:

CBDCs could pose challenges in terms of cross-border transactions, interoperability, and coordination between different central banks. 

Further, the possibility of hacking is indeed a significant concern when it comes to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and digital currencies in general. Striking the right balance between maintaining a secure digital currency system and preserving user privacy is crucial. 

Finding the right technical and policy solutions to address these concerns will be an ongoing challenge. Governments and central banks must address these potential risks by implementing robust security measures, incorporating privacy protections, and staying vigilant against evolving cyber threats. 

Striking a balance between security and privacy is essential to ensure the successful and responsible implementation of CBDCs, minimizing the risks associated with hacking and unauthorized access. Public awareness and education about online security practices will also play a crucial role in mitigating these risks for individual users. 

It's important to note that the impact of CBDCs will depend on how they are designed, implemented, and integrated into existing financial systems. 

As developments continue, policymakers will need to carefully consider these factors to maximize the benefits and mitigate potential drawbacks associated with CBDCs. 

Pros and Cons of High-Paying Accelerated Savings Accounts in the USA:

Pros:

Higher Interest Rates: Accelerated savings accounts typically offer higher interest rates, leading to faster growth of savings over time.

Increased Savings Growth: With compounding interest, your savings can grow substantially faster, helping you reach your financial goals sooner.

Safety and Security: These accounts are usually FDIC or NCUA insured, providing safety for your deposits up to certain limits.

Flexibility: They often come with features like no minimum balance requirements and easy access to funds, providing flexibility in managing your finances.

Cons:

Higher Minimum Requirements: Some accounts require a minimum deposit or balance to access the advertised interest rate, which may be challenging for some individuals.

Variable Interest Rates: Rates can fluctuate over time, potentially leading to lower returns than initially expected.

Limited Liquidity: Savings accounts typically have restrictions on withdrawals, which may not be ideal if you need frequent access to your funds.

Inflation Risk: If interest rates don't outpace inflation, the real value of your savings may decrease over time.

Tax Implications in the USA:

Pros:

Tax-Advantaged Growth: Interest earned in a savings account is generally considered taxable income, but if the account is held within a tax-advantaged retirement account like an IRA or 401(k), the interest can grow tax-deferred or tax-free until withdrawal.

Tax Deductions: Contributions to certain types of retirement savings accounts, like Traditional IRAs or 401(k)s, may be tax-deductible, reducing your taxable income in the year of contribution.

Cons:

Taxable Interest: Interest earned in a regular savings account is typically subject to income tax, which can reduce your overall returns.

Early Withdrawal Penalties: With retirement accounts, withdrawing funds before a certain age may result in penalties, which can diminish the benefits of tax-deferred growth.

Tax Reporting Requirements: You'll need to report interest earned on your tax return, adding to your tax preparation workload.

Analysis:

Utilizing a high-paying accelerated savings account can be advantageous for growing your savings quickly and securely. However, understanding the tax implications is crucial. If the account is held within a tax-advantaged retirement account, you can benefit from tax-deferred or tax-free growth. Additionally, contributions to certain retirement accounts may be tax-deductible, reducing your current taxable income.

On the other hand, interest earned in a regular savings account is subject to income tax, potentially reducing your overall returns. Furthermore, early withdrawal penalties on retirement accounts can offset the benefits of tax-deferred growth.

Considering both the financial benefits and tax implications, it's essential to align your savings strategy with your long-term financial goals, risk tolerance, and tax situation. Consulting with a financial advisor might help make informed decisions tailored to one’s specific circumstances.

Resources: 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/central-bank-digital-currency-totalitarianism/

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/12/17/china-invents-the-digital-totalitarian-state

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/will-digital-money-belong-to-democrats-or-despots/

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

 

Restrict Enrollment of International Students to 15% per Institution and Province in Canada

The funding structure of Canadian universities and colleges is a critical aspect of the education system, with a significant portion derived from public funds contributed by both federal and provincial taxpayers. In the 2021/2022 academic year, a substantial sum of $22 billion was allocated from provinces, the federal government, and various grants, constituting 52.7% of the institutions' overall funding. This financial support serves as a backbone for the educational opportunities provided to Canadian students, facilitating their access to high-quality tertiary education.

However, a notable distinction exists in the allocation of these funds, as they are designated exclusively for Canadian students and not extended to international students. This stance aligns with the belief that taxpayer-funded resources should predominantly benefit citizens of the country. The argument for such exclusivity is grounded in the idea that Canadian universities and colleges, supported by taxpayers and donors, should prioritize the education of their citizens.

In light of these considerations, I propose to restrict and cap the enrollment of international students to a maximum of 15 percent, both at the provincial level and for individual institutions, which emerges as a logical extension of the principle of fairness and equity. By implementing such limitations, the intention is to ensure that the primary beneficiaries of tax-funded and donation-supported higher education institutions are Canadian citizens. This approach seeks to strike a balance between the educational needs of domestic and international students while upholding the responsibility of public institutions to serve the interests of their citizens.

