Pirate Party of Canada Forum

Pirate Parties Supply Wikileaks With Much Needed Servers.

Article:  http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-parties-supply-wikileaks-with-much-needed-servers-101205/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29

So, how about the Pirate Party of Canada lending a hand as well?

The matter has been discussed at some length (https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=590.0), and based on the range of opinions I've heard on the matter, I don't think it's acceptable for the Federal Council to make this decision independently. Consequently, I'm planning to wait until the General Meeting on the 19th before we come down one way or another. It's not ideal timing, but democracy is slow.

So let's wait and see what will come out of the General Meeting concerning Wikileaks.
However, as a matter of principle, I sincerely believe the Pirate Party of Canada should lend some of its "mirror" resources to Wikileaks. The Pirate Party of Canada may agree or disagree with some or most of Wikileaks actions, especially when looked through the Canadian Constitution and its body of laws, and I have no problem with a clear statement from the Party on these matters. But I have a problem with the powers that be trying to shut down Wikileaks and I think the Pirate Party of Canada should adopt a decisive stand on this matter.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight on your side for your right to say it", a phrase attributed, most probably wrongly, to the French philosopher Voltaire, that takes all it true meaning in the present situation.

I agree with JeanC on this lending a hand. Such as our counterpart Pirate Parties have done. Yes Wikileaks hasn't been perfect but it is in the end doing a good thing and we don't have to support everything Wikileaks does, we can easily say we agree with so and so action, but not subsequent actions that violate personal privacy.

We have the ability to help with our torrent program and other ways.

JeanC determine exactly how we can help and make a motion for it.  I'll likely second.

I'm not a member of the Pirate Party of Canada, only a Forum member and as such I don't know if I'm entitled to make a motion. I don't even know how to make a motion! But nevertheless, here goes:

I make a motion to the Pirate Party of Canada to join the coalition of Pirate Parties hosting a network of mirror sites for Wikileaks.

A more detailed explanation of the current situation:

https://www.pirateparty.ca/uncategorized/on-wikileaks


Unfortunately, you're not entitled to do so.

I was just reading your blog on WikiLeaks through RSS when the notification for your reply to my "motion" came up. Yes, I figured I wouldn't be entitled. Thanks for taking the time to clarify this simple matter.

I'll take a look at it. Unfortunately I don't know enough of about how we can help to do anything.

I think it's important to help Wikileaks for a couple of reasons.

One, their work is consistent with our policies of open government and freedom of information. Regardless of whatever minor critiques that can be said about how they do business, the fact that they are one of the few entities that are willing to spread vital information to the public means that they should be protected as much as possible. The attacks on them are over-blown. This is a website that received sensitive information, then contacted numerous journalists to help them both digest and redact the documents. Not only journalists, but the State Department themselves were given the opportunity to go through the cables and offer any suggestions - though the US government refused. These are not radicals. They're not criminals, or terrorists. They're journalists. Journalists that are experiencing an unprecedented assault on their right to freedom of the press. Reporters without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists have joined in the support of the group. Given our mandate, it would be nothing short of an embarrassment if we didn't do something as simple as set up a mirror - something that well over 300 people have already done.

Secondly, and in relation to the global Pirate Party movement, it's important that we also support the Swiss Pirate Party. Wikileaks is not only being attacked by the US government, but by a world wide force of diplomats, corporations and members of parliament. We have a unique opportunity as a pillar of the Pirate Party to begin responding in an equally global way. Not only would supporting Wikileaks support the ideals of freedom of speech, information and open democracy that we all believe in but it would also strengthen our ties with Pirate Parties around the world. And the stronger those connections are, the stronger we'll be in the future.

If those people are engaged in wrongdoing then they should be fired. Wikileaks also has a harm minimization policy in place and over the course of the last few mega leaks has increasingly been more sensitive to the act of redacting the information. The last two leaks (the embassy cables and the Iraq War Logs) were fully redacted with the help of multiple expert journalists from respected newspapers. Wikileaks has also contacted the US State Department multiple times and offered them a chance to redact any information themselves. The reason only a few hundred of the embassy cables have been released thus far is that each cable is being analyzed by multiple groups (Wikileaks as well as professional journalists) to determine what information can be shared and what should censored in order to protect innocent people.


