🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C08F90.4024F3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=3Dthestar/L=
ayout/Article_Type1&c=3DArticle&cid=3D981261172373&call_page=3DTS_News&ca=
ll_pageid=3D968332188492&call_pagepath=3DNews/News

      Gun bill violates owners' rights, experts say=20
      From Canadian Press
    =20
      Canada's controversial gun-licensing rules violate the privacy of =
gun owners and could jeopardize their right to a fair trial, legal and =
privacy experts say.=20

      Highly personal questions asked of potential gun-owners under the =
1995 Firearms Act have prompted Federal Privacy Commissioner George =
Radwanski to consider launching an official review of Canada's =
gun-licensing process.=20

      ''I personally find the invasive nature of these questions =
disturbing,'' he told The Canadian Press in a recent interview.=20

      ''I feel these questions should be reviewed afresh.... Our =
informal review indicates there is sufficient concern to justify =
conducting another review.''=20

      Recent criticisms of the two-year-old process for getting a gun =
licence - its high cost to the public, its maze of bureaucracy, and its =
alleged inefficiency in identifying safety risks - have missed a =
significant flaw in the law, other legal and privacy experts say.=20

      Under the act, gun owners and potential owners are asked to =
surrender sensitive personal information about their mental health =
history, marital and divorce status, and bankruptcy status - details =
that are stored in a federal database and may then be further =
investigated by firearms officers and even local police.=20

      ''The issue of violence is being used to justify a huge invasive =
grab of personal information,'' said Valerie Steeves, a law professor at =
Carleton University and privacy expert specializing in human rights and =
technology.=20

      ''These practices are open to a Charter challenge.''=20

      Under the current rules, gun owners and potential owners are =
required to state on a form whether, in the past five years, they have: =
''threatened or attempted suicide,'' ''been diagnosed or treated by a =
medical practitioner for: depression, alcohol, drug or substance abuse, =
behavioural problems, or emotional problems,'' or ''experienced a =
divorce, breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or =
bankruptcy.''=20

      If they answer ''yes'' to any of the questions, applicants are =
asked to provide written details on a separate page.=20

      David Austin, spokesperson for the Canadian Firearms Centre in =
Ottawa, said a ''yes'' answer means the form is referred to the regional =
firearms office, where an officer further investigates by calling anyone =
associated with the applicant to determine whether that person is a =
risk. That could include calls to neighbours and former spouses.=20

      If not fully satisfied, the firearms office can then ask local =
police ''to act as agents of the firearms centre'' by conducting an =
investigation to assess whether the applicants are dangerous.=20

      Information gathered is used to decide whether to grant a licence, =
and it is accessible only to firearms officers, Austin said.=20

      He added the privacy protections are stringent.=20

      ''Personal information like this is restricted - only a firearms =
officer could access it,'' he said.=20

      Austin added the questions on the form are not new - they were =
developed in consultation with psychologists, sociologists and =
criminologists and were included under the old Firearms Acquisition =
Certificate applications of 1991.=20

      He added they had been ''vetted'' by Bruce Phillips, the former =
privacy commissioner.=20

      But one privacy commission official said that decision has been =
under unofficial review for some time.=20

      ''We did in fact meet with officials of the Department of Justice =
initially under the former commissioner, and protested vigourously when =
the certificates were introduced years ago,'' said Donna Vallieres, =
director of communications.=20

      ''The questions were of an extremely personal nature, and we felt =
(they were) an invasion of the privacy of the individuals registering.'' =


      Eventually though, the Justice Department provided ''extensive =
rationale and expert testimony,'' which Phillips accepted, Vallieres =
said.=20

      Steeves argues the security of federal government databases has =
proven faulty in the past, and said the large number of bureaucrats with =
access to the information should be questioned.=20

      ''I don't think there's a culture of privacy at all,'' she said.=20

      Providing such information isn't voluntary, as it's been =
characterized by the law's chief advocates, Steeves added.=20

      ''To be voluntary, there has to be an equality of bargaining =
power,'' she said. ''For example, if I'm a bankrupt farmer, and I need a =
gun for my livelihood, I'm forced (by this legislation) to reveal these =
details or lie. Is this an appropriate use of state power? No, it's =
not.''=20

      The potential use of sensitive information during a criminal trial =
is another flaw in the legislation, said David Paciocco, a law professor =
at the University of Ottawa.=20

      Paciocco said the way in which the personal information about =
mental health, divorce status or bankruptcy is collected could violate =
people's rights not to incriminate themselves if they're ever charged =
with an offence.=20

      ''All those pieces of information may assist in presenting a case, =
or establishing a motive,'' he said. ''It definitely undermines =
self-incrimination issues ... anybody who gives this information should =
know that they're forfeiting privacy interests, and it can have =
implications for them.''=20

