You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Security’ tag.
A great place to start, I think. :)
1.Economic Freedom for Every Canadian
Imagine a Canada where your hard-earned money stays in your pocket, not drained by endless taxes. We propose bold tax cuts and the permanent end to the carbon tax, lifting financial burdens and sparking economic growth. A Canadian version of DOGE could take this further, injecting innovation into our economy while empowering individuals and businesses to thrive. This is about more than savings—it’s about giving you the freedom to prosper.
2. A Nation Rooted in Culture and Fairness
Canada’s strength lies in its people, but mass migration without limits risks stretching our resources thin and diluting our identity. We stand for controlled immigration that honors our values, paired with a renewed focus on promoting strong families and celebrating Canadian culture. Add to that a commitment to women’s sex-based rights, and we’re building a society that’s fair, united, and proud—free from the clutter of woke nonsense that’s crept into government.
3. Security and Sovereignty Above All
A strong Canada demands safety and independence. We’ll get hard on crime, ensuring justice and security for every citizen, while bolstering our military to protect the north and secure our borders. By stripping out divisive gender ideologies from governance, we refocus on what matters: a nation that’s tough, fair, and fiercely sovereign. This is a Canada worth fighting for—one that puts its people first.
Edmonton’s public transit system has become a crucible of violence, and the stats don’t lie—crime is spiking at a rate that demands urgent action. In 2022, the Edmonton Police Service reported a staggering 53% increase in violent crime calls on transit compared to 2021, with incidents like assaults and robberies plaguing LRT stations and buses. That’s not just a number; it’s a reality where four percent of the city’s violent crime now happens on transit, a space meant for safe commuting. Without more security—whether that’s additional peace officers or better surveillance—this trend risks turning every ride into a roll of the dice for passengers.
The human cost behind these numbers is what’s truly alarming. In early 2023 alone, Edmonton saw 35 violent occurrences on transit property, including nine weapon-related incidents, reflecting a broader national crisis but hitting hard locally. These aren’t just stats on a page—they’re stabbings, threats, and beatings that leave people scared to take the bus or LRT. Riders aren’t imagining this; their fear is backed by a 12% higher crime severity index in transit areas compared to the city average in 2022. More security isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a necessity to protect vulnerable folks who rely on public transit daily, especially when 70% of these attacks are random, striking without warning.
Throwing our hands up and saying “it’s a social problem” doesn’t cut it—action does. Sure, the city added 22 more transit peace officers in 2023, but when calls for service are still climbing (up 12% in 2024 despite a slight dip in crime severity), it’s clear that’s not enough. Stations like Eaux Claires saw a 133% spike in dispatched calls in 2022, showing hot spots are still burning unchecked. More boots on the ground, better real-time monitoring, and tougher enforcement aren’t luxuries—they’re the bare minimum to stop this freefall and give Edmontonians a transit system that doesn’t feel like a battlefield. Anything less is just ignoring the obvious.
Well colour me surprised. Separating people into homogeneous enclaves isn’t really an effective solution for creating a stable state.
The State, at its best, exists to serve its’ citizens. We are on the verge of forgetting that conception here in the West. Providing security so people feel safe day to day is what creates the initial conditions for harmonious existence together. Alice Su, writing in Aeon Magazine, makes a strong case for prioritizing a state that provides security for its citizens, and that the rest of the benefits of living in a stable society flow from that one key tenet.
“Overall, more recent scholarship suggests that ethnic partition does not protect minorities better. Nicholas Sambanis and Jonah Schulhofer-Wohl at Yale University have used empirical geopolitical data to show that partition does not increase stability after a conflict. That is, states that are partitioned following civil war are no less likely to break out into war again than states that are not partitioned. Even in a fantasy case where conflict was driven by ethnic diversity alone, and all states were divided into ethnically homogenous nations, a decrease in intrastate violence would be transformed only into an increase in interstate conflict, the scholars note.
The inverse assumption, that ethnic diversity drives conflict, has also been challenged. In a 2003 study of ethnicity, insurgency and civil war, James Fearon and David Laitin at Stanford University found that more ethnically and religiously diverse countries are no more likely to experience civil war than others. Instead, conditions such as poverty, slow growth and weak states are the factors that create conditions for insurgency and make civil conflict more likely. Another study by Lars-Erik Cederman in Zurich, and Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that ethnic groups are more likely to rebel when they are deliberately excluded from state power, especially if they experienced a recent loss of power, when they have higher capacity to mobilise, and if they’ve experienced past conflict. Clearly, the logic of sectarian conflict goes far beyond ancient tribal or religious divisions.
Instead of taking minorities out of the Iraqi system and returning to the paternalistic interwar model, there’s a longer-term, more effective way of protecting minorities: address the problems of power imbalance, corruption, security and the rule of law. Iraq’s sectarianism is not an inherent, ancient tribal problem, and addressing Iraq’s minorities through that lens is likely to worsen their situation.
