Archive | Charter of Rights and Freedoms Breaches RSS feed for this section
March 14, 2014

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – A Broken Promise


The Broken Promise that is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
by Tim McNamara

I am a Canadian citizen, born in Canada in an era before common sense was replaced by political correctness, before lawyers made stupidity a defense and before my country became a police state.

We were confident in the knowledge that our government had limited authority to interfere in our daily lives and that the policing authorities would treat us respectfully.

The government felt that things were out of control with all this civility and common sense.
Something had to be done to curb all this horrible “freedom” before things got out of control.

Enter Pierre Trudeau and his “opus farcical”.

We would all be equal and free, more or less.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a magical document comprised of 34 sections which are cleverly disguised as guarantees regarding our basic human rights and pretends to limit the power of the government to interfere with citizens who act within the scope of the law.

Unfortunately all of these “rights”, with one single exception, can be suspended at any time and for any reason, if the government deems it necessary.

What section, you ask, is inviolate and unsullied by the “notwithstanding clause” or the taint of special interests?

Why, only section 10, the good old “Charter and Caution” that the police are obliged to read you, in Swahili if necessary, if you are arrested.

The judiciary have made it abundantly clear to police officers that, after the police have violated most of your other, fictitious, rights, you will immediately be informed that you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to, and that if you do give statement it will be entered into evidence at trial.

A further caution not to say anything under duress and that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay unless you waive the right to counsel, etc.

This is not a direct quote but, rather a simplified version.

How ironic that one section of 34 sections of our charter, is the only one the government regards as sacrosanct and is designed to protect the police from allegations of eliciting a statement and failing to provide access to due process.

Remember, they can kick down your door without a warrant; they can arrest you off the street without cause; and they can take your property at will but they must tell you to shut up and get a lawyer because that’s the only obligation insisted upon by the judiciary.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 5, 2013

Unreasonable Search and Seizure – Will We Force DNA Samples from people simply for being arrested?



For a “conservative” government Stephen Harper’s Conservatives continue to prove they don’t know the meaning of the word. Justice Minister Peter MacKay spoke publicly about the issue of forcing people to provide DNA samples upon arrest and he thinks it’s a good idea.

“I know there’s always privacy considerations in the backdrop to this and it has to be balanced in the bigger picture. But I think that, you know, the timing of the taking of DNA is something that could very well emerge in the future as another issue of importance.”

At present Canadian law ONLY provides for the collection of DNA samples from convicted criminals, and even then, only from those convicted of sex crimes or murder. In rare cases DNA samples were compelled from those convicted of drug trafficking offenses as well.

“Right now we’re limited to taking it on conviction. It could be expanded to take on arrest, like a fingerprint. I maintain that, you know, a genetic fingerprint is no different and could be used in my view as an investigative tool.”

This is what I like to call a “trial balloon” much like that floated by former Public Safety Minister Vic Toews when he attempted to get Bill C-30, the bill designed to force Internet Service Providers to hand over private information about their subscribers, passed.

The public outcry and pushback was immediate and intense, forcing Toews and the Conservative government to cancel the bill entirely.

It’s time for another public outcry; time for another pushback against the machinations of Canada’s “conservative-in-name-only” government.

DNA-155x300Those who believe our Rights and Freedoms mean something tangible obviously are against such a move by our government. The justification that “if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to hide” is retarded, as innocent people should not be forced to hand over the most personal thing about them, their DNA, without a good and compelling reason. Simply being arrested is no such reason.

Were Canada to go down this road, can you imagine the nightmare (or Orwellian Dream) the mass arrests of protesters such as those at the Toronto G8 conference would be?

Once again the rationalization for this comes from south of the border, where the US Supreme Court has already upheld taking DNA samples from those arrested for “serious” crimes. The definition of serious is, naturally, up to whoever writes the laws or the legal decisions.

Here in Canada lawyer Solomon Friedman made it quite clear that this is not about identifying an individual, but about connecting individuals to unsolved crimes.

“We take fingerprints from people when they’re arrested. This is just the same,” said Brian Lilley on his Sun News Network show Byline.

Solomon Friedman replied,

“I think that line of reasoning ends right there. You take fingerprints from people to identify them. Well, you already have their fingerprints. There’s no danger that someone else is going to claim they’re that person. That has nothing to do with the collection of DNA. The purpose of the collection of DNA is quite simple: it’s to try and solve old files. In other words, it’s to try and get evidence against that person who is in custody, not convicted, by use of their DNA records. That’s problematic.”

That’s an understatement.

If you believe, as I do, that taking DNA samples from individuals who have yet to be convicted of any crime is offensive to our Charter Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, then I urge you to write to Justice Minister Peter MacKay, Solicitor General Steven Blaney and Prime Minister Stephen Harper today.

Demand they put an end to this abuse of our Charter Right against unreasonable search and seizure immediately.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 30, 2013

Gov’t of Canada Implements Cypress-style bank account theft in Economic Action Plan 2013


bankOne year ago the island state of Cypress stole money from its citizens and gave it to major bank, one of which folded anyway. Calling the theft “a necessary measure” to keep the state economically viable, politicians rewarded the very institutions responsible for the economic crisis gripping the tiny nation.

