The Work Never Ends at the Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection

The Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection is my new name for the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it more appropriate to think of them as deputy Ministers rather than Justices or Jesters of the Court. Like medieval times when the clergy were the only literate people in the kingdom; the scholars of the time who saw to the administration of the realm. Like their predecessors of old the Ministers of the SE&GP have a real sweet deal they have complete autonomous control over a branch of the Government; they have tenure for life (or age 75 which ever comes first); they can't be sacked; they have more power than the elected members of Parliament; can blame Parliament or protect parliament depending on the current agenda; strike down statutes and law(not even the queen does that these days) for a whopping 300-350k per year with a obese pension; come to think of it they have a sweeter deal.

There is a pesky myth today; that people are entitled to a day in court and a right to appeal to the highest court; nonsense!!!!! That would mean they have an entitlement to justice; as anyone who follows the goings on in our "legal system" would know there is no justice. Except where there are a few fossil judges or rebels that roil against this mockery and try to fight the system from within but they are far and few between and actually they are dying out relegated to serve out their tenure on the same bench in the same court probably in an obscure place never seeing elevation or promotion. I digress

The minister of the SE&GP are nine in total with power greater than a Queen. Set for life they are free to social engineer to their hearts content all under the guise of being judicial and official. They can even ignore their own decisions of previous rulings when deciding a matter before them either citing a unique situation(even though circumstances and points of law are very similar) or cite "community values being the tipping point of their decision. Abortion is one of the most famous rulings where security of the person was paramount despite deep division in the Canadian communities on the subject.

Freedom of speech is another right protected by the charter. Before the charter it was already a right at common law limited to what the law would allow; one could not use this right to incite the peace to be broken or used to commit fraud; criminal behaviour is never protected and slander and libel offend ones right to their reputation and good name. However I must stress that not everything the government says is criminal is unlawful. The Criminal Code of Canada has a few statutes in it that are aimed at personal pass times "victim-less" crimes. The struggle between classes of people is a political struggle and no where is it written that anyone has a right not to be offended by what some one says. Yet the hate speech statute is used regularly to attack political opponents or people that disagree with the current status quo. Our loving SE&GP has upheld this statute silencing debate on any controversial

We as Canadians and Subjects of the Crown have a right to have and carry arms for our defence. Unlike abortion no one has to stretch the meaning of a Charter right; no this right is plainly written albeit in Middle English and forms part of an unalterable part of the Constitution. I say unalterable mainly because you cannot turn one part of the Constitution on another, nor can you remove without the approval of the Provinces apart from Quebec and Ontario I would say that the other 8 provinces' Governments would be committing political suicide so agreement would be slim. As it stands the English Bill of Rights operates in full vigour in Canada.

Indeed; when the Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection says it does when it is trying to protect the Government as in Ref: Canada Constitutional Act and in Aurthurson when the Government is taking money away from a Veteran. However when it suits them it all of a sudden disappears as in Hasselwander which was a case involving firearms. Suddenly the Bill of Rights is meaningless. This is where they become the ever vigilant social engineers denying Canadians their right to have arms in their defence.

Two more cases involving a challenge to the firearms act(a statute not law) didn't even make it to the high court both their application for leave to appeal were dismissed without reason. Part of the quorum was the appeal Jester from Ontario that had given short shrift of the first case Montague at the first appeal and he got a second whack at someone challenging the firearms act in Hudson which involves the fundamental right to have a fair hearing before seized property could be destroyed by the Crown (a shotgun) even though this firearm was seized without charge or any criminal proceedings what ever against Dr Hudson. If either of these cases had made it to the high court it would have been news and it would brought national attention to a topic that neither the Government nor the Social Engineers in fancy dress want Canadians to know about.

I know some people would argue this on two points that A. There is no place in civil society for guns and B. We would be just like the Americans. To the first proposition I would ask: What do you think keeps society civil? Greater men than I have written volumes on the subject one in particular is Sir William Blackstone who stated that your rights would be in vain if not for this right. That you would be putting a great deal of trust in people that should not be trusted (both the Crown and Parliament) this right is the last line of defence of your rights and your freedom. The Government did not grant you your right in the first place they are not theirs to take; in truth as subjects of the Crown you were born with them.

But not according to our un-elected Ministers at Social Engineering. We have been told our rights are limited and not absolute. REALLY! Then how is it they are called rights? The Government can not give what they do not possess that is a maxim at law; no one can give what they do not have. If you have no authority you cannot give authority; if you have no rights you cannot give rights; the converse is also true you cannot take what is not yours; that is called theft. It is also called fraud when you intentionally mislead someone.