It’s a fundamentally colonialist approach to deem that Christians, Muslims and Yazidis should live in separate communities. The more nuanced, sustainable solutions are the same as what would be done in Western democracies: protect minorities through integration, not separation; address rights violations by upholding equal individual citizenship; respond to a broken system by fixing its structural problems, not by taking people out of it altogether. As the Yazidi community leader Murad Ismael said to me: ‘If people were safe, there would be no sectarianism.’”
Don’t let someone who “leet speaks” onto your computer. Ever.
I’m such a non-fan of passwords. Keeping track of all that shite is tedious. So here I am doing my best when along comes the CBC to make life even more difficult.
“If your password is on the list below you had better change it.
Among the 25 most common passwords among 3.3 million that were leaked online last year, the top two were once again “123456” and “password,” according to a company that provides password management software.”
Based on its analysis, SplashData recommends that when crafting your password:
- Don’t use keyboard patterns e.g. “qwertyuiop” from the top row of letters
- Don’t use a favourite sport – baseball and football were both in the Top 10, with hockey, soccer and golf in the Top 100.
- Don’t use your birthday or birth year. People in their early 20s seemed to be especially guilty of this, with the years 1989 to 1992 all in the top 100.
- Don’t use common names – michael, jennifer, thomas, jordan, hunter, michelle, charlie, andrew and daniel were all in the Top 50.
Here’s the entire list:
-
123456
-
password
-
12345
-
12345678
-
qwerty
-
1234567890
-
1234
-
baseball
-
dragon
-
football
-
1234567
-
monkey
-
letmein
-
abc123
-
111111
-
mustang
-
access
-
shadow
-
master
-
michael
-
superman
-
696969
-
123123
-
batman
-
trustno1
So there you go, now out and make yourself and your accounts more secure and less accessible to yourself. You are welcome.
Needs more kittehs to improve political image.
Sometimes I think it would have been better if we had actually passed our own Canadian Patriot Act. At least we would have a predictable baseline of oppression of every day Canadians not to mention a political target to take action on. Rather, we have the chaotically raging adolescent security boner the Harper government occasionally plays with and thus leaves me unsure of just when its going to go off and make a mess of things (looking at you bill C-51.)
This latest story of the PM’s own propaganda hacks exposing Canadian soldiers and their families to possible violent retaliation leaves me wondering how to categorize this particular brain-fart properly. Is it the usual arrogance of our PM, safely ensconced in his warm fuzzy blanket of narcissism or is it just the PMO drones slavishly making stupid mistakes?
“Another video showing the faces of Canadian military personnel has surfaced on the prime minister’s website, just days after his office was forced to remove two similar videos that potentially endangered soldiers’ lives.
This time, however, the video seems to have been posted with the approval of the military.
Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s staff took down two videos shot in Iraq and Kuwait because they risked identifying Canadian Forces members and exposing them and their families to possible attacks.”
You would think that our war loving PM would be a little more in touch with the concept of Operational Security. Opening up our soldiers to retribution because he needs to be seen on the battlefield isn’t exactly the best PR move in the book. This wasn’t rocket science the media that wasn’t a part of the PMO personal propaganda squad had very strict instructions.
“Media travelling to Iraq and Kuwait with Harper were required to sign a five-page agreement pledging to uphold operational security. Among other things, the agreement instructed reporters not to publish photographs that could identify any personnel “who are not designated spokespersons.”
“Publication or inadvertent dissemination has the potential to jeopardize operations and endanger lives,” the document warned.”
So I think we can reasonable rule out ignorance in this case. Hubris and stupidity are making a comeback as far as the reasons for this security breach are concerned.
“CBC News has confirmed the military never screened or approved the 24 Seven videos as initially claimed.
The Prime Minister’s Office admitted it had made a mistake. Rob Nicol, the prime minister’s director of communications, issued a statement expressing regret and promising to review PMO protocols for posting images online.
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson also issued a statement, saying that after reviewing the two videos, the military determined they presented only a low risk. But he said they should not have been posted.”
Whoops. Stupidity confirmed. The necessity to provide hate-fap propaganda to the Harper faithful apparently out-weights the risks to the Canadian soldiers in said propaganda. It’s always refreshing to know where your government stands on the safety of Canadians.
“The opposition has been scathing in its criticism of the government throughout the whole affair. NDP defence critic Jack Harris Friday accused the government of being more concerned about “the prime minister’s propaganda” than the safety of Canadian troops.
“They had about four or five different stories,” Harris said, “and they never did acknowledge that they misled the Canadian people.”
I’m completely shocked that the PMO’s office would flagrantly abuse the security of Canadians for political gains. Do keep in mind the lovely juxtaposition of this same government bringing in legislation to spy on Canadians (bill C-51) ostensibly to tighten domestic security and enhance public safety.
Way to lead by example Steve! Keep up the good work, I’m feeling safer already!
What a concept eh?
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…