In light of this..

Canada tokes at 4 times world average: UN

... isn't it about time that we looked at pot as having a broad acceptance in society and take the necessary steps to decriminalize its usage? 16.8% of Canadians admit to using... so if were to throw in another 5% who simply do not admit ( and i expect that this is low) we have as many people smoking pot as tobacco. If the cops were to charge them all we would have some 6 million tied up in the court system. That would cause quite the backlog.

Fairness is just another word for something left to steal

Free Speech to criticize our federal politicians was removed by the Canadian Liberal Party and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld it ... not so much in the good old USA:

Justice Scalia began his concurrence by writing:

"A Moroccan cartoonist once defended his criticism of the Moroccan monarch (lese majesteé being a serious crime in Morocco) as follows: ‘I'm not a revolutionary, I'm just defending freedom of speech . . . I never said we had to change the king -- no, no, no, no! But I said that some things the king is doing, I do not like. Is that a crime?'

"Well, in the United States (making due allowance for the fact that we have elected representatives instead of a king) it is a crime, at least if the speaker is a union or a corporation (including not-for-profit public-interest corporations) and if the representative is identified by name within a certain period before a primary or congressional election in which he is running."

Ouch.

I agree ... Ouch.

Of course the  Supreme Court of the United States need not look so far a Moroco, Canada is right next door. We made speech by individuals illegal for the full run of a Federal election campaign. Worse, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law was a necessary infringement to our freedom of expression, thus turning our freedom of expression into a privilege and not a right. However, as with McCain Feingold in the USA, the Canadian Election Spending Legislation probably will not hold up to judicial scrutiny once someone is actually charged under the act.

(Via Instapundit ... cross-posted at The London Fog)

.. I however admire a judge doing what is right. The National Post reports that the Crown has been ordered to pay legal costs for those arrested in the gang sweep last week that apparently destroyed the Driftwood Crips. While the arrests may have been in order they took place on June 13th. They should have been able to get bail hearings in 3 days. it is fundamental in this country that the detained get to appear before a judge without delay so that their cntinued detention may be justified.  The Crown has not done so. If i was the crown I would be hoping that the police did not get any confessions or admissions during this time of whta may be construed as illegal dentention.

The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General has been ordered to pay a total of $27,000 in legal costs to nine men arrested in the Project Kryptic raids because of a failure to hold timely bail hearings.

It is rare for the Crown to be ordered to pay costs in a criminal proceeding, but Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer issued a sharply worded ruling yesterday and indicated he would not allow basic rights to be violated because a large number of people were arrested at once.

The judge also suggested he would consider further measures, such as the release of the defendants, if they do not receive bail hearings by July 3.

"What has occurred to date in this case is improper and unacceptable," Judge Nordheimer said.

The nine men, who face a number of drugs and weapons charges and some of whom are alleged to be part of the Driftwood Crips street gang, were among the nearly 100 people taken into custody by Toronto police on June 13.

In another isolated incident, the police have another concern with the raid:

Cop tip-off alleged:Possibility officer warned family about raid 'could shatter the foundations of trust on the force'

Canada's top doctor singled out New Democrat leader Jack Layton yesterday for "hypocrisy" for undergoing hernia treatment at a private Toronto medical clinic.

But Brian Day, president-elect of the Canadian Medical Association, was quick to note Layton is in good company.

Former prime ministers Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Joe Clark also have been treated at private medical clinics, Day told the annual meeting of the Canadian Science Writers' Association.

And he said union leader Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Autoworkers, proved a master at "queue jumping" when he got in for an MRI within 24 hours of injuring his leg.

Read the rest

The trial of a Newfoundland Doctor for trafficing in narcotics and sexual assault, has had a second mistrial over jury related incidents. The first mistrial came about when 4 jurors & 2 alternate jurors came to the judge with reasons why they could not serve:

A Newfoundland Supreme Court judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in a closely monitored case involving narcotics.