The English Parliament placed a limit on the powers of the crown. It stated categorically what the crown shall not do. It is also equally true that the House of Commons is the voice and will of the people; they took up the mantle of protecting the rights of the common people. However the Ministry of Social Engineering is of the belief that they are even supreme over Parliament they re-write statutes all the time they interpret the Charter and decide what are Canadian values; they alone have seized this authority. So like King John the first "the law is in their mouth"

I have heard it said in the media and by other commentators that Harper will remake Canada. The Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection has a 30 year head start on him and the ability to re-write what ever he does so how could that statement ever be true? The supreme court is far more scarier and powerful than Harper could ever be; they smile and sweetly pronounce their decisions dressed up in fine words. They not Harper will the death of freedom and democracy.

One Ashamed Canadian

Last weekend in a discussion with my wife; who is absolutely flabbergasted at my interest in politics and rights. She has even suggested that perhaps I ought to emigrate to place or country where I would be happier; my reply was a very passionate over the top "Why? Why should I have to leave? It's my f**n country!!! My people cleared the land and began to build this Country. They fought the Americans twice; they chose British Freedom over American equality. They were among the western Grits that stood for property rights.

Hundreds of thousands of people over the centuries have made the ultimate sacrifice for this ideal known as freedom. Why should it be surprising when a man who is a life long student of history has become upset at the current state of our Country. Political correctness has grown from a nuisance to a pernicious disease; safety and security have become more important that liberty and rights. A single human life has become more important and valuable than good sense; the words "if it saves one life than its worth it." have become the bywords of progressive politicians and their allies the mainstream media to justify inane legislation that does nothing but strip away rights and freedom.

Worse still it has empowered unaccountable faceless bureaucrats to run roughshod over our lives. It has empowered a School Administrator in Kitchener Waterloo Ontario to even proclaim that they are "co-parents" of our children. Really? Where are they when it comes to ponying up for sports and dance classes? Even putting food on the table? Of course this only is invoked when they are messing with your life just ask Jesse Sansone. This case screams why bureaucrats and public servants must be held accountable for their actions; why they need their mandates reviewed and all their extraneous and intrusive powers need to be curtailed. It also is testament to the level of hysteria that people of fallen prey to where a gun is concerned.

In an ongoing instance is the case of Omar Khadr the progressives have fallen head over heals in love with this treasonous terrorist. The MSM and a chorus of other supporting cast all but gush over him. They even took his case to the supreme court of Canada; to get this poor little lost lamb back home. Really??????? This is a man who's most happy moment in life was when he tossed a grenade at our U.S. allies troops killing one and wounding another. In a plea bargain he received an 8 year sentence. Wow! He is now the mayor of Gitmo.

I used to have the highest regard for the judiciary and the Supreme Court of Canada. I used to see them as the shield against bad legislation; instead they have become the Government's shield against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they are not going to apply the law which they are sworn to do then they need to be abolished or replaced. They have become capricious in interpretation of the laws and statutes creating a situation whereby the "law is in their mouths". Such thinking was the undoing of a King; such thinking caused a rebellion and the creation of the Magna Carta. Indeed this quaint relic as it is regarded as; which brought a king under the rule of law. It's truly a pity we do not have politicians of substance and parts that would remedy this situation. It would require Constitutional reform and reform of the Supreme Court Act. Hell would endure an ice age before this would happen; even if it did it would be too little too late, and would probably leave the sacred cows alone.

As titled; I am one ashamed Canadian. In fact my fellow Canadians even embarrass me with their anti American attitudes. I don't disagree that they sometimes behave badly and truly embarrass themselves but I will cut them a great deal of slack because in my view they are family. I share more values with my American cousins than I do my European acquaintances. Europeans are civil code subjects and do not share my innate sense of freedom that runs through every offspring of the British Isles. Canada would be a poor colony still if not for the United States we became a great nation with their support through trade. Many of the chattering classes would be poorer today without U.S. investment in this country. The U.S. economy catches a cold we get pneumonia. We are linked in more ways than one. This anti U.S. attitude is fleshed out by the mere fact that the erstwhile liberal government of Jean Chretien gushed over the Khadr family and intervened on their behalf to secure the release the Khadr senior from the Pakistani authorities who was in prison for his terrorist activities..

Quite frankly though what makes me ashamed the most is purely and simply this: The very idea of rights and freedom have become synonymous with "right wing nutjob" can't say it any planer than that. Wake up Canada you are sleep walking into stupid since when has that idea ever been about left or right? There are still people in the world that would love a fraction of our freedom and rights yet because some wonk in the chattering classes or MSM has labelled freedom as a radical idea you are willing to give up your freedom for the "Greater Good", or for a false sense of safety and security. Truly if you agree with this idea false utility then there is little hope for this country you will become as dependent upon the Government as a junkie is dependent on a dealer. You will find out the hard way that a government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take all you have from you. Hardly a fair trade and you will find that you have neither freedom nor security in the end.

