Canadian Government to Legalise Marijuana Under Two Conditions

Canadian President Justin Trudeau seeks to legalise marijuana however it takes. Obviously, he's using regulation versus banning and the procurement of marijuana in the black market. During an economic conference in Canada last Wednesday, he said:

"Look, our approach on legalising marijuana is not about creating a boutique industry or bringing in tax revenue. It's actually based on two very simple principles:

The first one is, young people have easier access to cannabis now in Canada more than they do in just about any other country in the world. Of 29 different countries studied by the UN, Canada was number one in terms of underage access to marijuana.

"And whatever you may think of studies about marijuana and cannabis being less harmful than alcohol or even cigarettes, it is still bad for the developing brain and we need to make sure it's harder for underage Canadians to access marijuana.

"The other piece of it is there are billions upon billions of dollars flowing into the pockets of organised crime, street-gangs and gun-runners due to the illicit marijuana trade. If we can get them to a more regulated fashion we can reduce the amount of criminal activity profiting from these and its offshoots into other criminal activities."

According to Trudeau, Canada "could be to Cannabis as France is to wine", encouraging the country's top entrepreneurs and innovators to think of ways to proliferate the about-to-boom Cannabis trade in the country.

Trudeau said his primary concern is the safety of children often dragged into the world of Cannabis and its darker areas.

Petition For Change In Women's Dress Code Receives 120,000 Signatures

A London PwC female employee who refused to wear heels going to work had started a petition that has so far earned 120,000 signatures from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Worldwide, the petition gained support after it had made headlines.

Nicola Thorpe, a PwC former clerk, had started the petition after she was "made fun of" of her superiors, who had her go home without pay until she changed her outfit.

"It's still legal in the UK for a company to require female members of staff to wear high heels at work against their will," the petition states. "Dress code laws should be changed so that women have the option to wear flat formal shoes at work, if they wish. Current formal work dress codes are outdated and sexist."

Thorpe said employers still have the right to impose different dress codes for men and women. However, this is only fair when the dress code doesn't favour one of the sexes," according to Thorp.

Studies have shown repeatedly the effects of wearing high-heels for more than eight hours, which are often required of these women. Some studies have highlighted that females who wear high heels more than one hour and 30 minutes start to experience excruciating pain.

Explaining The North Carolina LGBT Battle

On April 12, 2016, North Carolina's LGBT community had taken to the streets after North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) announced Executive Order 93.

The state passed an anti-discriminatory law that excluded protections for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now, this had left LGBTs the inability to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate.

Even with the executive order, which was meant to explain the situation, everyone was still left confused.

This was what the original House Bill 2 would implement

• Created a mandatory statewide anti-discrimination policy with protections based on  “race, religion, color, national origin, age, biological sex or handicap.” Biological sex is defined as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.” It excluded protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• 
  
• Required people to use bathrooms and changing facilities in government buildings and public schools that correspond with their biological sex. Agencies could provide other accommodations, such as single-occupancy bathrooms. This did not affect private businesses, companies or universities.
• 
  
• Banned local governments from requiring private contractors to have anti-discrimination employment policies that include sexual orientation or gender identity, or to impose restrictions such as minimum wage or paid sick leave.
• 
  
• Prohibited private individuals from suing the state over discriminatory firing, according to employment attorneys in the state. Residents can still file federal discrimination lawsuits.

The provisions had arcane definitions that rooted from discrimination.

McCrory received an open letter from 80 corporation CEOs who said:

“We are disappointed in your decision to sign this discriminatory legislation into law. The business community, by and large, has consistently communicated to lawmakers at every level that such laws are bad for our employees and bad for business.

 This is not a direction in which states move when they are seeking to provide successful, thriving hubs for business and economic development. We believe that HB 2 will make it far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers and attract the most talented students from across the country.”

Parliament Gives Investigatory Powers Bill A Passing Result

The end is nigh, my fellow Britons. This year might be the last time we'll ever set foot to our private lives ever again. If things get worse, it might just spread all over the world.

The proposed Investigatory Powers Bill will supply police and authorities powers that would allow the browsing of every Briton's Internet records for an inquiry of suspected criminal activity or terrorism.