Justice James Adams made the decision Wednesday in the trial of St. John's physician Sean Buckingham over concerns that proceeding further with the case — in which four jurors and two alternates were excused — may trigger an appeal

Before new jurors could be selected, Adams said a valid argument could be made at a higher court about the detrimental impact of removing so many original jurors and their alternates.

Buckingham is being tried on 23 charges involving sexual assault and drug trafficking. Police say he was illegally dispensing prescription drugs, including the powerful narcotic OxyContin, in return for sex.

The second mistrial has to do with the validity of the jurors list:

Justice William Adams declared a mistrial for Sean Buckingham, a St. John's physician facing 23 charges of trafficking and sexual assault, when his lawyer, Randy Piercey, argued that the local jurors list is woefully out of date.

"I suppose the central issue was that no one under the age of 28 could sit on a jury in Newfoundland, because of the way the jury system was working," Piercey said.

The list of potential jurors has not been updated since 1999, and is based on data collected by the motor vehicle registration system.

Adams said he found it breathtaking that the sheriff's office had the means to update the list, but did not. The list does not include, for instance, people who don't have a driver's licence and people who moved to the St. John's area since 1999.

The Sheriff is John McDonald and he is quite new to the position. If I recall correctly, he was made Sheriff within the past 12 months after a short stint as "Acting Sheriff". It is going to be hard to fault him personnaly, when he wasn't around for the majority of the problem and he has not been there long enough to have rooted out the problem. As well, it would appear that he is not covering anything but calling it human error. His Offices, however, may have some answering to do. With that said, the Sheriff's Office is about as unionized a shop as you will find and answering for things is not the norm. It is clear that someone was supposed to be doing this job for the past 7-8 years and failed to so do. It will be interesting to see the explanation. It will be even more interesting to see if anyone is held accountable.

From a legal perspective, I have not seen the reasons of Justice Adams, however, I suspect that it is a fundamental justice issue. The state prepares the list and limitations to the list reduce the ability of the defendant to receive a fair trial by 12 impartial jurors.

UPDATE: I have been advised that John McDonald is in fact still just the Acting Sheriff. Any culpability on his part is now not just hard to show, it's out the window.

As well, it isn't so clear that someone was supposed to be doing this, though the responsibility is with the Sheriff's Office.

UPDATE II (JULY 26, 2007): Jury List Fixed

Author (and doctor) Michael Crichton was interviewed by blogger Scott Burgess of The Daily Ablution. The whole thing is well worth the read as he answers questions with respect to climate change and nanotechnology. This, however, is the best part:

What is the most serious threat facing our civilisation?

Loss of classical liberal values in those western societies that embraced them.

Read on.

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

(Cross Post: The London Fog)

via Daimnation

The Ottawa Citizen reports that the CBC are jumping into the censorship wagon:

A Booker Prize-winning Canadian writer was forbidden from reading from one of the world's most controversial anti-Semitic books on CBC Radio during Canada's Freedom to Read Week.

Life of Pi author Yann Martel said staff at CBC Radio Saskatchewan told him half an hour before a scheduled interview last Thursday that he wasn't allowed read excerpts of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf on the air.

Why, may you ask, was this Booker Prize winner reading Mein Kampf? Well, he was kind of asked to do so:

The CBC had asked Martel to do an interview on The Afternoon Edition because the author was planning to read from the book that evening at a Saskatoon Public Library event for Freedom to Read Week, an annual campaign raising public awareness about intellectual freedom in Canada.

The library asked Mr. Martel to read from any banned or challenged book, and Mr. Martel chose Mein Kampf.

"It's a horrible book, but a horribly important book, because you get in the brain of one of the monsters of the 20th century," Mr. Martel said.

As Daimnation states in support of the reading:

Know your enemy--and I mean it.

Though when you follow the link ityou find that it takes at least 2-5 months before you get the chance to start.

(also posted at The London Fog)

The scheme set up under Division 9 of Part 1 of the IRPA suffers from two defects that are inconsistent with the Charter.

