Comments on: Sham(wow) arguments on the Census from the Conservatives

By: foottothefire

foottothefire — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:37:55 +0000

As I pointed out yesterday elsewhere Stinky Day told the world that 21,000 Canadians claimed they were Jedi Knights on a recent census. However the obvious contradiction failed to register with Stinky; not one charge was laid.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:09:20 +0000

I see no reason other than to hide lies. There are easier ways to cut social programs.

Lies among know verifiable truths cannot be hidden, but lies among a foggy unknowns are easy hidden.

The only question is why allow ourselves to be rule by such a argent fool.

The cost of endless lies and deception is uncountable. And even more uncountable without effective tools to measure the cost.

Green Party candidate Richmond Delta

By: Brammer

Brammer — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:44:36 +0000

the Statistics Act. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 1.

False or unlawful information
31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29

By: Anon ABC

Anon ABC — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:38:22 +0000

For those who have not seen this before ( http://agonist.org/tjfxh/20080907/rovian_strategy_for_starters ), it might be worthwhile to take a quick look. Pay attention to #4′s (there are two of them) and #5 as they relate to the census issue.

Hence the claim that StatsCan itself had approved the changes, the stories about senior citizens who are afraid to be thrown into jail, the immigrants in tears afraid of being deported if they do not fill in their census, your neighbour who is afraid of letting you know that he/she is Jewish, and so on.

And, oh yeah, twittering about how you dove into the water because a person was allegedly drowning: isn’t this an application of #4, emphasizing emotions (i.e. heroics) over facts (person in alleged trouble was too far away to be reached)? And #5 could easily explain why the Harper and his govt want to do away with scientifically-reliable census data (the mandatory form) by imposing a scientifically-unreliable substitute (voluntary version).

By: William M

William M — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:28:00 +0000

“the shortform census still has those penalties, yet I’ve not seen them mention anything about the oppressiveness of that.”

Can you direct me to that Scott?

regards

By: Cari

Cari — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:56:27 +0000

I heard a Stats Can. Representative say they do not make laws…..the Government does. and if they want jail taken out , the Government just has to use “the stroke of a pen” and it will be done..and also take out what they think is intrusive.
What I cannot understand is why didn’t do his in the 2006 census, or before now and then shut up about he census.

It is a great deal deeper than that!

By: Con-sistent

Con-sistent — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:38:02 +0000

And let’s not forget that participation in the Labour Force Survey is also mandatory, which is also painfully longs & has tons ‘o the same intrusive q’s*, & which runs every blessed month. And as Don Drummond or one of the other Stat. Board advisors ptd. out in the hearings yesterday, they’re probably gonna have to greatly increase the size of the LFS sample once the mandatory long form gets kiboshed to try to make sure it still accurately represents the whole pop.

* LFS Q’s: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-543-g/2010001/appendix-appendice2-eng.htm