Greg Felton's ax to grind.

You think I would have learned my lesson, never, never try to engaged in serious debate on Craigslist. When the other side is clearly losing they get desperate and gather their anti-Zionist buddies and flag your posts down, copy a segment of your original then proceed to misconstrue what you said and declare victory.

You are a coward and an intellectual nothing, Greg Felton.

Here is round 1 in response to a post by the WCT on Jamie Scott's anti-crime plan where an illiterate called Jamie Scott "a" idiot.

GF:


You said it!!

This pseudo-reformer endorse police-state surveillance and expects people to vote for him.
What a moron!

My Response:

To the cheerleader of All CAPS - where exactly did he propose police state surveillance? In the proposal he in fact called on entities like Translink to stop recording conversations of ordinary passengers. If you do not like the idea of tracking of parolee's then state why. The idea that we rely on time based sentencing to figure out when a criminal has paid his debt and is ready to reintegrate into society is ridiculous and does not work.

The idea that to suppress crime by paying for more police, build more prisons, legislate more laws and hire more judges has failed. The measure of success of solving a problem should result in the opposite (i.e. less police, less legislation, decommission prisons, less judges). All the current model does is illustrate that we are dealing with the symptoms of crime and not the root causes of crime.


GF:

If you want to see what kind of loon Jamie Scott is, turn to page 7 of his crime-fighting manifesto----a live link between store cameras to police departments. Did this man never read Orwell? Robberies are one thing, but police-state surveillance is infinite;y worse.

Jamie Scott is dangerous and undemocratic, and must not be taken seriously.

My Response:

I did turn to page 7 and nowhere did I see that live feed cameras were mandatory. Indeed he used the words "interested" and "sign up" indicating that it was entirely optional. Police are good for solving crimes after the fact so it makes sense to aid them in doing that job until the root causes of crime are dealt with. I ask, do you have issue with closed circuit cameras being used on private commercial and residential property? Do you boycott stores that make use of CCTV's? What Mr. Scott proposed is no different, it just cuts out the time lapse between when the crime is committed and when the police have access to the video.

GF:

Er, no sale!
Optional, shmoptional! The fact that he endorses store-police links tells us all we need to know about Jamie Scott's respect for privacy and civil liberties.
Your feeble attempt to mask this is pathetic. Also, your equation with closed-circuit TV is FALSE!!!!
CCTV is not directly hooked up to police stations. Just how STUPID are you?!

Your excuse-making is so inept that you end up ENDORSING at least the principle of a police-state surveillance society.

I value my privacy and civil rights more than the need to exterminate petty crime.
Jamie Scott is a demagogue and a loon, and you are no better.

My Response:

It is strange how you ask how stupid I am when it is patently obvious that you are either too lazy or too stupid yourself to read.  I clearly imply the difference between CCTV and live feed is the time lapse (ie immediate versus handing it over to the police at a later time). Was that perhaps too subtle for you to grasp?

And as for your insinuation that Mr. Scott has no respect for privacy and civil liberties, it is false. Your understanding of privacy law in relation to being photographed and/or videotaped is lacking.  When in public you have no reasonable right to privacy unless it is a special area that you would ordinarily assume to be private (ie public washrooms) or unless the photography/videotape is to be distributed for commercial purposes in which case they require consent. On private property you can photograph/videotape whomever you want as long as you obtain their consent which can be implied (ie a sign that says "Smile you're on camera" is sufficient). 

The law is already clearly established. Mr. Scott does not have to bend or break the law, nor create a new law to make this happen. So in principle your objection should lie with the current political and legal establishment and not with Mr. Scott. 

If you'd like to debate the basis of the legality of having a live link in places of commerce that are open to the public we can certainly do that, but the case law precedents are already established. 

GF:

Again, you fail to address the main point. The issue is not CCTV, which is a problem in itself and should be limited or removed from most areas, but rather Jamie Scott's notion that there should be INSTANT connections to the police. Jamie Scott endorses a police state. I oppose a police state; hence, I oppose Jamie Scott. You, on the other hand, have no problem with it, and are an apologist for Jamie Scott.