139 The first is that s. 78(g) allows for the use of evidence that is never disclosed to the named person without providing adequate measures to compensate for this non-disclosure and the constitutional problems it causes. It is clear from approaches adopted in other democracies, and in Canada itself in other security situations, that solutions can be devised that protect confidential security information and at the same time are less intrusive on the person’s rights. It follows that the IRPA’s procedure for the judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention violates s. 7 of the Charter and has not been shown to be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. I would declare the procedure to be inconsistent with the Charter, and hence of no force or effect.

140 However, in order to give Parliament time to amend the law, I would suspend this declaration for one year from the date of this judgment. If the government chooses to go forward with the proceedings to have the reasonableness of Mr. Charkaoui’s certificate determined during the one-year suspension period, the existing process under the IRPA will apply. After one year, the certificates of Mr. Harkat and Mr. Almrei (and of any other individuals whose certificates have been deemed reasonable) will lose the “reasonable” status that has been conferred on them, and it will be open to them to apply to have the certificates quashed. If the government intends to employ a certificate after the one-year delay, it will need to seek a fresh determination of reasonableness under the new process devised by Parliament. Likewise, any detention review occurring after the delay will be subject to the new process.

141 The second defect is found in s. 84(2) of the IRPA, which denies a prompt hearing to foreign nationals by imposing a 120-day embargo, after confirmation of the certificate, on applications for release. Counsel for the ministers submitted in oral argument that if this Court were to find that s. 84(2) violates the Charter, the appropriate remedy would be to strike s. 84(2) and read foreign nationals into s. 83. This is a good first step, but it does not provide a complete solution, since s. 83 deals with detention review only until the certificate has been determined to be reasonable, whereas s. 84(2) deals with detention review after it has been determined to be reasonable. Striking s. 84(2) would therefore leave no provision for review of detention of foreign nationals once the certificate has been deemed reasonable.

142 Accordingly, I conclude that the appropriate remedy is to strike s. 84(2) as well as to read foreign nationals into s. 83 and to strike the words “until a determination is made under subsection 80(1)” from s. 83(2).

(Cross post @ The London Fog)

Via The Gateway Pundit: 

"Barbers involved in anti-Islamic activities like shaving beards are warned that they would themselves be responsible for any damage to their shops and houses,"...

Read the rest.

 It reminds me of:

There is a simple solution to these "violent" retaliations. Let's keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.

Here's my question: I understand the British have a different free speech tradition than ours; they're not bound by our First Amendment jurisprudence; there are indeed some speech restrictions that we forbid but that other democracies can tolerate and still preserve a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and means for democratic self-government.

But can anyone tell me just what European (including English) students, and citizens more broadly, are free to say about Islam without fear of expulsion from college, or even potentially criminal punishment (as has been discussed in other cases of harsh criticism of Islam)? ...

Read the rest.

(also @ The London Fog)

Players and creators of video games could face imprisonment for acts of virtual violence under draft legislation being drawn up by two of Germany's state governments.

Politicians in Bavaria and Lower Saxony have proposed a new offence that will punish "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" inside games. Early drafts suggest that infringers should face fines or up to 12 months' jail for promoting or enacting in-game violence.

Research has yet to show a link between violence in video games and violent acts in the real world

Why look to research and science when intuitively we know that immediate intuitive based action gives the best political results?

(HT: Instapundit)

(look for this post in The London Fog)

Orin Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy 

Can You "Possess" a File If You Don't Realize It Exists?: One of the interesting questions raised by the application of traditional contraband concepts to digital files is whether a suspect who views a contraband image using a web broswer but does not realize the image is stored in the browser cache "possesses" that image based only on the presence of the file in the cache. In a decision handed down today, United States v. Kuchinski, involving charges of possessing child pornography images, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the answer is "no":

 Read the rest.

Another isolated incident.