I don't know where you got this information. Wikileaks doesn't hack into anyone's system. They publish classified materials that are obtained via mail and a digital submission box. This is the equivalent of a journalist publishing classified material that he receives in a brown envelope on his doorstep. In addition, and in regards to the embassy cables, none of them were classified as Top Secret and a large portion of them were unclassified. Couple this with the fact that the documents were available on SIPRANET and accessible by almost two million government employees.


You're implying then that information such as the US accidentally abducting and torturing a German citizen should remain secret because said government does not want people to know that information? That flies in the face of holding governments accountable.


So your argument in this instance is that we shouldn't bother getting information about governmental wrongdoing because they are just going to make getting information about their future wrongdoing more difficult? Also, criminal activity? There is a large contingent of lawyers worldwide that contend that nothing about Wikileaks' activities is illegal under US law. There are statutes in most first world jurisdictions that protect the right of whistleblowers to publish information about wrong doing (classified or not). In the case of the United States, Daniel Ellsberg, was found innocent of all charges against him after he revealed the Pentagon Papers. Unlike Wikileaks, which merely publishes the information they are provided, Daniel Ellsberg actually stole the documents himself. You can't just use the phrase "criminal activity" when you feel like it.

Your statement about "revealing minor comments" indicates to me that you really haven't been following any of the information flowing out of the cables. Some of these minor stories include a risked nuclear disaster hidden from the press, multiple accounts of the US interfering with foreign judicial processes in order to protect troops or CIA agents from facing trials, the US practically writing Spain's copyright legislation, US air strikes on refugee camps, US manipulation of the Copenhagen accord, an incredible amount of information about Afghan corruption, information about the Russian government's ties to the mob, the US State Department and the CIA conducting spy operations against UN officials, etc etc etc etc etc. A scant couple of hours with the Guardian's newsblog would indicate that there is far more to these cables than "minor comments".

 I don't scoff at people often, but I'll have to make an exception in this case.

Don't be silly. Information is either public or it isn't. Once information is available from either official or unofficial channels, there's nothing to prevent it from crossing borders.

If you're prepared to wait until China or Russia implement transparency, I'll see you sometime next century.


A fair point.


Thank you for the apology.


Like the people outed in the BNP leak? It may be a scary party, but its members still have the right to freedom of association.

Well put. Though I would argue that in the case of people being fired for being a member of the BNP one should be able to have that redressed in a court of law. However, I'm no expert in UK labour law. In the case of social ostracization, well, given the nature of their political beliefs, is that not to be expected?

There is, of course, always the risk of violence and threats to their person, which is never okay and the information could have facilitated that. But how much of that burden does Wikileaks really bare?

It's worth debating to be sure, though I don't see it as a particular black mark against the organization. Though, you could argue that it bares no real "historical value" which is one of the qualities they use as their razor when deciding what to leak and what not to.

Exactly. Even if the harm is only caused indirectly, if the release causes only harm and no public good, WikiLeaks should consider itself culpable, even if the law does not.

My point exactly when I started this post: freedom of association, freedom of expression and, in the particular case of WikiLeaks, freedom of the press. That WikiLeaks be right or wrong is open to debate, but that the freedom of the press exercised by WikiLeaks be threatened by government agencies all over the world is, in my opinion, wrong and the Pirate Party of Canada should take a clear stand on that particular issue by allowing some of its resources as mirror to the WikiLeaks site.

I refer to securr's reply #8 for a brilliant exposition on why the Pirate Party of Canada should do so.


Yes, democracy can prove to be a slow process, but sometimes it has to be shifted in high gears.

Good way to get on the NSA and CIA watch lists.
Don't be idiots - there's no advantage to the party to mirror this shit and these are not the kind of people who "need our help".
Please produce the email where Assange has asked the Pirate Parties for assistance.

J

First, this is not "shit". You may agree or disagree with WikiLeaks, but calling it shit achieves nothing.
Second, I wouldn't be surprised that the Party is already on the NSA and CIA lists and also on the CSIS list. A Party like the Pirate Party of Canada represents a potential threat to the powers that be and as such its activities are most probably watched carefully.
Finally, no, I am not aware of any email that mr. Assange would have sent to the Pirate Parties for assistance.

A few things to note.

Wikileaks is clearly expressing the extreme degree of free press. That is fine with me, in fact there has yet to be any link made between Wikileaks and negative effects on the Iraq/Afghanistan war. Lately all I've seen is politicians getting burned for being less than perfect.

Pirate parties around the world have supported Wikileaks, there isn't any reason we should be different after all we stand for the same core principles.