My response:

As I've learned from a poster on here (my note: that would be Greg Felton himself, his original accusation being that no one can make an absolute claim to the Truth, ironic that he changes his argument to suite what agenda he currently needs to push I.e. Privacy rights are absolute), there is no such thing as absolutes, hence no such thing as an absolute right to privacy. You go on about respect for individual liberties but I know you also realize that with this respect comes the recognition that liberties are not unlimited and are necessarily reigned in otherwise society could not function. You seek to frame this as black and white issue when it is not and you seek to paint those you disagree with as advocates of a police state, when in fact Mr. Scott is pointing the police in the direction they should be going, preventing and deterring crime in co-operation with the citizenry, rather than pointing them at law abiding citizens without the consent of the people.

So you may oppose Mr. Scott, but if you're honest and not a hypocrite about it, the reason you oppose him is NOT based on the flimsiest of notions that the speed of connection to the police somehow makes him a fascist. Especially when we are talking about voluntarily entering into contracts, be it with government bodies or with private individuals, which every libertarian would support and protect, the right to enter into contract.

GF:

You really are dense, aren't you. Jamie Scott clearly endorses police-state surveillance, yet, as a hypocrite, you deliberately gloss over it to make excuses for it. This IS a black-and-white issue: the POLICE have no right to spy on me ANYWHERE. If you cannot understand this, you are cognitively impaired.

Your last paragraph is simply inane. I oppose police state surveillance and that makes ME a fascist? Puhleeeeeeze!! Also, neither you nor Jamie Scott has the least understanding of the law of contracts, or what does or does not constitute unwarranted intrusions of privacy. You both are simply undereducated, anti-statist radicals masquerading as democratic reformers.

Keep on posting: the more you do the more ridiculous you look, and the more insane Jamie Scott looks.

My Response:


-If you cannot understand this, you are cognitively impaired.

If you are looking for cognitively impaired just grab the nearest mirror.

Let me state this more clearly and simply so you can understand. If you are in public, you can be filmed by anyone as long as it is not for commercial purposes. I can take my iPhone out and record your image and you cannot stop me. However what I do with it afterwards may expose me to certain tort liability. If you step onto my private property, as long as I made you aware the cameras exist, I can record your image.

Your rights consist of avoiding areas with cameras in public and you have the right to refuse to do business with shops that have cameras, you also have the right to sue if someone uses your image in a way that makes it a tort offense.

These laws and the interpretations apply to everyone, including police, who are both authorities of the state but are also citizens at the same time. So you may not like that they can film you at a demonstrations (which they frequently do), but as an activist you legally have the right to film them as well, in public.

There is currently a push to make the filming of politicians and police illegal. THIS is what should concern you, the unequal playing field. THIS would be an example of the police state, increasing police powers or restricting citizen rights.

What you fail to grasp is that if you are against the state having the right to film you in public or having access to commercial establishments at the behest of the owners, then you have to change the law for everyone, not just the state authorities. The same legal basis that seeks to prevent laws being passed that target specific groups unfairly also in this case protects the states right to film it citizens in public. So you have to repeal it for citizens as well. Which is certainly a conversation that can be had, but will no doubt have a host of unintended consequences. So you still think it is a black and white issue?

-Your last paragraph is simply inane. I oppose police state surveillance and that makes ME a fascist?

An unfortunate phrasing that sounded better out loud than in writing. I've corrected it. To clarify, the speed of which one can contact the police does not make one a fascist. I wouldn't classify you as a fascist, fascists actually do something.

-Also, neither you nor Jamie Scott has the least understanding of the law of contracts...

Then please enlighten the rest of us with your deep knowledge of contract and privacy law. I would enjoy responding to something other than your petulant rants. You can start by presenting case law that says you cannot film someone in public for non-commercial purposes. Good luck finding that.

-Keep on posting: the more you do the more ridiculous you look, and the more insane Jamie Scott looks.

As you keep moving the goalposts, I still keep making touchdowns.

PS. Please also tell the audience how one can endorse a police state but be an anti-statist at the same time? Inquiring minds and all that.

This post is getting long so I'll end this section here and start a new one with Felton's always hilarious response.