 LeBlanc maintained he did nothing different from any other journalist covering the event, but was singled out by Sgt. John Parks, the arresting officer.

 Parks testified that he arrested LeBlanc partly because he was "scruffy" looking and carrying an unprofessional-looking digital camera. Parks also testified that LeBlanc challenged police authority at the event, and resisted arrest.

However, CBC videotape of the event, entered as evidence by the defence, contradicted police testimony that LeBlanc refused a police order to leave the conference centre and resisted arrest.

McCarroll said the pictures proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LeBlanc did nothing wrong.

"There is such a discrepancy between the evidence of Sgt. Parks and the CBC video, that I find it unsafe to convict Mr. LeBlanc," he wrote. "I am not even satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that if Mr. LeBlanc was in fact ordered to leave by Sgt. Parks, he heard or understood the order."

McCarroll also said the officers had no right to seize LeBlanc's digital camera or delete his photo without a search warrant.

Will any police officer be charged? No. Forget about the assault and the unlawful arrest.  Forget that he clearly perjured himself at the trial. The judge praised the police action in stopping the remainder of the mob:

"In spite of my findings in this case, there is one conclusion I have come to beyond any doubt. These courageous officers acted above and beyond the call of duty in preventing a serious breach of peace. If these young masked invaders had succeeded in gaining access to the main meeting room where probably hundreds of delegates were in attendance, God knows what would have happened," he wrote.

Some judges just love cops and will accept their false testimony unless faced with a videotape or a couple of independent eye-witnesses to the contrary. The fact that the cops did their job with respect to the mob does not absolve the cops of their acions against Leblanc and their complete disregard for the adminstartion of justice or the oath they swore before testifying.

I'm not anti-cop. It is the exercise of power because they can attitude and actions of certain cops that not only drives me nuts, it causes me fear. The ramifications for Mr. LeBlanc was a criminal record which has more ramifications for employment, travel or the next time you are accused. Get hauled in for speeding and you have a resisting arrest record when they run your licence and see how it works out for you.

The police act with impunity because they know they will not get charged. Other recent isolated incidents:

volokh

instapundit

Little Tobacco

Over at The London Fog, Lisa has beaten me to the MADD (USA) initiative to have breath analysis machines installed in cars. As Lisa concludes:

Today is a great day, as we are closer to our collective goal of total public ownership of all spaces.

Little Tobacco is not a fan of MADD, an organization that started with the best of intentions and now just will not stop until you can't have a drink in this town or anyother. Back in February 2005 I had this to say with respect to MADD's position on beer in the corner stores:

Of course they [MADD] do not want beer in the corner store, not because it will lead to drinking and driving, but because they, like the anti-tobacco lobby, are now in the business of "de-normalizing" alcohol consumption.

Another MADD post.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has, for reasons unknown, granted leave to appeal  to the Crown in the R v. A.M. case. The facts of the case were summed up by Armstrong J. of the Ontario Court of Appeal as follows:

[1]   On November 7, 2002, three police officers attended St. Patrick’s High School in Sarnia and, with the assistance of a “sniffer” dog, conducted a warrantless and random search of the school.  The attendance of the police on that particular day was not at the request of school authorities.  The principal and staff were unaware that the police were planning to attend until they arrived in the school.

[2]               As a result of an indication from the sniffer dog, the police were directed to the backpack of A.M.  When they searched the backpack, they found that it contained a quantity of marijuana and psilocybin.  A.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in respect of both drugs.

[3]               At trial, counsel for A.M. moved to exclude the evidence of the drugs found in the backpack on the basis that the search by the police was unreasonable and therefore offended s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The trial judge, Justice G. M. Hornblower of the Ontario Youth Justice Court, accepted the submissions of counsel and excluded the evidence related to the drugs under s. 24(2) of the Charter.  In the result, A.M. was acquitted of the charges.

