"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson
Justice Minister Nichols (CPC) Is currently kicking around a piece of legislation that if enacted would give Police unprecedented powers. Why is are they unprecedented? Chiefly because this legislation would allow police to pull over any car and its occupants for absolutely no reason to administer a breathalyzer.
This is a practise that is currently taking place in a few European jurisdictions, the Netherlands to name one. I cannot speak for or to the laws of European countries as I am unfamiliar with them, nay ignorant of them. However I am very familiar with the laws of Canada. To be perfectly honest I really don't care what they are doing in Europe, Europe was a place not too long ago that rounded people up at the behest of a certain occupier of their countries. A place where identity cards had to be carried at all times and presented when commanded.
I have grown up with a belief that in Europe the powers that be were omnipotent and people do as they are told. Right or wrong that is my impression of Europe. Where there is a trust in their legislators and a belief in "It's all for our own good". I have this belief largely because of WW II and that democracy is a relatively new idea in many European Countries. Call it a bit of English snobbery where democracy is not so new an idea and there is a long tradition of Liberty.
In Countries where Roman Law or Civil Code are the basis of their legal tradition view things differently than Countries with a Common Law tradition. But enough said of this. As I have said I only care about Canadian Law which as it so happens is founded upon the Common Law tradition except in Quebec which the Civil Code is still used in a BiJural system.
We in Canada have the written guarantee of certain rights. Sadly many of my fellow Canadians take their freedom and their rights for granted, more is the pity many can't even name 3 rights they hold under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I am of the opinion some days that my fellow countrymen place little value upon their rights and will allow their Government to pass legislation that slices away at their rights and in the end their freedoms.
For the "Greater Good" or for "Public Safety" seem to be acceptable reasons for "waiving" your civil rights. Many of us who go on about rights and speak of the "thin end of the edge" or the "slippery slope", always sound annoying, preachy, and worst of all BORING. Well my fellow citizens welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.
This law if enacted will give every police officer the right to pull us over when ever they feel like it, demand that we blow into a tube whether we have had a drink or not. They do not require probable cause anymore.
Of course many people are saying "So? They are looking for drivers who have been drinking, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.". Thats fair, I hope their cough syrup is alcohol free or their mouth wash is. With the lower thresholds that some Provincial Governments have introduced you may blow a false positive. Now we are no longer talking about a minor inconvenience. You will then be commanded to accompany them to the station for the proper test conducted by the certified technician, or possibly a court ordered blood test. (of course they will give you a lift in the back of their car)
Did I mention that while all of this was happening you were technically under arrest? Indeed you were, in fact arbitrarily detained. Which by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supposed to happen. Ah heck, it isn't supposed to happen in a free and democratic society with or without a charter of rights.
A small part of me wishes this law to pass, not because I think it is right, heck no,, This small part me is the "wise acre" that wants to say I told you so, when the knock comes at your door one day and its the local constabulary wanting to come in and look around and make sure no laws are being broken. You can't protest because you have already waived your rights, you waived them long ago. With each passage of a law that took away a slice of your rights. When you just nodded in silent agreement with every law that was enacted for the "public good". I hope we all wake up sooner than later for it will be too late if our democracy will have gave way to a police state.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Republic of Canada
What an idea!. Canada becoming a Republic, while I can appreciate and understand why some would be hesitant about becoming a republic I believe it is an idea that has merit.
I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.
The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.
Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.
While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.
There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.
As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.
But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.
It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.
We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.
I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.
The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.
Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.
While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.
There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.
As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.
But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.
It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.
We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The State of Mind
I have been away from this blog for a while..I've been ear deep in legal research. I have been pouring over volumes of Supreme Court judgements. Two recent decisions have me scratching my head. Two Identical cases, in that two people minding their own business when they are detained for very little reason. The one fellow was driving his car the speed limit, it appears obeying the law is suspicious in this day and age. The other fellow was walking down the street. The first fellow had his car searched unwarrantably the police found 6 million in cocaine in the back. The other fellow was not searched but asked what he was doing and if he had anything he shouldn't, to which he did answer yes a bag of weed and a firearm. His foolishness and the firearm aside, how does walking down the street become suspicious behaviour warranting the police to confront you? While I am loath to use the race card it appears just being black enough. These issues of what they possessed is not the issue, it was how they were dealt with.