Then there is another matter of the U.S government throwing their weight against different areas of the internet to get things like Limewire and Wikileaks shut down.. I'm 100% against internet censorship and we are all for open internet. It isn't open when Wikileaks was getting shut down. Heck its borderline illegal that they are still alive by way of mirror sites. That is a sign of the internet fighting back.

Supporting wikilinks is making a stand for internet neutrality. Not just helping burn some dirty people.

PS: The Pirate Party isn't on any agency radar either way.

Nor is there any reason we should be the same. We're not a member of Pirate Parties International and have no formal ties to any other Pirate Party worldwide. We are the only people who have any authority to dictate our policy.


No it's not. WikiLeaks has nothing to do with net neutrality, aside from being added to child porn as the list of excuses copyright lobby groups can use to advocate censorship.

All I know is if we decide to leave wikileaks out of our policy, I for one will return my card. Everything I enjoyed about the party, and the reasons I joined up were linked to open access to information, and if the worry is about losing 'credibility' then this party will be no different in my eyes than any other one in Canada, which is too afraid of ruffling a few feathers for and idea that is right.

I'm not concerned about what Europe is doing, and no Canadian laws have been broken here, What I am concerned about is people in the PPoC thinking more about it's own survival than pressing an idea into the Canadian spirit. That an voters like me, who never bothered to vote in their 20s because what they voted for and what they got afterward are different things, mostly because a party (in my case, liberal) decided that polling numbers were more important than their ideas that inspired.

I was an advocate of supporting the Pirate Bay when it was shut down and the sweed PP helped out....
Leadership here decided it was a bad idea...looking back - they were right.
Wikileaks is no different.
They don't need our help so why offer it?
If we did - it would look like a PR stunt to me and frankly....i'd rather you guys stay off the SS lists.

J

I just want to address Jay for a second, as you've stated that twice already. Wikileaks does, in fact, need as much help as they can muster. They've had their accounts frozen, Visa and Mastercard are no longer accepting payments to WIkileaks (though they do still allow people to donate to groups affiliated with the KKK, ironically) and their server infrastructure is under continued assault. Wikileaks needs all the help they can get. Not only in terms of raw technical and monetary support, but in public support as well.

As for your comparison to the Pirate Bay, it's not exactly an apt one. For one thing, as far as we know, everything Wikileaks has engaged in thus far has been legal. If Wikileaks is charged under the espionage act, most legal scholars agree that the interpretation of the act needed to facilitate a conviction would lead to disastrous consequences for mainstream investigative journalism. It's not just Wikileaks that is under threat here, but journalists everywhere that seek to expose government corruption. If their work is made illegal because of a precedent setting case against Wikileaks, the chances of anyone taking the kinds of risks that people like Daniel Ellsberg or even Rupert Murdoch's father did ever again will be considerably lower. You need to think long term here.


Mono, I think that's premature. I agree that I will be seriously disappointed if we choose not to support Wikileaks, and I think it will be a rather uncomfortable black mark as the controversy begins to settle down and we start gaining some perspective on the situation, but Mikkel is holding this vote (via a snap meeting at that) in order to further and strengthen the principles of open government and open democracy. If the party as a whole votes note to support Wikileaks, that decision, wrong and short sighted as it would be, has to be respected. We are not going to be any different than what currently resides in Parliament if the first couple of big decisions we have to make as a group are arrived at by suspending, or rejecting, the democratic process. That's what closed politics is, and it should not be a part of the PPoC's open government policy.

In short, the hard and painful rule of democracy is this: It's not so fun when it screws you. Nevertheless, you still have to respect the machine.

Securr you better be at the meeting. Your arguments would be very helpful in favor of Wikileaks.

Mono, I agree that it'll be a disappointment. But that is the nature of democracy., The majority wins and sometimes its not the best outcome but the best thing to do is respect it and win the next battle.

I have no idea how the debate will go and which way the vote will come out. I think the outcome will be decided by the arguments for a lot of members.

It is also worth noting that every online poll I've seen about Wikileaks has been in favor of it. Despite being slammed by the various Governments and by extension the media. Most the polls I've seen are from the CBC website which top about 70% in favor of Wikileaks and considering that its a Canadian news source read by Canadians and voted on by Canadians, you can see at least from a poll of a few thousand people, the majority of Canadians support Wikileaks.