[4]               The Crown now appeals the acquittals on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding a breach of s. 8 of the Charter and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

At trial the judge had found as follows:

[21]  The trial judge found that there were two searches.  The first search was the search conducted with the assistance of the sniffer dog; the second search was the search of the backpack of A.M.  The trial judge concluded that neither search was reasonable.

[22]         Finally, the trial judge concluded that the search was a police search in the guise of a search by school authorities.  He noted that, even if it had been a search by school authorities, the school authorities had no right to conduct such a search in the absence of reasonable grounds to believe drugs could be found.

[23]         The trial judge excluded the evidence obtained as a result of the police search under s. 24(2) of the Charter.  In his consideration of the application of s. 24(2) of the Charter the trial judge said:

While this case centres around the rights of A.M., the rights of every student in the school were violated that day as they were all subject to an unreasonable search.  This search was unreasonable from the outset.  It is completely contrary to the requirements of the law with respect to a search in a school setting.  To admit the evidence is effectively to strip A.M. and any other student in a similar situation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  It is effectively saying that persons in the same situation as A.M. have no rights.  Such a finding would, to my mind, bring the administration of justice into disrepute notwithstanding the other factors I have alluded to.

Section 8 of the Charter reads as follows:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter. Section 24 of the Charter reads:

   (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Ontario Court looked at the reasonableness of the sniff search and concluded:

[51]         The search in this case was warrantless.  The Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter, et al. v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 at 161 held that a warrantless search by the police is prima facie unreasonable.  The Crown, who seeks to justify a warrantless search, has the burden of rebutting the presumption of unreasonableness.  In Collins, the Supreme Court held at p. 278 that “[a] search will be reasonable if it is authorized by law, if the law itself is reasonable and if the manner in which the search was carried out is reasonable.”

[52]         I pause here to observe that, in respect of a search by school authorities (on reasonable grounds), the same presumption does not apply: see M.R.M. at para. 50.  However, I have already said that, in my opinion, this was a warrantless search by the police and therefore the presumption in Hunter v. Southam applies.  As Cory J. said in M.R.M. at para 56:

The usual standard, requiring prior authorization in the form of a warrant which is based upon information which provides reasonable and probable grounds, will continue to apply to police and their agents in their activities within a school. The modified standard for school authorities is required to allow them the necessary latitude to carry out their responsibilities to maintain a safe and orderly school environment. There is no reason, however, why police should not be required to comply with the usual standards, merely because the person they wish to search is in attendance at an elementary or secondary school.

The court then concluded that the detention of the students for 1-2 hours was not reasonable, but that this was not as egregious as the warrantless search:

There was no credible information to suggest that a search was justified.  There were no reasonable grounds to detain the students.  As Laskin J.A. said in R. v. Calderon (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at para. 69 (Ont. C.A.): “An officer cannot exercise the power to detain on a hunch, even a hunch borne of intuition gained by experience.”

[58]         The Supreme Court of Canada has held that there must be a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.  This position was articulated by Iacobucci J. for the majority of the court in R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 (CanLII), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 at para. 34:

The case law raises several guiding principles governing the use of a police power to detain for investigative purposes. The evolution of the Waterfield test, along with the Simpson articulable cause requirement, calls for investigative detentions to be premised upon reasonable grounds. The detention must be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the circumstances, informing the officer's suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.

[59]         Quite apart from the detention of the entire student body, of more significance is the unauthorized warrantless random search itself.

[60]         In my view, the Crown has failed to rebut the presumption that the search was unreasonable.  Even if the presumption of unreasonableness did not apply, it is my opinion that there were no grounds upon which to justify a random search of the kind that was conducted in this case.

The evidence was properly excluded.

The idea that the police can collude with  school administrators to detain students while random searches are conducted by the police may sound great to some overly protective parent who has forgotten his own childhood. For me, it just does not pass the smell test.

(Cross post: The London Fog)

A while back I reminded myself that it was time to post on the hate laws in Canada. While the intent of such laws, like so many, is admirable, laws that impinge upon rights, or in this case, trample upon the freedom of expression, invariabaly backfire and are used for purposes for which they were not intended by the framers.

