check out the United Nations Human Rights Council....

more on  the United Nations

.. 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'

I had a call from a client all concerned about her Charter rights being violated by her employer. While it was dubious that her contractual rights, let alone her rights under provincial human rights legislation, had been violated in any regard, the simple rule is that the Charter applies to state actions. Still, we have people always going on about their rights, not realizing that the rights they clam are mere privileges bestowed by the applicable legislature.

Racial profiling is an issue for the police. Some racial profiling is apparently acceptable when you are running an affirmative action program.Other racial profiling is not good,as in  when the police stop a driver simply because he is black. Now racial profiling has taken on  a whole new realm, that of international hockey, according to Gilles Duceppe:

Doan says all he did was make a sarcastic remark to a teammate, Curtis Joseph, who was infuriated by a penalty call in a game against the Montreal Canadiens.

He says he told Joseph: ''Four French referees in Montreal, Cuje, figure it out.'' And Joseph has backed up his story.

But Duceppe called even that comment unacceptable. He said his party is right to demand answers from Hockey Canada.

''That's what you call racial profiling,'' Duceppe said.

Now that Doan had the ethnic profile of these homer refs, what was he going to do about it? Nothing. Why? Because there was nothing he could do. He's the citizen on the ice and the refs are the cops.

Noticing someone is from Newfoundland because of their accent is not "racial profiling" it's being alive and not deaf. Same thing with someone from Quebec. It would only be possession the power to affect the identified and then the actual taking of action  that would make this observation racial profiling.  This has gotten beyond ridiculous.

Roy Cooper is the North Carolina Attorney General who took over the Duke Lacrosse case from AG Nifong (who is currently in a whole heap of trouble with the State Bar Association and perhaps the Criminal justice systen for misconduct in his prosecution of the case). It was easy to drop the obviously false charges, however, it took a lot of nuts for an AG to speak so candidly. The Volokh Conspiracy reports:

I find it remarkable, then, that he went so much further, saying that the accused players were in fact innocent, that there was no credible evidence against them, that the accuser's many different statements could not be rectified and that she contradicted herself, etc. This was not a garden-variety statement about insufficient evidence but instead was about as complete a vindication as the defendants could have imagined. Indeed, I think that Cooper said just about everything that the defendants could have wanted. Cooper must have really been convinced.

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)

Let them eat human rights

(From Mike @ The London Fog. It's worth watching the video to see what diplomacy isn't)

Democracy gives us the right to say "no." No to the forced burka, no to the drug trade, no to warring rulers who use religion and culture as a method to foment division.

How ironic is it then, that, in support of democracy, a young hockey player who says "no" is ejected from his team?

In the aftermath of Saint John Sea Dog winger Dave Bouchard being cut for not signing a flag sent to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the coach has been suspended for two games and the team fined $1,000.

In a democracy, we have the right to say "no."

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

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 Bourque) The BBC is reporting that a high ranking member of China's politburo has been fired for corruption. As posted here (and here) before, corruption is part of the norm in China. It is a police state and the new economy is all bout taking money. You can look at this as a corporate takeover if you will. Corruption is the excuse for taking out a political competitor who has not been paying up the chain. The operative part of the article reads:

The sacking of Chen Liangyu comes ahead of the key Communist Party Congress later this year when Hu Jintao will be hoping to consolidate his leadership. Until now, Shanghai - China's second city and financial centre - has been considered a stronghold for officials loyal to Mr Hu's predecessor, Jiang Zemin. Mr Chen was a protege of Jiang Zemin. There has been a continuing power struggle between Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, the BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Shanghai says. Mr Chen's dismissal is being widely interpreted as Hu Jintao strengthening his position both within the party and the country as a whole, our correspondent adds. The sacking of such senior Communist Party members are rare.

The Supreme Court of Canada has yet again put the State ahead of individual rights. I thought their job was to protect us from the state.

What more can be said about the petty corruption of Canadian police? The institutions of this country are becoming a joke. The court is attacked from the right and the left. Judicial appointments are blatantly political. We have provincial governments attacking the rule of law through legislation, including privative clauses and disallowing defences. (first they came for the tobacco industry but I did not care because I was not a smoker. Say what you like, if the state can get away with it on tobacco, it will not stop with tobacco). The Parliament has been stripped of not only its power but its dignity. Promises to rectify the democratic deficit have been ignored. The power vests with the PM and now that we have a minority, the government that so many pundits and the NDP told us Canadians wanted, we see the juvenile politics of the nanny state in full play. Name calling and worse case scenarios. The politics of fear. There has not been a serious debate in Parliament since T.V. cameras were allowed. Commissions of inquiry are shut down at the first sign of trouble. The media begged off responsibility a couple of years ago when they refused to report what Chretien was saying and reported what his spinners said he meant. Clarkson is GG and Moskovitz is a VP with the BDC. Sponsorship money was accepted for advertising with no questions asked, no stories written. An AG report telling reporters what they already knew but could not be bothered to report. The police have run amok, taking sponsorship money, targeting critics, extorting money, selling drugs, violating election laws. From the Ontario drug squad, to the Police union boss endorsing politicians. There are unconstitutional surveillance cameras place on the streets by the RCMP. The RCMP took sponsorship money and covered it up. In Newfoundland there is an inquiry ongoing into the wrongful convictions for murder of three men who were railroaded by the police. There no longer can be police forces investigating police forces. The standard for discipline must be set out in legislation, removing it from the bargaining table. Police Associations and forces must be apolitical. We do not allow the Franciscans to investigate allegations of sexual abuse by Christian Brothers, why do we allow the Quebec provincial police to investigate the RCMP or the OPP to investigate the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