I have a South African syrah just for the occasion. :)

I wouldn't say so. It's the exact message we have been trying to get out since our inception. To distance ourselves from it makes us no different than the other parties that I used to support, and now disdain. While the language is strong, it should be in my opinion. If it's about just making another political party, and not holding an ideal, it makes the only difference between us and any other party just a smaller base.

It's like securr mentioned. Nothing illegal, but highly embarassing. Mainstream news articles cling onto only the sensationalist articles, so even now their impact is being mitigated by the bottom line. IT's neccisary, and we need to be a part of it.

I think we should support wikileaks only in terms of mirroring what they have available. That would send a strong enough message we support transparency while not financing what may or may not fall into a legal grey area.

Agreed. However, the only grey area I have seen (and this is only because of my job) is that I am unauthorized to view classified documents on an unclas system, and since these cables are considered secred, it would be a security breach. The talk about legality is a stretch, at best. (unless you are the one who leacked the documents in the US)

Remember, the definition of a secret document is one that in all probably likelyhood could cause serious damage to the national interest. Having said that, it's only their distribution among governmental agencies and citizens of that nation who are held accountable to this law. The rest is just fearmongering.

Just wanted to add my comments from the meeting here:

I am in favour of mirroring Wikileaks for the following reasons:

1)As Falkvinge has pointed out in Sweden, action is an essential difference in the role of a pirate party.
2)As can be seen by comparing deCSS with AACS "09 F9 11", scale matters considerably. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes
3)Wikileaks do actually have the potential to affect us more directly than we might think, as in http://bit.ly/ieG90d
4)Regarding cost, we are over 2000 strong.  If we decide to mirror the site, we should back up that decision with the finances to follow through without burdening Nuitari
5)Since posting a youtube video of your kids singing happy birthday is also a violation of copyright, concern that the publishing of leaked content be illegal is misplaced.  At worst this would be a very principled move of civil disobedience, and any action taken against us as a result could only help us.
6)Being brave enough to take a risky action is the point of the action.  Point 5 applies to non-copyright action taken against us as a result of such a move as well--this type of attention will only cause well-deserved coverage of our party and sympathy for it.


Taking everything raised so far into consideration, I believe we should mirror Wikileaks.


Sincerely,
Jeff Coleman

Now to use an  image macro based on a movie...

(http://asmartbear.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nut_up_or_shut_up.jpg)

From tonight's debate:


Bottom line: going along with this may have a seriously detrimental effect on our standing as a political party, forget about press attention and “nutting up”.

The Pirate Party is a reactionary party. We are from the Pirate Bay, and we represent the internet.

If rehosting wikileaks could get us in legal trouble, that sucks, but one less symbolic mirror isn't a big deal.

It is however most important that we stand up for the free press. Wikileaks is a journalist organization.


Quote from the American Civil Liberties Union, which I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think the PPCA should too:
"The Wikileaks phenomenon — the existence of an organization devoted to obtaining and publicly releasing large troves of information the U.S. government would prefer to keep secret — illustrates just how broken our secrecy classification system is. While the Obama administration has made some modest improvements to the rules governing classification of government information, both it and the Bush administration have overclassified and kept secret information that should be subject to public scrutiny and debate. As a result, the American public has had to depend on leaks to the news media and whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.

Without whistleblowers such as Wikileaks who disclosed illegal activity, we wouldn’t know, among other things, about:

* the CIA’s secret overseas prisons
* the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program
* that civilian casualties from the war in Iraq are much higher than was thought
* that U.S. troops were going into battle without adequate body armor

There is certainly a narrow category of information that the government should be able to keep secret in order to protect national security and for other purposes. But the reality is that much more information has been classified by the U.S. government than should be, and information is often classified not for legitimate security reasons, but for political reasons — to protect the government from embarrassment, to manipulate public opinion or even to conceal evidence of criminal activity. When too much information is classified, it becomes more and more difficult to separate the information that should be made public from the information that is legitimately classified.

What the Wikileaks phenomenon means in the longer term — and how the government will respond — is still open to question. But two things are already clear. First, to reduce incentives for leaks, the government should provide safe avenues for government employees to report abuse, fraud and waste to the appropriate authorities and to Congress. Second, the Obama administration should recommit to the ideals the president invoked when he first came to office: “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

Democracy, after all, depends on transparency. The American public has a right to know what the government is doing in its name."

Kevin Beckford is my name.  This comment requires it, I'll provide it, reply on my blog chiggsy.com or via twitter @chiggsy, or not at all. or whatever.  