Hate laws were brought about by demands from and with the full support of various Jewish groups. They wanted to stop the Ernst Zundels of this world from propagatng hate against Jews. The result has been far from expected as jewishmag.com writes:

Canada is widely regarded as a model multicultural society; tolerant, peaceful, fair. To be sure, we have our share of bigots, racists and malcontents. But we are a progressive society. Progressive societies resolve their internal differences peacefully, and respectfully. And if some should confuse intolerance for truth or mistake might for right? Well, unlike the US, we also have criminal hate censorship laws, as well as assorted human rights, equity, and hate speech codes to set them right. But before anyone thinks of emulating the "true north strong and free," they better have a close look at what is happening on progressive Canadian campuses.

....

And so, Benjamin Netanyahu and Daniel Pipes cannot equally freely, or fearlessly, speak at any progressive, multicultural, Canadian campus. No pro-Zionist can. But just about every self-serving anti-Zionist demagogue and Israel-demonizing progressive ideologue can. Hate is whatever those with the power to disrupt, destroy, and silence, say it is. And so, only the Jewish voice is a campus security concern. Hate censorship has been hijacked. A shelter against illegitimate promotion of hate has been turned into a sword against legitimate exercise of Jewish voice.

How could it be otherwise? Censorship is force not talk. It is not about demonstration of right, but an exercise in might. Might is a double edged sword. In the end, the sharper edge, as is the nature of might, belongs to the more belligerent, or the more popular, not the more tolerant or the more civil. The popular have sympathy. The belligerent have force. The tolerant, and civil, have only words. By legitimating hate censorship, Jews have robbed themselves of rights to their own words and armed those of their intolerant adversaries. Jewish students on Canadian campuses find themselves neither with equal freedom to speak nor equal freedom from hate. The message is clear: if you are visibly Jewish you do not equally belong, even as every other historically vulnerable community – blacks, gays, Asians, transsexuals, Arabs, and Muslims – does.

There is a lesson in all this. Jewish faith in hate censorship and campus speech codes was a mistake to begin with. Rights to silence weaken, rather than strengthen, the Jewish voice. To be sure, freedom of speech carries risks. But for the tolerant, a political culture built on censorship might, at the cost of talk is, in the end, riskier still. Inclusion by silencing is tolerance built on quicksand. Quiet is not the same as acceptance. Compliance is not comprehension. Jewish hate censorship has been a self-deceiving, and self-debilitating, ruse. In fact, progressive Canadian campuses were rife with undercurrents of singularly anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment long before the Concordia riot. But it took a Netanyahu to ignite the truth, and bring the failings of campus hate speech and equity codes to light.

While I take the point of the article, I do not suspect that Jewish speech is being repressed by these laws. The state is not charging the speakers under the laws. The problem for the Jews is that when you legitimize "offence" as being worthy of sanction, you are legitimizing the use of force to prevent/stop the "offence".

Offence is the key to freedom of expression. To paraphrase, I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. This is the freedom of expression. Once there is a decision that certain speech is offensive and will be subject to state sanction; or when the state decides that it will not use its monopoly on the use of force to prevent a mob from committing acts of violence against those who have offended through speech, the right no longer exists. It is  merely a privilege, subject to the whims of the majority or the mob. It is time to repeal these progressive laws which, like many progressive laws, is draconian in its result.

Some of my other posts on free speech can be found here.

Hat Tip: The Volokh Conspiracy.

cross-post: The London Fog

 Elton John wants to ban organized religion. I love celebrity. So used to having no one say no, you eventually believe you are always right. Some enlightened leadership will tell us how to think, what to believe, what to say and with whom to associate. It certainly worked well in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, Syria, Iran and the like. Freedom of religion ( and I should note here that I do not have a religion) is the most fundamental of freedoms. Ban it and ban just about every other right as we have now entered the realm of the thought police.