      Powers granted to police by the legislation which allows them to =
investigate individuals as ''agents of the centre'' is also cause for =
concern, he said.=20

      ''With respect to a suspect, they may be able to pose questions =
that sound innocent (under the guise of working for the firearms =
centre), but that aren't.''=20

      Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control and =
professor of justice studies at Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, argued =
the questions are valid.=20

      Six inquests into firearms-related deaths across the country found =
the personal factors queried by the application forms played a =
significant role in each one, she said.=20

      ''A huge body of research indicates both violence against others =
and suicide are linked to (these) risk factors,'' she said.=20

      But Steeves argues the evidence that gathering such information on =
a large segment of the population - 2.5 million by some estimates - =
actually increases the likelihood of stopping gun violence is slim.=20

      ''Is this going to make a hill of beans of difference? No,'' she =
said. ''It's highly questionable whether there will be any effect on =
crime.''=20

      As of last April, Bill C-68's implementation was said to have cost =
the country $327 million.=20

      In 1995, the original five-year estimate was $185 million, =
including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million.=20

      Since the new application process began in 1998, 2,238 firearms =
licences have been refused or revoked -more than 21 times the total =
number of revocations in the previous five years, according to the =
Canadian Firearms Centre.=20


------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C08F90.4024F3C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=3Dt=
hestar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;c=3DArticle&amp;cid=3D981261172373&amp;ca=
ll_page=3DTS_News&amp;call_pageid=3D968332188492&amp;call_pagepath=3DNews=
/News">http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=3Dth=
estar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;c=3DArticle&amp;cid=3D981261172373&amp;cal=
l_page=3DTS_News&amp;call_pageid=3D968332188492&amp;call_pagepath=3DNews/=
News</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D10 width=3D468 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD colSpan=3D2>
      <CENTER><FONT face=3D"Times, Times New Roman, Serif, MS Serif" =
color=3D#000000=20
      size=3D5>Gun bill violates owners' rights, experts =
say</FONT></CENTER></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD colSpan=3D2>
      <CENTER><FONT face=3D"Times, Times New Roman, Serif, MS Serif" =
color=3D#000000=20
      size=3D2>From Canadian Press<BR></FONT></CENTER></TD></TR>
  <TR>
    <TD class=3DStoryText colSpan=3D2>
      <TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D10 width=3D175 align=3Dright =
bgColor=3D#ffffff=20
      border=3D0>
        <TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>Canada's controversial gun-licensing =
rules violate=20
      the privacy of gun owners and could jeopardize their right to a =
fair=20
      trial, legal and privacy experts say.=20
      <P></P>Highly personal questions asked of potential gun-owners =
under the=20
      1995 Firearms Act have prompted Federal Privacy Commissioner =
George=20
      Radwanski to consider launching an official review of Canada's=20
      gun-licensing process.=20
      <P></P>''I personally find the invasive nature of these questions=20
      disturbing,'' he told The Canadian Press in a recent interview.=20
      <P></P>''I feel these questions should be reviewed afresh.... Our =
informal=20
      review indicates there is sufficient concern to justify conducting =
another=20
      review.''=20
      <P></P>Recent criticisms of the two-year-old process for getting a =
gun=20
      licence - its high cost to the public, its maze of bureaucracy, =
and its=20
      alleged inefficiency in identifying safety risks - have missed a=20
      significant flaw in the law, other legal and privacy experts say.=20
      <P></P>Under the act, gun owners and potential owners are asked to =

      surrender sensitive personal information about their mental health =

      history, marital and divorce status, and bankruptcy status - =
details that=20
      are stored in a federal database and may then be further =
investigated by=20
      firearms officers and even local police.=20
      <P></P>''The issue of violence is being used to justify a huge =
invasive=20
      grab of personal information,'' said Valerie Steeves, a law =
professor at=20
      Carleton University and privacy expert specializing in human =
rights and=20
      technology.=20
      <P></P>''These practices are open to a Charter challenge.''=20
      <P></P>Under the current rules, gun owners and potential owners =
are=20
      required to state on a form whether, in the past five years, they =
have:=20
      ''threatened or attempted suicide,'' ''been diagnosed or treated =
by a=20
      medical practitioner for: depression, alcohol, drug or substance =
abuse,=20
      behavioural problems, or emotional problems,'' or ''experienced a =
divorce,=20
      breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy.'' =