This party's response to the WikiLeaks issue will determine my support  or opposition in the future.  The only issue here is WHAT THE GOVERNMENTS DID.  Publish the data if someone received it!  Why would you not?  Why are we not helping? Why don't we take a stand?   All this guff about "the lives of the people involved" is laughable.  Having that data and keeping it silent means lives are just as lost except in that case, you've held the door shut for the killers.  Who would want that on their conscience?  Hmm?

What has happened with wikileaks is that they have demonstrated that the govt has no more privacy than you, or I.  That's all.  We sit at a curious technical and political cusp, where the technology used against the people is completely accessible to the same people. The minority government situation in the country  has greatly contributed to the sense of freedom that we have.  The 'authorities' are working quite hard, as we saw this summer, to regain the upper hand.  I of course, being happy with this level of freedom, prefer not to be mashed back  down to subservience.  

I joined this party bringing technical expertise.  I did so in the full knowledge that if things went a certain way that my membership in this party could be used to at the least decrease my quality of life.  Be assured that things could get ugly indeed if the wrong people gain power, or even indifferent people.  For example, I'll end this post with the evidence that the 'security' on this page provided by 'https' is laughable, and a lie.  Secure channels over hostile pipes is what you want, not this.  Fix please.

Onward:

Democracy:  Nice word, let me say another one:  Leadership.  What I'm seeing is ducking the responsibility of the leadership role.  

But also, let's be rational and sensible.  Has someone received a call, or have information or has had it implied in any way that ill events will befall them for supporting wikileaks?  Speak up if so.  You'll lose my support, but I've lived in China, and the Philippines.  I accept reality as well as rhetoric.  

After all, to join together is the comforting thing but it's certainly not necessary, and in this country, we have learned the COINTELPRO lessons quite well, as the "Black Bloc" has shown us.  They  have been overseas perfecting techniques to prevent change in government for 30 years, against people who actually fight, not just talk about it.  

Curious to see where this party goes from here.

Almost forgot:  any one of these resources could in actuality be a script funnelling this conversation to a inimical 3rd party.  You speak on this site as if the pipe, the conduit for the bits going on the wire is 'dumb'  It's not.  You speak of breaking a cartel's power over a country, almost total.  You speak of changing a clearly repressionist tending government.  Ignore or contest everything else I say, but this is a fact:  This pipe we speak over is not 'dumb.'  It's hostile.  Again, fix it. Please. HTTPS under these conditions is betrayal.  Many would see the url and assume a level of security completely absent from this site.  You do not start a pirate party without a reasonable guarantee of a private conversation.  

[Moderator edit: removing null smileys]

Sure. That doesn't mean compromising our values to do so.


The most important of those “other purposes” being the protection of privacy.


And what if doing so would compromise our commitment to fight for the protection of privacy, a right which is being continually eroded without the help of organizations like WikiLeaks. Is it really right for us to take action that would further undermine this? How hypocritical are we?


Visit this page from any web browser from any IP in the world, with or without authenticating from any forum account. It is visible to the public. If you think this is or is intended to be a “private conversation”, HTTPS or no, you're mistaken. Privacy begins and ends with the user. Yes, we should fix the embedding URLs. No, it won't make any difference to your security.


You'd prefer not to have a say?

I was watching BBC and Paypal has admitted it caved to Government pressure concerning Wikileaks.

michealPW says, on the Pirate Party of Canada's blog, december 5, comment # 12:

"If they can shut down WikiLeaks when nobody has commited a crime, simply because their content doesn’t “jive” with the ruling elites, they can shut ANY SITE DOWN, c’mon guys think about this! We need action!"

http://www.pirateparty.ca/uncategorized/on-wikileaks

I agree. What is at stake here is not if WikiLeaks is right or wrong, or if WikiLeaks has broken any law, in which case it should be dealt with appropriately, but the freedom of the press and the ideal of a free internet.
WikiLeaks, that is founder, mr. Assange, likes or not, is becoming an emblem of the fight for a free internet, and frankly, the way governments and corporations around the world are reacting against WikiLeaks is, to put it mildly, scary.
So I encourage you to take a look at the two following links:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?cl=848777794&v=7724

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-against-internet-censorship

It's important to note that the vote that took place yesterday was designed precisely to exercise the Pirate Party's ideals of open government. Hosting documents that are as sensitive as these ones is more complicated for a political party than it appears at first glance. While other Pirate Party's have done the same, there are legal protections in those jurisdictions that aren't offered in Canada and unique rules under Elections Canada that the party has to follow.

