Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Ontarians For The Reformation Of The Constitution

Ontarians For The Reformation Of The Constitution (O.R.C.) is a grass roots
movement born on a factory floor. At present it is a loose association of people who
share some common ideas. We believe now is the time to bring these ideas to the
public. Form a lobby to liberate the people of Ontario and Canada from the status quo
“state of affairs”. Of an antiquated Parliamentary System, an unelected Senate, and an
unelected Head of State. While we understand and realize that many hold the
Monarchy in high esteem. We believe a hybrid form of Republican system can be
established. In time this can give way to full independence from the Crown.
To this end it is the goal of the O.R.C. to establish a Constitution for the Province of
Ontario. As well as a Charter of Rights to curb the omnipotence of its Government.
To bring about Constitutional change and reform For Canada to facilitate a Republican
system of Governance. That is made of the People, by the People, and for the People.
To preserve and protect our inherent rights that were brought to us by our forefathers
when this great land was settled. Though our ties to the Crown fade in time, the
Common Law shall ever be part of the fabric of our Laws.

Be it resolved that
We The People of Canada are the true power of this Country and as such all rights belong to the individual
Citizen. The Parliament and the Senate shall only Govern by the consent of the people and shall pass no Law or Act
that abrogates nor abridges the Rights of the People. Nor shall the Prime Minister sign in to law any Act that is
injurious to our Rights or the National interest. Unless it can be so justified in a free and democratic society, it shall
impinge our Rights in the least possible manner.
We also hold that certain Rights have existed within this land that were brought to by those that settled here. They
shall continue to exist unhindered. though they are not so enumerated within this Charter. The Freedoms that these
rights enshrined and guaranteed shall stand protected by this Charter.
It is further said that it is the solemn duty of The Government of Canada to maintain and provide for a Standing
Army, Navy and Air force. To defend this land from all enemies. And to defend this Charter and the People of
Canada. Never shall their guns be turned on the lawful citizens of this land. Parliament is to provide for the veterans
of foreign wars and conflicts. And shall retrain personnel who have completed their service and duty to Our
Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and her heir The Prince of Wales. Shall remain our titular Head of State. As
long as the latter lives. The Office of Governor General shall be replaced by an elected Prime Minister.
The Office of Lieutenant Governor shall be replaced by an elected Premier in each Province. The legislative
Assemblies or Parliaments of each Province shall function like the House of Commons. The Premier shall form the
Executive Branch of the Government of the Province and the Assemblies the legislative branch of the Government.
In accordance with the democratic rights enumerated herein.
This Constitution and Charter of Rights is and shall be the supreme Law of the Land. We also hither to
decree that no law shall stand that is not in keeping with this Charter. Or conflicts with the guarantee of the Rights of
The People contained herein. We acknowledge that in time of War or National disaster, certain rights made be
infringed but shall be restored in full upon the end of such circumstances.
It is the solemn duty of each member of Government to uphold and protect the Rights
of the Citizens. That this Charter stands and places limits upon the power of
Governments not the Citizen. The People of Canada and her Provinces are a free
people and shall ever remain so. It is the reserved Right of the Citizens to recall any
Government which is seen not do its solemn duty.

Friday, April 17, 2009

A Natural Right

I have encountered many hunters and long gun shooters that think handguns should be banned altogether. I asked them what about defending yourselves? You know you have a right to do that you know. I received more than my share of blank stares.

As for CCW I support it frankly I support open carry as well. with minimal conditions. one of which is an affordable use of force and the law course.
That said:

When all is said and done we little people have nothing but our rights. These rights are not granted privileges of the government to be denied at a whim or when it is politically expedient to do so. What is fundamental to both our right to defend ourselves and to our justice system is the presumption of innocence. We cannot assume evil intent on anyones part. (save but the government's because they have powers we don't).

I realize the police see more crap in a day than many of us see in a life time. I know that it is difficult to not become jaded and see everyone through the same lens but some how the police need to be able to discern the difference between a law abiding citizen and a citizen that just hasn't been caught yet.

From my/our perspective the firearms act itself has done more damage to good relations than any other act of parliament, because it criminalized 7 million people's lawful property at a stroke of a pen. A breach of any regulation leads to the confiscation all firearms and criminal sanctions against the owner. Unsafe/improper storage has become the catch all charge. Because of reverse onus it places the burden of proof upon the person charged to prove a negative. the case that comes to mind is Peter Sedge 130 registered firearms only one was not "stored properly"?

Consider. Every animal on this planet has the ability to defend itself one way or another. Every human can defend themselves in a state of nature by the use of implements. This is our right to do so, or our survival imperative if you will. Faced by an aggressor you yourself would do what ever you had to do, to survive the encounter. If you reason for a moment about this you might come to realize that all the platitudes and rhetoric are moot. That as a human being you have the right to exist and the imperative to survive. If you come to that same conclusion then it follows that No government has the right to tell me/us how or with what I/we may defend ourself with. It does how ever have the right to say where the line is between defence and aggression. Until an act is committed with the intent to cross that line everything else is just conjecture and theory.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

They Have a Word For This

I am going to apologize in advance I am going to use a word that some might find offencive. But there is no more apt a word to describe this with.

