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.
Friday, July 24, 2009
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
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.
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.
Friday, March 27, 2009
"I said before and I'll say it again"
I am vehemently opposed to the Firearms Act. I would like to see all but the use offences or the what is known as "TRUE CRIME" sections gone. According to the UN there are 26 000 000 smalls in Canada. 21 000 000 small arms are in the hands of other wise law abiding citizens hands. which leaves about 5 million unaccounted for or in the hands of Police, Military, and criminals. The number of other wise law abiding citizens is about 5 million, the number of law abiding citizens is about 2 million for a total of 7 million. Having said this where is the blood bath that the Gun Control nuts keep warning everyone about. I mean after all if you listen to the MSM and the Gun Control nuts these evil mind control devices known as guns should be controlling nearly a third of the population. There should be mass shootings weekly if you follow their logic. We shouldn't have any women and children left with that number of guns in people's hands.
We have had 6 mass shootings in Canada in 34 years. Six people out of 32 million people in Canada had their trolleys slip their rails and obtained guns and decided to shoot people. Of the six three happened before our draconian gun laws were enacted. They are the reason that the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien decided to spend $2 billion creating the firearms act and the infrastructure to implement it. We will never know the true dollar amount because much of the documented expenses were declared cabinet secrets and sealed forever. I think our great grand children will be able to unseal them. We have had three since, under the strictest laws we have ever seen regarding firearms. Proving that the idea of trying to legislate against insanity is, well, insane.
It just doesn't work. The odd thing is that the shooters were seen as deteriorating emotionally by friends and family, or were known to have psychological troubles long before they found a gun.
If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the wrong hands then what we need to do is "Register Criminals". it would certainly be more cost effective. Simply because we have the infrastructure in place already and criminals are a small segment of our population. A registry of "Prohibited Persons" anyone convicted of a crime will be prohibited from owning firearms. With the addition of a stiff prison term if found in possession of a firearm. Even those persons that are on bail could be on the list temporarily, that is until their case is disposed of by the courts. Then whether that is temporary or not will depend on the outcome of course. Police already know about criminal records of individuals when they check the information data bank. It would be remarkably easy to figure out whether the person they just stopped for running a red light has a) a criminal record and b) whether they should just check to make sure they don't have guns in the car. Without fear of the race card being played. "Checked your licence you have a record for _____ I think I will take a look inside your vehicle. Checking for guns in the car of a known criminal is reasonable is it not? If not, why then is it okay to look in a vehicle of a citizen with no record what so ever? that does happen by the way, only because the citizen has a firearms licence.
From the time I started this entry much has happened I will now show you a news item
We have had 6 mass shootings in Canada in 34 years. Six people out of 32 million people in Canada had their trolleys slip their rails and obtained guns and decided to shoot people. Of the six three happened before our draconian gun laws were enacted. They are the reason that the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien decided to spend $2 billion creating the firearms act and the infrastructure to implement it. We will never know the true dollar amount because much of the documented expenses were declared cabinet secrets and sealed forever. I think our great grand children will be able to unseal them. We have had three since, under the strictest laws we have ever seen regarding firearms. Proving that the idea of trying to legislate against insanity is, well, insane.
It just doesn't work. The odd thing is that the shooters were seen as deteriorating emotionally by friends and family, or were known to have psychological troubles long before they found a gun.
If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the wrong hands then what we need to do is "Register Criminals". it would certainly be more cost effective. Simply because we have the infrastructure in place already and criminals are a small segment of our population. A registry of "Prohibited Persons" anyone convicted of a crime will be prohibited from owning firearms. With the addition of a stiff prison term if found in possession of a firearm. Even those persons that are on bail could be on the list temporarily, that is until their case is disposed of by the courts. Then whether that is temporary or not will depend on the outcome of course. Police already know about criminal records of individuals when they check the information data bank. It would be remarkably easy to figure out whether the person they just stopped for running a red light has a) a criminal record and b) whether they should just check to make sure they don't have guns in the car. Without fear of the race card being played. "Checked your licence you have a record for _____ I think I will take a look inside your vehicle. Checking for guns in the car of a known criminal is reasonable is it not? If not, why then is it okay to look in a vehicle of a citizen with no record what so ever? that does happen by the way, only because the citizen has a firearms licence.
From the time I started this entry much has happened I will now show you a news item
RCMP nab one of their own in child-porn sweep
Saint Johns, NFLD (CBC) - (CBC) - A Gander man charged last week in a Canada-wide crackdown on child pornography happens to be a retired RCMP officer.
Police described Operation Salvo, which led to the arrests of 57 people across the country, as the largest child porn sweep in Canadian history.
CBC News has learned one of the people caught in the net was Hank Johnston, 71, a former RCMP officer who was stationed for a time in central Newfoundland. He was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.
Last Thursday, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a residence in Gander, and seized computers and associated storage devices.
Johnston was released after he promised to appear in court.
CBC News contacted people who know Johnston, but none were willing to be interviewed. One, however, told CBC News that Johnston is a fine man.
Johnston is scheduled to appear in provincial court on June 16.
In all fairness to the RCMP this individual is retired. However what is probative is that he was a member. How on earth could this happen? The truth is it does, through no fault of the force's even with rigorous back ground checks how can anyone expect the force to be all knowing and all seeing? We can't, can we. No more than the firearms act can. This does demonstrate though what is wrong with the logic that Gun Control orgs, the MSM, and the Government follow. If you notice no one is saying that computers should be banned because "someone might" commit a crime with them. Nor is anyone calling for the internet to be dismantled. No that would not be fair to everyone who uses them without committing a crime. No indeed, once again correctly the person that committed the crime is being held responsible not the inanimate object. But some reason this is okay when it comes to firearms? Someone gets shot we hear nary a word about the shooter but we do hear about how guns should be outlawed because "someone might" commit a crime with one. It just defies explanation....
Police described Operation Salvo, which led to the arrests of 57 people across the country, as the largest child porn sweep in Canadian history.
CBC News has learned one of the people caught in the net was Hank Johnston, 71, a former RCMP officer who was stationed for a time in central Newfoundland. He was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.
Last Thursday, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a residence in Gander, and seized computers and associated storage devices.
Johnston was released after he promised to appear in court.
CBC News contacted people who know Johnston, but none were willing to be interviewed. One, however, told CBC News that Johnston is a fine man.
Johnston is scheduled to appear in provincial court on June 16.
In all fairness to the RCMP this individual is retired. However what is probative is that he was a member. How on earth could this happen? The truth is it does, through no fault of the force's even with rigorous back ground checks how can anyone expect the force to be all knowing and all seeing? We can't, can we. No more than the firearms act can. This does demonstrate though what is wrong with the logic that Gun Control orgs, the MSM, and the Government follow. If you notice no one is saying that computers should be banned because "someone might" commit a crime with them. Nor is anyone calling for the internet to be dismantled. No that would not be fair to everyone who uses them without committing a crime. No indeed, once again correctly the person that committed the crime is being held responsible not the inanimate object. But some reason this is okay when it comes to firearms? Someone gets shot we hear nary a word about the shooter but we do hear about how guns should be outlawed because "someone might" commit a crime with one. It just defies explanation....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)