The SCC deemed that the cocaine was to be excluded as evidence, as it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Net result Crown's case collapses and the guy skates on the charges. Our other fellow is not given the same interpretation of the Charter and the firearm is admitted as evidence. He goes to jail. The circumstances in my view are neither here nor there, it is the application of our supreme law that is at issue. One fellow's abrogation of his rights was deemed serious and the other's was considered minor. Both men are criminals either way you put it but each was treated differently. It seems 6 million dollars worth of misery is less of a crime than having a gun. While many would agree that this decision of our High Court is a,ok, I would and will argue that any infringement of an individuals rights is serious and always brings the administration of Justice into disrepute.
We must consider the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is supposed to be a limit on the state including the police. In its capacity as the supreme law of the land it is supposed to level the playing field. Consider that the Crown has a very deep pockets it can hire all kinds of lawyers to prosecute, it can hire and use experts in given fields to testify on their behalf. They have the ability to take your freedom away.
What does an ordinary person have? for the most part only what he has in his bank account, for many of us that is a bleak prospect. So our Charter puts limits and rules on the state as to how they may conduct themselves. Evidence obtained through breaking the Supreme Law of the Land is still breaking the law, the police are supposed to be the good guys and always obey the law. In breaking the law by illegally detaining a person can only ever bring the course of justice into disrepute.
The United States has some very sticky laws concerning this, with sanctions against those who violate a persons civil rights. Evidence obtained by breaking the law is forbidden yet they manage to put bad guys away. The Police there have found how to work within the law. Why do our Police require such remedial measures?
Of course when considering this one is tempted to look at worse case scenario. The "What if" scenario. What if there was a body in the trunk of a car? Unfortunately that is the one downside of the rules. The question then arises what if you have a bunch of kinky sex toys in your trunk? Would you want a cop discovering them? Is your personal dignity not worth something to you? The concept is Innocence, we are all innocent until proven otherwise. Whether we are walking down the street or driving cross country in a rented car we are not to be impeded by anyone working for the state. If you think this was an isolated incident Police detained a letter carrier who was filling in for the regular postman on a route, they didn't take him at his word either, turned out he was just what he said he was. Oh did I mention he was black as well. Just because the police are of the opinion that your behaviour is suspicious is not probable cause to stop someone..If you are of the opinion the police were just doing their jobs and you would rather they do that for your sense of security then you deserve neither security or freedom and you will loose both.
I was listening to a radio show in the car while driving, the topic was "Helmut Laws" and the nanny state. Have we become sooooo silly to think that the government has to pass laws to make sure we stay safe? It is cited that the cost of health care dictates that this is necessary. One caller even went so far as to say that if you injure yourself while riding your bike without a helmet OHIP should not pay for it. His reasoning is that why should he have to foot the bill for someone's stupidity. When it was suggested that maybe fat people should suffer the same fate when they have a heart attack his opinion was different all of a sudden rights came into play. Hmmm maybe he is a little chubby or likes his RonnieMacks to much?..
The point is we all pay into the health care system. it is there when we need it, or at least we hope so, We do not need laws to dictate individual behaviour we cannot allow the government to micro manage our lives for us. We have to accept the risks we take and the risks others take. To ensure our freedom is the widest it can be. I cannot believe how quickly some people are willing to give up their freedoms and the freedoms of others in the name of the "Greater Good" The old Soviet Union was a state that was based on that principle where is it today? Freedom prevailed, though it is having its troubles today.
The SCC deemed that the cocaine was to be excluded as evidence, as it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Net result Crown's case collapses and the guy skates on the charges. Our other fellow is not given the same interpretation of the Charter and the firearm is admitted as evidence. He goes to jail. The circumstances in my view are neither here nor there, it is the application of our supreme law that is at issue. One fellow's abrogation of his rights was deemed serious and the other's was considered minor. Both men are criminals either way you put it but each was treated differently. It seems 6 million dollars worth of misery is less of a crime than having a gun. While many would agree that this decision of our High Court is a,ok, I would and will argue that any infringement of an individuals rights is serious and always brings the administration of Justice into disrepute.