Also, there is a (though I would argue minor) conflict between how Wikileaks releases its information and our policy of Right to Privacy.

That's precisely why we held a vote on it. Regardless of what is decided the entire party, not just Mikkel, takes responsibility for that decision. That's just how democracy works.

Vote of the voters depends on information they have access to, and the choice they have.
And when the information flows are already captured and controlled by whoever is into power - and voters are fed with lies and junk - and there is a fear to release information to public because of possibly "violating some hidden law" - this is no democracy anymore but 'democracy' as you properly put it into quotes.

Speaking of vote, I was told yesterday's meeting I will be able to eventually recast my vote if I wish so.
However I login at http://vote.pirateparty.ca to it reads "There is no vote at the moment"?
Is there a vote going on? The period for members to vote was reduced from 7 to 3 days, and one day has already passed.

I understand the specific incident you're referring to with the BNP, and how it contradicts our personal policy. I agree with wikileaks decision to shine the light on these racists, but I understand why its not a party issue.

That being said, we're FOR internet freedoms, or we should be, and despite the one action that we don't agree with, the greater purpose and mission of the organization fits perfectly with our ideals, which is increased transparency, internet rights and freedoms, and intelligent technological influence on law.

That's the way I see it at least. I think we need to have some degree of solidarity with controversial internet organizations, because the pirate party, in my eyes, represents the power of the internet.

That being said, I do appreciate it's being put to a vote. That is the way PPCA works in my eyes. Unfortunately though if the vote reveals that we generally don't support wikileaks as a party, it may make me reconsider my membership.



My wording was too vague, I think. Sorry, I was writing quickly as I was being beckoned to leave, but I wanted input.

- Maybe the quote wasn't specific enough. The swedish pirate party, which is the basic blueprint and inspiration for our political party, was named the pirate party because of the association with piracy and the pirate bay.  That is how we originate there. Perhaps not explicitly. I think that as a political party we have to represent the interests of the internet. Maybe that's my philosophy and not our philosophy, but it's why I was attracted to this political party in the first place.

- No, you misunderstand.  I think not mirroring it is acceptable if there are going to be legal repercussions. That's what I meant to say. I think we need to voice support for wikileaks, but we don't need to host the files as an organization. Our standing as a legitimate political party is more important than a symbolic mirror. We should maybe link to mirrors.

- I meant that effective democracy- as in a political system where the government serves the people and not vice versa- depends on transparency. Don't pull some current shitty bad democracy technical definition jive. Do you want a say in action, or do you want a say in the avatar for the ultra rich?

I think I've already said everything I can on the subject, but I'd just like to add one other thing. The motion as it's currently going to a vote is as follows:


It explicitly gives the Federal Council the final say in whether or not it is to be implemented for what should be fairly obvious reasons. However, if the motion passes, I have no intention of ignoring it just because I personally disagree and the option of doing so was available to us. We will make it happen if it falls within our reasonable ability.

Although I'm not a member of the Party, I'm personally satisfied with the democratic process that's being followed on this issue.

It's time to Nut Up or Shut Up.

Support Wikileaks, like was said earlier. Public employees of the state should be accountable for their actions. Just look at the officers in the G20 crap who  took their badges and nametags off to go beat a few protesters senseless. Should we protect such a police officers personal information who was BREAKING THE LAW... Or should we nail it on the wall and say 'This is who it was and we demand justice'.

Personally I dont think Wikileaks has that much personal information of people who are not public employees. It's hard but you have to take the bad with the good... If you want videos of military choppers shooting down civilians then you have to be prepared for some personal information to be exposed and what not... Although Wikileaks up until this point has cooperated with governments to remove personal information from files of their operatives and what not. If the governments are willing to become actively hostile to wikileaks you can expect them to return in kind.

Lend them a hand, sure. Give them one for keeps? No.

I completely agree with the spirit behind the move to set up a mirror. However, I do not think doing such a thing will best serve our goals as a Party.

I voted the 'mirror' down. Here's why:

Hosting a mirror directly as the Pirate Party would make us vulnerable, through our specific overt action, to being shut down both as a mirror operator and as a Party. Speaking as a Party in our capacity as one, is different from taking overt protest actions outside of the envelope of the protections we (do or should) enjoy as a political party.