Proponents of this viewpoint and I would argue that while international students contribute positively to the cultural diversity and economic growth of the country, the core mission of publicly funded institutions should remain focused on providing accessible and high-quality education to Canadian residents. The proposed enrollment cap aims to safeguard the integrity of the educational system, fostering a balanced and inclusive environment that serves the interests of both the local population and international students.

Further, it is essential to acknowledge that discussions around enrollment caps for international students involve complex considerations, including economic impacts, cultural exchange benefits, and the potential for global collaboration. Striking the right balance between inclusivity and prioritizing domestic interests requires careful deliberation and a nuanced approach to ensure the continued success and sustainability of Canada's higher education system.

FACTS: There are currently 807,750 international students across all study levels who have study permits in Canada. Of the total 807,750 study permit holders, 551,405 received a study permit in 2022 in Canada. From 2000 until 2021, the number of study permit holders has significantly increased by more than 400%.

At present, there are 2,194,087 students enrolled in universities and colleges across all provinces in Canada in total. Therefore, using this actual figure of students then here are the following percentages and numbers to consider for international students:

10% = 219,408, 15% = 329,113, 20% = 438,818 and 25% would equal and allow 548,522 international students out of the total existing number of 2,194,087.

Comparing the number of international students between Canada and the USA reveals a trend where Canadian citizens may be overlooked in favour of international students paying higher tuition fees. This raises concerns about our children being left behind in terms of post-secondary education placements within our taxpayer-funded universities and colleges.

In the USA, there are 16.2 million enrollments in universities and colleges, with 1,057,188 international students, constituting 6.5% of the total enrollment.

In Canada, there are 2,194,087 enrollments in universities and colleges, with 807,750 international students. This represents 36.8%, which seems disproportionately high considering our population and the available enrollment spaces for Canadian citizen students. It raises questions about the impact on opportunities for our citizens.

Source:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230803/dq230803a-eng.htm

https://www.statista.com/statistics/447802/enrollment-of-postsecondary-students-in-canada-by-province/

https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics#:~:text=Preliminary%20data%20indicate%20that%20total,%25%20%26%20decline%20from%20Fall%202020.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/international-students-us/2023/11/13/international-enrollment-rockets-past-pre-pandemic#:~:text=American%20institutions%20hosted%201%2C057%2C188%20international,of%20growth%20in%2040%20years.

 

Biggest Threat to Democracy is From Corporations

Today in the USA and Canada the biggest threat to liberty is primarily from companies, not governments. 

Further, the political party and governments who say that the other party or government is “a threat to democracy” in reality it is they who are doing it. When governments, political parties and companies together control information and projections, then there is no transparency accountability for the citizenry to hold corporations, the media politicians’ governments, or political parties accountable for their actions. 

Without diverse sources of information as we are witnessing happening throughout the education system and media corporations there is no such thing as a free press rather a biased press.

We all realize that views on threats to liberty can vary depending on individual perspectives and ideologies. For the past few years, some individuals and experts expressed concerns about the growing power and influence of large technology companies. These concerns often revolved around issues such as:

Data Privacy: Companies, especially in the tech sector, collect vast amounts of personal data. The misuse or mishandling of this data can lead to privacy violations, potentially infringing on individuals' liberties.

Surveillance and Monitoring: The capabilities of technology for surveillance and monitoring raised concerns about the potential abuse of power by both private and government entities. This could impact citizens' privacy and civil liberties.

Monopoly Power: The dominance of certain companies in key sectors could limit competition, leading to less choice for consumers and potentially enabling these companies to exert undue influence on various aspects of society.

Content Moderation and Censorship: Social media platforms and other online services faced scrutiny for their content moderation policies. The power to control and moderate information could be seen as a threat to freedom of speech and expression.

Algorithmic Bias: Concerns were raised about the potential bias in algorithms used by companies, especially in areas like hiring, lending, and law enforcement. This could lead to discriminatory outcomes and impact individuals' rights.

While these concerns were prominent, it's important to note that government actions, policies, and regulations also play a significant role in shaping the landscape of liberty. The interplay between governments and private entities is complex, and threats to liberty often involve a combination of factors from both sectors.

A common phenomenon in politics is known as "projection" or "political projection." Projection occurs when one party or government accuses its opponents of engaging in behaviours or practices that they themselves are involved in. This can be a strategic or rhetorical tactic aimed at deflecting attention from one's own shortcomings or creating a narrative that undermines the credibility of political rivals.

In political discourse, accusations of hypocrisy and projection are not uncommon. Political actors engage in such tactics to shape public opinion, distract from their own controversies, or gain a perceived advantage in the competition for power and influence.

It's essential for citizens to critically evaluate political statements, fact-check claims, and be aware of the possibility of projection in political discourse. Understanding the motivations behind accusations can help individuals make more informed decisions about the credibility of political actors and the issues at hand. Additionally, a healthy democracy relies on transparency, accountability, and an engaged citizenry to hold political leaders accountable for their actions.