We must consider the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is supposed to be a limit on the state including the police. In its capacity as the supreme law of the land it is supposed to level the playing field. Consider that the Crown has a very deep pockets it can hire all kinds of lawyers to prosecute, it can hire and use experts in given fields to testify on their behalf. They have the ability to take your freedom away.
What does an ordinary person have? for the most part only what he has in his bank account, for many of us that is a bleak prospect. So our Charter puts limits and rules on the state as to how they may conduct themselves. Evidence obtained through breaking the Supreme Law of the Land is still breaking the law, the police are supposed to be the good guys and always obey the law. In breaking the law by illegally detaining a person can only ever bring the course of justice into disrepute.
The United States has some very sticky laws concerning this, with sanctions against those who violate a persons civil rights. Evidence obtained by breaking the law is forbidden yet they manage to put bad guys away. The Police there have found how to work within the law. Why do our Police require such remedial measures?
Of course when considering this one is tempted to look at worse case scenario. The "What if" scenario. What if there was a body in the trunk of a car? Unfortunately that is the one downside of the rules. The question then arises what if you have a bunch of kinky sex toys in your trunk? Would you want a cop discovering them? Is your personal dignity not worth something to you? The concept is Innocence, we are all innocent until proven otherwise. Whether we are walking down the street or driving cross country in a rented car we are not to be impeded by anyone working for the state. If you think this was an isolated incident Police detained a letter carrier who was filling in for the regular postman on a route, they didn't take him at his word either, turned out he was just what he said he was. Oh did I mention he was black as well. Just because the police are of the opinion that your behaviour is suspicious is not probable cause to stop someone..If you are of the opinion the police were just doing their jobs and you would rather they do that for your sense of security then you deserve neither security or freedom and you will loose both.
I was listening to a radio show in the car while driving, the topic was "Helmut Laws" and the nanny state. Have we become sooooo silly to think that the government has to pass laws to make sure we stay safe? It is cited that the cost of health care dictates that this is necessary. One caller even went so far as to say that if you injure yourself while riding your bike without a helmet OHIP should not pay for it. His reasoning is that why should he have to foot the bill for someone's stupidity. When it was suggested that maybe fat people should suffer the same fate when they have a heart attack his opinion was different all of a sudden rights came into play. Hmmm maybe he is a little chubby or likes his RonnieMacks to much?..
The point is we all pay into the health care system. it is there when we need it, or at least we hope so, We do not need laws to dictate individual behaviour we cannot allow the government to micro manage our lives for us. We have to accept the risks we take and the risks others take. To ensure our freedom is the widest it can be. I cannot believe how quickly some people are willing to give up their freedoms and the freedoms of others in the name of the "Greater Good" The old Soviet Union was a state that was based on that principle where is it today? Freedom prevailed, though it is having its troubles today.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Charter of Privileges and Permissions or Canada Notwithstanding
We are so very lucky here in Canada. We have Constitution and a Charter of Rights to guarantee our freedom. Now for the bad news, our charter does not guarantee anything. You might think you own your house, your car, you might think your children are yours and you might even think your boss is obliged to pay you for your work. Not so this is Canada our so called rights are not absolute and Parliament is omnipotent
That section of the Constitution says it all they can pass any law that they desire. They can also over ride the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So what does this mean? Very simply put, our legislators could enact a law that allows slavery if they had a mind to, there is nothing in our constitution that can prevent it. An infringement of our rights only need be prescribed by LAW. And in the interest of peace, order, and good government. The icing on that cake is the supreme court has stated time and time again that only Parliament knows what is best. More is the Pity, even if the supreme court disagreed all Parliament need do is invoke the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE....Welcome to Canada......notwithstanding.
POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada 91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
That section of the Constitution says it all they can pass any law that they desire. They can also over ride the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So what does this mean? Very simply put, our legislators could enact a law that allows slavery if they had a mind to, there is nothing in our constitution that can prevent it. An infringement of our rights only need be prescribed by LAW. And in the interest of peace, order, and good government. The icing on that cake is the supreme court has stated time and time again that only Parliament knows what is best. More is the Pity, even if the supreme court disagreed all Parliament need do is invoke the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE....Welcome to Canada......notwithstanding.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Ontarians For The Reformation Of The Constitution
Manifest
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
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
Country.
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.
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
Country.
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)