What would you call an organization that is highly respected in the public view? Uses this respect to influence public policy and law. They are professionals individually they have been hired to manage an essential service in our communities that we put a great deal of trust in. We were taught as children to respect and look up to these people. In a nutshell they command a great deal of respect.

A story broke a week or so ago about an employee of this organization. This employee resigned from his job. His job was to watchdog the "ETHICS" of this organization. To ensure that their actions were always above board and earnest. His decision to resign came when he brought a concern to the board of directors of this organization, the board dismissed his concern as silly and a non issue. So he tendered his resignation and has let the proverbial " cat out of the bag". More on this in a moment.

The Organization I speak of is the The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. It sounds innocuous and only stands to reason that they exist no differently than the society of engineers. However there is a marked difference. CAPC is not a mere professional organization but is indeed a lobby group with its own agenda. Like any lobby group they lobby the Government for policies that are favourable to their cause. A lobby group that receives public funds as well as private funds in the form of sponsorships. Among the private bennifactors is the Power Corporation a company that is tied to the liberal party of Canada viz campaign contributions and the Chretien family. CGI the computer company that supplied the computer system to the 2 billion dollar boondoggle gun registry. But most telling is the company that manufactures "TASERS".

CAPC has come out with unanimous support for the use of tasers on we little people even though people have died from their use. 20 or so in the past five years. Now remember this is supposed to be a non leathal implement. CAPC has also come out in support of the Gun Registry even though when bill c-68 was first proposed they did not support it. It appears that the Chiefs and their endorsements are for sale and once bought remain bought.

Knowing that "hundreds" of "thousands" of dollars have been given to this association by the very people who benifit most from their support and endorsement in the knowlege of the weight their opinion carries with the Government and the public at large constitutes a "Conflict of Interest" They are no longer impartial judges of policy they now have a stake in the outcome.

Like the Canadian Coalition For Gun Control who lost their tax exempt non profit status and reclassified as a "lobby group". So too should the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. They have crossed that line. Indeed given their conflicts of interest can we still trust their endorsements? I know I don't. In fact all this has shown the Chiefs to be nothing more than "DouceBags".

Link to the Globe and Mail editorial

Sponsorship conflict

Monday, April 6, 2009

An Exercise in Logic

It is a slow news day a rather blah Monday, rainy, chili temperatures. It's good day for an exercise in logic. Shall we start out slow?

People in Canada have had firearms for their use and protection for 400 years, this includes the period that it was part of New France. Individuals have had all different types of firearms for their use and protection since confederation. We in Canada own as many firearms as our neighbours to the south on a per capita basis. Yet as it has been pointed out by the likes of Michael Moore(rightly or wrongly) we do not suffer from as much firearms violence. Not that I wish to debate the merits of what Michael Moore has said in one of his films, his observation is valid. Bit of Canadian pride speaking here, but we are a nice group of people. I have often spoke of our sense of fair play and pragmatism.

So I put it to you my fellow Canadian is it logical to criminalize 7 million of our citizens who have enjoyed a right for 400 years? Is it fair to punish 7 million people for the actions of a handful of people who lack the ability to know right from wrong? I say a handful because the parties responsible for our pernicious firearms act amounts to at the very least 6 individuals that took their frustrations in life out on their fellow man. We read in the bold headlines of our news papers about another shooting in one of our neighbourhoods in one of our major cities quite regularly. But again this amounts to a small number of individuals engaged in criminal activity. Is not logical to punish the innocent rather than those who have committed criminal acts?

Is it logical to criminalize people before they commit a criminal act? Do we as Canadians round up people because we think they might be a risk to commit a crime? No we don't, such a notion is repugnant to us. We believe in the concept of innocent until proved guilty, do we not?

Do we think rocks,sticks, our cars possess the ability to reason and form thought? No of course not. Do we think any of the above have the ability to control our thoughts? I should hope not. Would we believe someone that said "The rock told me to break your window."? Would you consider such a statement to be rational or logical. No of course not, we would say "Grow up and take responsibility for your actions." Would we not?

If you have followed this argument thus far you see that their is a logic in play. It is individual people who cause harm to society not inanimate objects. I know perhaps what you might be thinking, " We get it guns don't hurt people yah yah blah blah". but only if, only if they could not have gotten that gun. Well that is a debate on its own, however should we begin to hold people who have had their cars stolen by thieves responsible for the actions of the thieves? Is it logical to outlaw cars because someone might steal one and use it as a get away car?

This concludes the exercise for today. Our laws should always reflect sober second thought as opposed to emotional knee jerk reactions. Laws carefully reasoned, aimed at the people who do break the law.