Natural News Updates is a very good website offering commentary and reporting on many issues health, freedom, politics and more. The reporting seems to be of high quality and very topical. I recommend you check it out and subscribe to their email list to get their news summaries (link at bottom).

Raw milk: good enough for the Queen but prohibited for YOU. They have a new article on raw milk which made headlines in Canada with a trial in Ontario. The raw milk issue is not about raw milk really, its about what right does the government have to prevent people accessing their foods of choice?

A writeup on raw milk published inThe Globe and Mailback in 2010 explains that Queen Elizabeth personally drinks raw milk, and that when her grandsons Harry and William were students at Eton College, she went out of her way to smuggle it in for them as well. The Queen apparently recognizes some value in raw milk beyond what health authorities are willing to admit. link

When private people choose something which harms no one, the government has no say, period (in legal theory). Do you find it a little disturbing the idea that the government knows better what THEY will ALLOW you to do, than you have the freedom to do, and YOU HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER without being labelled an “offender”, fined and possibly prosecuted?

If you want a say in what choices you make and Continue reading Natural News Updates

Smart Meters: Just Say No

“Smart meters” are another hot topic that privacy, private property rights and health safety are becoming an issue. Many people are standing up and saying no to the “forced installation” of these new meters. Some have even provided legal notice kits to stop the install on their home.

The basic idea here is that the new meters measure and track every use of electricity in your home and broadcast it out via wireless signals to a neighbourhood data collection device that then rebroadcasts the data back to a central unit.

The key issues are: Continue reading Smart Meters: Just Say No

Video Phones, Our Best Protection?


In yet another violent attack on an unarmed, innocent person many police forces throughout North America are discovering the higher risk of their sometimes brutal treatment of people may just be caught on camera.

More and more people have cel phone cameras and that’s a good thing. Here’s a link Continue reading Video Phones, Our Best Protection?

Can You Record Your Own Conversations?

There is an ongoing confusion about whether or not you are “allowed” to audio record or video record your own conversations with other people.

Fundamentally you should be able to do it without breaking any laws. Some jurisdictions have laws claiming to prohibit such acts. I believe there is no question that yes you can, if you are a party to the interaction being recorded.. The real questions become what do you do with it and who are the other parties.

Here is a case from B.C. which deals with a true eavesdropping scenario: Continue reading Can You Record Your Own Conversations?

Privacy Rights Paramount

Here’s a court decision from the US (again) that deals with a privacy claim in a medical records situation. The lawsuit was against the clinic, city and county.

This case really brings home that a party receiving a “legal requirement” to disclose private information has a a duty to ensure that the “legal requirement” is actually binding on them. If not, they are liable for the privacy infringement, as was the case here.

What I like about this case is it demonstrates a few principles of law, Continue reading Privacy Rights Paramount

Bill C6 – The End of Privacy?

Very good video presentation by lawyer Shawn Buckley a constitutional lawyer and president of NHPPA, on Bill C6 (which was Bill C52). He states,

” this is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen”

“I could not have imagined, when I was younger that I would ever see a piece of legislation like this introduced. You couldn’t have convinced me years ago that this would happen.”

A challenge by a truly honourable Senator is also made below.

Shawn admits that Canadian government will write laws that infringe on your rights, that means you need

Continue reading Bill C6 – The End of Privacy?

Privacy Act Does Not Apply to White House?

Are they really above the law or just making a claim and hoping people just believe them?

Amazing but lawyers argue what the law actually says (even when it’s plain language) for political reasons (shocking I know). There is a difference between privacy and secrets…

Washington, DC — October 29, 2009

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that the Privacy Act does not apply to the Executive Office of the President (EOP). This court filing came in a Judicial Watch lawsuit filed in 1996 against the Clinton White House related to a scandal known as “Filegate,” where the Clinton White House obtained and maintained the private FBI files of hundreds of former Reagan and Bush officials [Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Civil Action No. 96-2123/97-1288 (RCL)].

In the Obama administration’s “Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 17, the Obama Justice Department stated the following: “The White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act.” However, the Privacy Act specifically lists the “Executive Office of the President” as an agency subject to the Act’s provisions.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth had repeatedly rejected this same legal argument, most recently in 2008 when the court ruled against a government motion that would have dismissed the lawsuit: “…this court holds that under the Privacy Act, the word ‘agency’ includes the Executive Office of the President, just as the Privacy Act says.”

…”What the Obama administration is effectively saying here is that if the White House decides to illegally compile FBI files and violate your privacy rights, tough luck,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is disturbing that the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal. It is worrying to those of us concerned about the Obama White House’s collecting “fishy” emails and compiling an enemies list of new organizations, radio hosts, businesses, and industry associations to attack and smear. Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?”

Kinda makes one wish for more honesty in government and with lawyers…what can I say I’m a dreamer! At least the courts shot them down, on this one.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…