Another critical concern relates to the concentration of power and the potential erosion of democratic principles. When a small number of entities, including governments, political parties, and large corporations, control information and shape narratives, it can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability. This concentration of power may have several implications:

Limited Access to Information: If a few entities control the flow of information, citizens may have limited access to diverse perspectives and critical information. This can hinder their ability to make informed decisions about political matters.

Manipulation of Public Opinion: Controlling information allows those in power to shape public opinion in their favour. This can involve the strategic use of propaganda, selective reporting, or even misinformation, making it challenging for citizens to discern the truth.

Reduced Accountability: When there is limited transparency, it becomes more difficult for citizens to hold governments, political parties, and corporations accountable for their actions. Lack of accountability can lead to abuses of power and corruption.

Threats to Democracy: Centralized control over information and narratives can undermine the foundations of a democratic society, where informed citizens are essential for the functioning of a representative government.

To address these challenges, citizens must play a vital role by actively seeking out information from various perspectives, supporting independent journalism, and participating in civic activities that promote accountability and transparency in governance. The digital age while bringing new opportunities for information dissemination, it also requires thoughtful consideration of the sources and reliability of information in the online space.

Also, the issue of media bias is a complex and multifaceted one. Media bias is manifested in various forms, including political, ideological, and cultural biases. While it is challenging to eliminate all biases from reporting, a commitment to journalistic ethics and a diversity of perspectives must be legislated to assist in mitigating the impacts of bias.

Here are some considerations related to media bias and the importance of diverse sources of information:

Diverse Media Outlets: Encouraging a diversity of media outlets with different ownership structures, editorial perspectives, and political leanings can provide citizens with a range of viewpoints. This diversity allows individuals to access a more comprehensive understanding of issues.

Media Literacy: Promoting media literacy is essential in helping individuals critically evaluate the information they consume. People must analyze news sources, fact-check information, and recognize different forms of bias which then empowers them to be more discerning consumers of news.

Editorial Independence: Journalistic outlets must maintain editorial independence from external influences, whether political, commercial, or ideological if we are to be provided with objective and balanced reporting.

Transparency in Reporting: Media organizations must be transparent about their editorial processes, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and provide clear distinctions between news reporting and opinion pieces. This transparency fosters trust between the media and the public.

Support for Independent Journalism: Independent and investigative journalism plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable. Supporting independent media outlets and investigative journalism initiatives can contribute to a more robust and pluralistic information landscape.

Citizens need to be proactive in seeking out information from various sources, being aware of potential biases, and engaging with news critically. Additionally, advocating for policies that support media diversity and independence can be part of efforts to address concerns related to media bias.

Further, the political party and governments who say that the other party or government is doing something well in reality it's they who are doing it. When governments, political parties and companies together control information and projections, then there is no transparency accountability for the citizenry to hold corporations, the media politicians’ governments, or political parties accountable for their actions. Without diverse sources of information as we are witnessing happening throughout the education system there is no such thing as a free press rather a biased press.

The above expresses several interconnected concerns related to liberty, governance, and the role of various entities in shaping information and narratives.

Here is a breakdown of the key elements:

1. Threat to Liberty from Companies, Not Governments:
• For the past few years now, companies have posed a significant threat to liberty compared to governments. The focus may be on issues such as data privacy violations, censoring of free speech, corporate power, and potential abuses by large technology or other influential companies.
2. Accusations and Projection in Politics:
• For the past few years, there has been a common political strategy where parties or governments accuse their rivals of certain actions or behaviours, deflecting attention from their own involvement in similar activities. This can create confusion and undermine public trust in the political process.
3. Control of Information and Projections:
• The joint control of information by governments, political parties, and companies is a major concern. When these entities collaborate to shape narratives and control the flow of information, it leads to a lack of transparency and accountability. This has already involved practices of censorship, propaganda, or selective disclosure.
4. Impact on Citizen Accountability:
• Presently information and projections are controlled by a few entities, and now citizens face challenges in holding corporations, media, politicians, and governments accountable for their actions. Limited access to unbiased information has hindered the ability of the citizenry to make informed decisions and participate effectively in a democratic process.
5. Lack of Diverse Sources in the Education System:
• The education system is lacking diverse sources of information and now there is a biased perspective that has been perpetuated within educational curricula. This lack of diversity greatly limits students' exposure to a variety of viewpoints and hinders their ability to develop critical thinking skills.
6. No Such Thing as a Free Press, Only a Biased Press:
• Today there are very few diverse sources of information, and therefore there is no true concept of a free press. As media outlets have shown themselves to be inherently biased, either due to their alignment with particular ideologies or one-sided interests.

In summary, the concerns raised here highlight the potential threats to liberty and democracy when information is controlled by a concentrated group of entities, and when accusations and projections are used strategically in politics. The call for diverse sources of information and an unbiased education system underscores the importance of a pluralistic and informed society in preserving democratic values.