According to Home Secretary Theresa May, the powers would be "safeguarded against abuse". This is to downplay fears that authorities may abuse the permissions and powers.

About 200 lawyers have signed an open letter opposing the IP Bill. The lawyers highlighted it was "not fit for purpose" and it required "no demonstration of terrorism or criminal act to access."

It's like digital martial law, in a manner of speaking.

Harvesting a massive amount of online bulk data from each and every one of our Internet connections would mean anybody in the UK has an eye watching them.

If you've ever read George Orwell's 1984, where we're going is his world. Yes, you might say the 

Chinese can live with the fact their social media sites are government-monitored and had led to many arrests, but it's different in Britain.

And soon enough, it'll be the same in Britain.

Ireland Now Has a Law Against Revenge Porn

Now, anybody who films intimate acts with their ex-lovers, posts it online, and are found out, will have to carry out a sentence of up to two years in prison in Northern Ireland.

Stormont has passed a law that outlaws the publication of explicit sexual images and videos of former partners. According to Democratic Unionist Alastair Ross:

"It will send a clear message to potential perpetrators that such behaviour will not be tolerated, and hopefully it will provide some assurance to victims that this type of crime is being taken seriously."

Ross added that any kind of intimate photographs or films initially shared with another individual trusted at the time and shared online post -relationship can cause distress especially when the other party has not issued their consent.

Ross added:

"We all now have smartphones capable of taking photographs and videos, all of which can be shared online almost instantly.

"Therefore, I think that the law needs to keep pace with technological changes and recognise the world that we live in today.

"The (Justice) Committee believes that introducing a specific offence to deal with revenge porn will assist the police and the Public Prosecution Service in tackling this obnoxious crime."

It's Like Talking To a Low-Tech Uncle This Whole Backdoor Thing

I know you've got that slightly annoying uncle that you love so much because they're just adorable the way they are. But sometimes, it's difficult to explain how technology works for them.

For example, I try to explain what Internet marketing is. All they know is the television era as advertising and marketing. It's hard.

Now, it's the same situation for many of the US' tech companies when they try to explain backdoors to Western politicians.

In an effort to beef up security and intelligence-gathering, Western governments are urging tech companies to create backdoors and help them gather more intelligence.

Almost everyone is in disagreement with this move. UN's Human Rights experts had voiced out their opposition to the Snooper's Charter. They would probably not side with this one.

World governments don't understand that once you urge companies to create backdoors to messaging and communications applications, it's a backdoor for everybody. It's not just a mole city for companies and government officials but also for hackers looking to make some quick buck.

Modern messaging applications work like this:

The message from your chat application gets encrypted with a unique decrypter, both of which are sent to the receiving end of your message. Only the receiver's messaging app can collect the decrypter and read the message. This is a privacy guarantee that locks out all tech companies, service providers and the government from private communications.

Now, what's the consequence when companies create backdoors? Well, total lack of confidence for using technology.

And trust me, that's a sad, sad world to live in.

The UK's Never Ending Trouble With Personal Injury Fraud

The UK government intends to stop the addition of a £90 motor insurance premium by increasing the small claims court's compensation limit from £1000 to £5000.

The proposal, according to Chancellor George Osborne, will end the "British whiplash epidemic." The "epidemic" had made the UK well-known across Europe as the continent's "whiplash capital".

According to GP Dr. Sarah Jarvis, people who make a whiplash injury claim know they immediately get compensation. However, she said the new proposal of putting forward whiplash injuries and other vehicular personal injuries below £5000in the small claims court will leave those truly debilitated by severe whiplash injuries will not receive proper recompense.

Whiplash injuries are common soft-tissue injuries suffered in the neck during a car collision. As it may tear ligaments and nerves, it may cause nausea and disorientation a few days or even weeks after the injury.

The UK Treasury said compensation paid out for whiplash personal injuries are "out of all proportion to any genuine injury suffered."

The Law Society quickly criticised the proposal. The organisation said victims who will represent themselves in the small claims court have insufficient legal advice. It added that victims who suffer severe soft tissue injuries including facial scarring can only receive less than £5000 when they can still claim more than £10,000 for emotional and psychological damages.