The forces of evil will use any excuse we give them to shut us down. We should not be handing them such an excuse on a platter by doing something that is not directly in the line of pursuing influence as a political party.

Somewhere out there, you know there is a child going hungry. In fact, if we emptied our coffers and our personal bank accounts to feed people there would still be a child going hungry. Host a mirror or feed a hungry child? The fact is, we have joined together for a specific purpose. There exist other organizations with the resources, mandate and infrastructure to do short-term intervention things like organize mirrors. For instance, I donate and occasionally do little jobs for the EFF. They step in with amicus briefs and attempts to get injunctions.

There are plenty of good things we should all be doing in the world. However, as governors of a political party, we have a certain mandate and scope of operations. To speak to such an issue, vote funds in Parliament, publicize it, etc is within our mandate and scope of operations. To start specific activities such as setting up a mirror is not within the scope of a Political Party per se and for a young party still forming such a lack of focus may well be fatal.

Excepting my objection to doing this under the specific auspices of the PPC, I completely and strongly support Wikileaks and I think that we should form a working group to figure out some way we can support strong protest actions at arms length, with plausible deniability. I am uncertain how we could actually do such a thing, but I believe it should be possible.

Meantime, I am available to offer some technical support if people wish to do this *not* under the direct auspices of the PPC.

Well said.

Very well said. Though I do have a more technical question. We keep hearing the argument that hosting a mirror puts us at risk of being shut down. Where are we getting that position from? It seems highly unlikely to me that Elections Canada would move to eliminate an officially registered party on the basis of hosting information whose legal status in the US hasn't even been decided yet, let alone its legal status in Canada.

A court request to remove the information, in the event that any action is taken against the mirror (a possibility which seems to me to be highly suspect) seems far more likely. I think it best we either a) find legitimate precedence or get a legitimate statement from Elections Canada or b) err on the side prudence and stop treating supposed risks to the party as an inevitability.

This is because we would defiantly be warned before being de-registered, and if we don't comply then we would lose party status. Wikileaks has not been found guilty of any crime. If Wikileaks breaks a law in Canada we would have the option to shut down the Mirror and say we don't support breaking the law.

This risk to the party is being used to garner support against hosting a Mirror. Mikkel has already stated he wouldn't be looking forward to hosting a mirror if the party voted in favor. He is taking the biggest shot he can against the Mirror by saying we could lose the party. The risk has been intentionally over stated and exploited. Its good politics, the opposition in government will list the possible negatives of a legislation as an inevitability to try and win against the motion. I hope people can see through this. We can do this and we can be safe from prosecution unless given undeniable evidence to the contrary.

I would like to point out I have no hard feelings for Mikkel I see his side of the argument. If I was in his position on the nay saying side I would do EXACTLY the same thing if I could think of it.

I don't want to run the risk of escalating an already divisive issue but I think that's silly. The Federal Council had (and still has) the right to veto something like this. The decision to solicit membership for the decision was Mikkel's idea, in support of the party's open government ideals. In fact, the debate surrounding the mirror was rather sharply divided but also respectful and productive. The decision to amend the wording of the motion to reinforce the authority of the federal council was put forth by membership, and was agreed upon by majority.

No one's playing politics here. People are airing out real concerns about adopting this approach. I think the immediacy of the issue and the ensuing media circus around is turning it into a bigger problem than it should be, but that doesn't change the fact the people (intelligent people) both on the council and in the membership are questioning the wisdom of this idea. Hence, the vote.

Referring to the full Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-2.01) (338 pages) rather than the summary document provided to political parties (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=pol/man/ec20229&lang=e) (74 pages), it seems that you're right about the notification process. I'd rather not start down that road, but the risk is apparently not as great as I'd anticipated.

I am very glad you took the time to find that Mikkel. Thank you.

.........So we're safe as long as we endorse at least candidate with the financial records and 250+ membership?

Essentially yes. And if we are wrong we will be warned no shut down overnight.

There are a number of other requirements, mostly in terms of information about the party that has to be reported, but the important part on this subject is what we can't do, not what we have to do.

But when RCMP raided the Conservative HQ and found that they spend over the election spending limit by 1 million dollars, Election Canada didn't even deregistered them for doing so. So I guess spending over the limit by 1 million dollars is not enough for deregistration of a party.

No. Exceeding the spending limit involves fines; exceeding the donation limit requires excess to be turned over to the Receiver General. Either one done regularly/systematically could result in deregistration, although no doubt the big parties would be subject to a different standard than the rest of us.