Speaking religion, have a look at how unorganized religion is working out:

Spirit attacks PLE candidates, disrupt exams

SEVEN pupils missed their Primary Leaving Exams (PLE) on Friday after they were attacked by evil spirits, writes Elizabeth Namazzi.

The evil spirits reportedly struck in the morning when the pupils of Lwampanga Church of Uganda Primary School in Nakasongola District were halfway through the Mathematics examination. Possessed by the evil spirits, seven pupils rushed out of the examination room, hurling insults at people. Thereafter some rolled on the ground and others danced madly around the school compound as people in the vicinity looked on in awe.

Efforts to get a comment from the headmaster and district education officials were futile. However, the LC3 chairman Lwampanga Sub-county, Kassim Dimba, confirmed the incident.

During a ntelephone interview he said the evil spirits first attacked the pupils three weeks ago.

“The spirits first attacked three pupils three weeks ago. We called our local cultural leaders in charge of spirits and they managed to calm them. We thought they had been appeased but the spirits attacked more pupils on Tuesday”, Kassim said.

A total of nine pupils, seven of them candidates, were attacked by the end of Tuesday, two days before the commencement of the PLE exams.

“By the time of the first exam on Thursday, the evil spirits had been cast out and the pupils were able to write the first two exams peacefully. They were however attacked again on Friday morning during the Mathematics examination, sending the school into a panic,” he said.

A development worker who works at the Nakasongola District Headquarters, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Sunday Vision that she had heard about the incident from a local council official.

However, Sunday Vision could not immediately establish whether the incident was hysteria spell or an evil spirit.

According to Kassim traditional healers who were called in to deal with the spirits forced them to talk through the pupils.

“The spirits said that they were brought by a man in our are at a cost of sh1m and put inside a pot,” he said. The hunt for the pot is underway.

The science exam done in the afternoon was completed without incident but the affected students were unable to sit for it as they had not recovered from the attack.

(via Colby Cosh)

cp The London Fog

Borat Sagdiyev may have taken the United States by storm, but he won't repeat his box-office success in Russia.

Less than three weeks before a feature film about Borat, a character created by English comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, was to open in Russian movie theaters, the Federal Culture and Cinematography Agency refused to license it out of concern that the film could offend audiences in this country.

The movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan," about a misogynistic, wife-beating Kazakh journalist with a penchant for mustaches, thus becomes one of the first non-pornographic films to be banned since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Via First Post, we find that the "inventor" of DNA fingerprinting is begining to question its reliability and abuse. It would seem that his complaint is more with the way it is being used than the science:

As the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys might be expected to do what most scientists do these days, and talk up the wonders of his research at every opportunity. But he has always fretted about its potential for abuse - and now he fears his invention is undergoing 'mission creep'.

You can see his point. Since 2004 the police have had powers to take DNA from anyone arrested for any recordable offence, and keep it indefinitely, even if they are subsequently released. Even witnesses asked for DNA have no right to have it removed from the database once stored there.

All this bothers Prof Jeffreys, not least because the DNA could be put to far more sinister uses by governments even more overweening than the current lot. His concern is echoed by civil liberties groups, who talk of the UK being turned into a nation of suspects.

What should worry us all is a far more sinister characteristic of DNA evidence: its supposed infallibility. With its apparent ability to put odds of millions-to-one on the guilt of the accused, DNA evidence brooks no dissent.

Yet cock-ups can and have happened. Ask Raymond Easton, who was arrested in 1999 for a burglary in Bolton on the basis of a match from the DNA database. He suffered from Parkinson's Disease so severe the police conceded he couldn't possibly have been the culprit.

In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.

Such cases show that the only sure thing about DNA is that more 'fingerprinting' means more cock-ups.

In Canada, DNA samples are requested by the crown regularly and are usually granted by a judge. I always argue that it is intrusive and a viloation of section 7. To date I have not been successful. I'm going to research this a bit and put it in front of a judge the next time around.