      <P></P>If they answer ''yes'' to any of the questions, applicants =
are=20
      asked to provide written details on a separate page.=20
      <P></P>David Austin, spokesperson for the Canadian Firearms Centre =
in=20
      Ottawa, said a ''yes'' answer means the form is referred to the =
regional=20
      firearms office, where an officer further investigates by calling =
anyone=20
      associated with the applicant to determine whether that person is =
a risk.=20
      That could include calls to neighbours and former spouses.=20
      <P></P>If not fully satisfied, the firearms office can then ask =
local=20
      police ''to act as agents of the firearms centre'' by conducting =
an=20
      investigation to assess whether the applicants are dangerous.=20
      <P></P>Information gathered is used to decide whether to grant a =
licence,=20
      and it is accessible only to firearms officers, Austin said.=20
      <P></P>He added the privacy protections are stringent.=20
      <P></P>''Personal information like this is restricted - only a =
firearms=20
      officer could access it,'' he said.=20
      <P></P>Austin added the questions on the form are not new - they =
were=20
      developed in consultation with psychologists, sociologists and=20
      criminologists and were included under the old Firearms =
Acquisition=20
      Certificate applications of 1991.=20
      <P></P>He added they had been ''vetted'' by Bruce Phillips, the =
former=20
      privacy commissioner.=20
      <P></P>But one privacy commission official said that decision has =
been=20
      under unofficial review for some time.=20
      <P></P>''We did in fact meet with officials of the Department of =
Justice=20
      initially under the former commissioner, and protested vigourously =
when=20
      the certificates were introduced years ago,'' said Donna =
Vallieres,=20
      director of communications.=20
      <P></P>''The questions were of an extremely personal nature, and =
we felt=20
      (they were) an invasion of the privacy of the individuals =
registering.''=20
      <P></P>Eventually though, the Justice Department provided =
''extensive=20
      rationale and expert testimony,'' which Phillips accepted, =
Vallieres said.=20

      <P></P>Steeves argues the security of federal government databases =
has=20
      proven faulty in the past, and said the large number of =
bureaucrats with=20
      access to the information should be questioned.=20
      <P></P>''I don't think there's a culture of privacy at all,'' she =
said.=20
      <P></P>Providing such information isn't voluntary, as it's been=20
      characterized by the law's chief advocates, Steeves added.=20
      <P></P>''To be voluntary, there has to be an equality of =
bargaining=20
      power,'' she said. ''For example, if I'm a bankrupt farmer, and I =
need a=20
      gun for my livelihood, I'm forced (by this legislation) to reveal =
these=20
      details or lie. Is this an appropriate use of state power? No, =
it's not.''=20

      <P></P>The potential use of sensitive information during a =
criminal trial=20
      is another flaw in the legislation, said David Paciocco, a law =
professor=20
      at the University of Ottawa.=20
      <P></P>Paciocco said the way in which the personal information =
about=20
      mental health, divorce status or bankruptcy is collected could =
violate=20
      people's rights not to incriminate themselves if they're ever =
charged with=20
      an offence.=20
      <P></P>''All those pieces of information may assist in presenting =
a case,=20
      or establishing a motive,'' he said. ''It definitely undermines=20
      self-incrimination issues ... anybody who gives this information =
should=20
      know that they're forfeiting privacy interests, and it can have=20
      implications for them.''=20
      <P></P>Powers granted to police by the legislation which allows =
them to=20
      investigate individuals as ''agents of the centre'' is also cause =
for=20
      concern, he said.=20
      <P></P>''With respect to a suspect, they may be able to pose =
questions=20
      that sound innocent (under the guise of working for the firearms =
centre),=20
      but that aren't.''=20
      <P></P>Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control =
and=20
      professor of justice studies at Ryerson Polytechnic Institute, =
argued the=20
      questions are valid.=20
      <P></P>Six inquests into firearms-related deaths across the =
country found=20
      the personal factors queried by the application forms played a =
significant=20
      role in each one, she said.=20
      <P></P>''A huge body of research indicates both violence against =
others=20
      and suicide are linked to (these) risk factors,'' she said.=20
      <P></P>But Steeves argues the evidence that gathering such =
information on=20
      a large segment of the population - 2.5 million by some estimates =
-=20
      actually increases the likelihood of stopping gun violence is =
slim.=20
      <P></P>''Is this going to make a hill of beans of difference? =
No,'' she=20
      said. ''It's highly questionable whether there will be any effect =
on=20
      crime.''=20
      <P></P>As of last April, Bill C-68's implementation was said to =
have cost=20
      the country $327 million.=20
      <P></P>In 1995, the original five-year estimate was $185 million,=20
      including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million.=20
      <P></P>Since the new application process began in 1998, 2,238 =
firearms=20
      licences have been refused or revoked -more than 21 times the =
total number=20
      of revocations in the previous five years, according to the =
Canadian=20
      Firearms Centre.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C08F90.4024F3C0--