For the Greater Good...

"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.

Ivison: Ontario is becoming an increasingly Orwellian province

John Ivison, National Post Published: Friday, January 09, 2009

Jana Chytilova for National Post

It seems positively Orwellian that a private conversation in a bar can be taken down surreptitiously by a third party and used as evidence in a quasi-judicial hearing -- but that is the reality of life in a province that is under increasingly intrusive surveillance.

Readers with long memories may remember that a group of journalists was booted unceremoniously from the popular downtown Ottawa watering hole D'Arcy McGee's on a quiet Monday night last February. There was no warning, no incident -- just no more beer.

It turned out a liquor inspector working for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had satisfied himself that the revellers were intoxicated and told the bar's manager that he was filing a report that would put D'Arcy's liquor license in jeopardy -- hence the beer yanked from the hot, clammy hand of one of my bemused colleagues.

The report was filed in the fall and D'Arcy's decided to contest its findings. As the bar's manager, Kevin Ferby, told me at the time, he felt the inspector was "overzealous" and had "overreacted". "The law is there to protect extremes and there were no extremes here," he said.

I was called as a witness this week at a hearing in front of two members of the board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission -- and the experience was surreal. The AGCO is a unique organization, in that it decides who gets a liquor license, then enforces their operation through liquor inspectors. If the organization decides to proceed with charges, the AGCO appoints legal counsel and the case is heard by two AGCO board members. Theoretically, each stage of the process is independent of the other, though defendents say the cards are often stacked against them.

It gets worse -- unlike a criminal court, where the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high evidentiary standard, at an AGCO hearing, the burden of proof is much lower -- on the balance of probability -- as is an evidentiary standard that allows the use of hearsay.

In the D'Arcy's case, the prosecuting lawyer cited the Post article, in which I had described members of our band as being "moist and garrulous" , if not quite "tired and emotional", as an admission that we were all intoxicated -- which is an offence under the Liquor License Act. I conceded that we were in high spirits but rejected the notion of intoxication, which according to the Ministry of Government Services' own server training program means the customer is speaking too loudly, slurring, sweating and losing balance.

"You had to repeat yourself several times, did you not?" the lawyer asked.

"Yes but that happens all the time. You might have noticed I have the hint of an accent," I replied, in my strongest west Scotland brogue.

By this time things had proceeded from farce, as the lawyer flailed away in her attempts to make me admit we were all full of loudmouth soup, or something more sinister.

"As regards the subject of your conversation, is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?" the lawyer asked.

"Excuse me," I replied, taken aback.

"Is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?"

"I have no idea."

"Is it possible?"

"I have no idea. Is this relevant?" I asked.

"Your job here is to answer the questions. I will do the asking," she said, curtly.

So there you have it. It seems that not only was a public servant sitting in the shadows studying us, he was also eavesdropping on our conversation, so that he could include its contents in a report that could become a public document once the board members pronounce on whether D'Arcy's was in breach of its licence.

I have no idea whether I am identified by name or the precise nature of the allegation -- I wasn't allowed to listen to the inspector's testimony.

What is clear is that Ontario's beer police are running amok -- the number of licence suspensions has increased more than 60% in the province over the course of this decade. I was inundated with anecdotes to this effect from readers after the last article. Take the case of the Ottawa bar where a server refused a clearly inebriated customer, only for an inspector to pop up and tell her the man was now her responsibility and she was obliged to either escort him home or sober him up with a free meal.

Bad enough that a public employee, who is apparently unaccountable to the people, can temporarily close down a wealth-creating private business like D'Arcy's, which employs 75 people, on the extremely subjective basis that a couple of 40-something suits "appeared to be intoxicated". Much worse that government is encroaching on the rights of the individual to the extent that a supposedly private conversation becomes a matter of public record. The Ministry of Truth would have approved.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Well there you go ..a few journalists and some beer and whamo ,,, the sad truth is this is what has happened in this province. Never fear Nanny will get to in the end. Welcome to Mr McGuinty's Ontario. Where individual rights mean nothing. The fortunate part is this wee Beer commiczar decided to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Now that he personaly has tasted the sting of the Government, maybe now he will take notice that his individual rights have been thrown under the bus for the " Greater Good ". Though his article is a good start but it is a far cry from becoming the voice of Freedom. If he thinks his privacy has been invaded? He ought to try being a Firearms owner then you become familiar with true statism at its worst.