The Star is lecturing Doctors not use patients in their effort to get a better deal.

As for business issues, the business of doctors is supposed to be to make people better, not to extend their suffering. That's why, if the anesthesiologists really cared about patients, they would act like professionals and cancel their one-day job action on Feb. 11.

Actually, the effect of the Canadian Health Act, and recent legislation by the Ontario Liberals to strengthen the same is to deny patients the ability to limit their suffering by attending on a private clinic. If the government really cared they would allow people and service providers to opt out. But this is not necessary in the view of the Star. Their solution: doctors should put their grievances to OMA negotiators. And then what? The government turns it down? The only relief for doctors comes from increased waiting lists. This puts political pressure on the government who then must respond. Of course the doctor who does not like the system should just get out and open his own clinic ...wait a second...that is illegal in Ontario. Fines of up to $25,000 per offence. So the only option then is to leave the province, to take your act south of the border. It really is the government way or the highway. If enough doctors take the highway route, which is unlikely as it involves moving your family away from their family and friends, then conditions will improve for the doctors who move in to take the place of the ones that are leaving. The Star, has been supporting the PM's claim that minority rights must be protected. Here's a minority that could stand some protection. Lawyers, dentists, accountants, plumbers, MBAs, roofers, teachers, and just about everyone else in this country are free to pursue their livelihood in the private sector, charging whatever the market dictates. Doctors are denied this "right". They are forced to work in a government monopoly where the only power they hold is to vote with their feet. It is disingenuous of the Star to pretend that it is otherwise.

In Canada the debate over same sex marriage continues and with it the threat of the notwithstanding clause. I use the word "threat" deliberately. Use of the notwithstanding clause has the effect of turning individual rights and freedoms into privileges subject to the whim of the state. Any legislature in the country can, within its area of constitutional competence, negate a right or freedom by a majority vote. In effect, any province or the feds can amend the Charter without having to go through the amending process. Once used, particularly by the Feds, the notwithstanding clause ices the slope. Proponents of the notwithstanding clause for gay marriage are most likely not proponents when it comes to other cases and vice versa. Take for example the challenge to the Canada Health Act (CHA). There is a chance, if the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has the courage, that portions of the CHA will be struck down as a violation of the Charter. Why? Because the effect of the CHA, and similar provincial legislation, is to eliminate the choice of health care services for an individual. No government would ever do that directly, a clear Charter violation, so they have done it through the back door by attacking providers of the services. If the universality component is found to be a Charter violation, who will be calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause? Not those calling for its use on gay marriage. The reason is that "progressive" thinkers, like Jack Layton, who care about rights for gays do not actually care about individual rights and freedoms. They are socialists. They want equality of result for individuals relative to the state. Gays are an oppressed minority, the law must give them an equal result. It is the same for abortion rights. Socialists see abortion as an equlaity issue, not an idividual rights issue petaining to the inviolability of the person. Essentially the abortion cases have determined that your body is yours and, provided that you are competent, the state cannot regulate it. That it why consuming an unapproved drug like prepulsid is not illegal. It is a question of individual rights, not collective rights. The CHA forces everyone to cross the finish line at the same time. The result is equal. On the other hand, the Randy Whites of this world also want equality, only it is equality of morality. We will have a state imposed moral standard. He no more cares for the rights of individuals than Jack Layton. It is simply the particular Charter violations that cause the differences. However, you cannot suck and blow. A right is a right. If the notwithstanding clause is used on health care because we like the motive but not on gay marriage because we do not like the motive, the use of the clause will depend entirely upon political expediencey. The Liberals and the NDP will be screaming about "American Style Health Care" and the values of Canadians, however, once subject to the whims of the plurality a right becomes a privilege; it can be revoked. Thus, no use of the notwithstanding clause today or tomorrow. If we want a change then we should have a constitutional amendment according to the process that is laid out in the constitution. This will not be a mere whim, the amending process has a high threshold. The other option would be for governments to require super majorities to use the notwithstanding clause. A bare majority would not cut it. Or have a referendum where the government funds the opposing campaign and the requirement has to be 75% of the populous. At least then the electorate will be shooting themselves in the head rather than having the government or interesst groups pull the trigger.