The banks will do anything to avoid the consequences of their own selfish acts and if that means stealing the bank accounts of mere citizens, well, that is precisely what they will do.

Since the political backlash from such a massive theft was so minimal, bankers in other nations are taking their cue from Cypress and lobbying politicians to steal from the bank accounts of “large deposit holders” on the premise that if you’ve been successful and earned a lot of money you must be punished for that success.

Cypress politicians stole over 10.6 billion Euros (yes, that’s with a “B”) from its citizens and handed it over to the banks. That level of government theft is astounding and unprecedented.

And it’s now being repeated elsewhere in the world.

Italy, Poland and New Zealand have all begun the process of stealing from productive citizens and handing that money over to their major banks.

Think we’re immune to such a thing here in Canada? You’d best think again.

Canada’s “Economic Action Plan 2013” specifically contains a provision for the Government of Canada to steal money from your bank account and give it to this nation’s major banks.

“This new budget actually proposes to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks’ in Canada,” financial expert Michael Snyder wrote on The Economic Collapse Blog in his article “Cyprus-Style Wealth Confiscation Is Now Starting To Happen All Over The Globe.”

Now that “bail-ins” have become accepted practice all over the planet, no bank account and no pension fund will ever be 100% safe again. In fact, Cyprus-style wealth confiscation is already starting to happen all around the world. As you will read about below, private pension funds were just raided by the government in Poland, and a “bail-in” is being organized for one of the largest banks in Italy.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. The precedent that was set in Cyprus is being used as a template for establishing bail-in procedures in New Zealand, Canada and all over Europe. It is only a matter of time before we see this exact same type of thing happen in the United States as well. From now on, anyone that keeps a large amount of money in any single bank account or retirement fund is being incredibly foolish.

Mr. Snyder provides examples from numerous nations around the world and then explains the situation for we “mere citizens” of Canada.

Incredibly, even Canada is moving toward adopting these “bank bail-ins”. In a previous article, I explained that “bail-ins” were even part of the new Canadian government budget…

Cyprus-style “bail-ins” are actually proposed in the new Canadian government budget. When I first heard about this I was quite skeptical, so I went and looked it up for myself. And guess what? It is right there in black and white on pages 144 and 145 of “Economic Action Plan 2013” which the Harper government has already submitted to the House of Commons. This new budget actually proposes “to implement a ‘bail-in’ regime for systemically important banks” in Canada. “Economic Action Plan 2013” was submitted on March 21st, which means that this “bail-in regime” was likely being planned long before the crisis in Cyprus ever erupted.

So what does all of this mean for us?

It means that the governments of the world are eyeing our money as part of the solution to any future failures of major banks.

As a result, there is no longer any truly “safe” place to put your money.

One of the best ways to protect yourself is to spread your money around. In other words, don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. If you have your money a bunch of different places, it is going to be much harder for the government to grab it all.

But if you don’t listen to the warnings and you continue to keep all of your wealth in one giant pile somewhere, don’t be surprised when you get wiped out in a single moment someday.

I’m no fan of the Liberal Party of Canada, but you can rest assured they will NOT repeal this should Shiny Pony and his party win the next federal election.

When so-called “conservatives” decide stealing from its citizens is acceptable, there are no conservatives principles left in the corridors of power. The Conservative Party of Canada has, with the introduction of “Economic Action Plan 2013” proven they are conservative-in-name-only.

This does not bode well for Canada.

If you find the idea of stealing money from the personal bank accounts of Canadians to finance the failures of big bank abhorrent then I urge you to write and call Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and your own local Member of Parliament and make it clear their newfound path is… unacceptable.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6900

Minister of Finance James Flaherty
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-6344
Fax: 613-992-8320

To find your own Member of Parliament’s contact information please visit:

If you do not explain to our elected “representatives” in very clear terms that their “Economic Action Plan 2013” is repulsive and unacceptable they will happily steal from you and justify that theft by saying

“It’s for your own good.”

Let me assure you, the following excerpt from Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2013 is NOT for your own good, but the banks Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty support.

Establishing a Risk Management Framework for Domestic Systemically Important Banks

Economic Action Plan 2013 will implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks.

Canada’s large banks are a source of strength for the Canadian economy. Our large banks have become increasingly successful in international
markets, creating jobs at home.

The Government also recognizes the need to manage the risks associated with systemically important banks—those banks whose distress or failure could cause a disruption to the financial system and, in turn, negative impacts on the economy. This requires strong prudential oversight and a robust set of options for resolving these institutions without the use of taxpayer funds, in the unlikely event that one becomes non-viable.

The Government intends to implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks. This framework will be consistent with reforms in other countries and key international standards, such as the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, and will work alongside the existing Canadian regulatory capital regime. The risk management framework will include the following elements:

  • Systemically important banks will face a higher capital requirement, as determined by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
  • The Government proposes to implement a ?bail-in? regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult
    stakeholders on how best to implement a bail-in regime in Canada. Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants.
  • Systemically important banks will continue to be subject to existing risk management requirements, including enhanced supervision and recovery and resolution plans.

This risk management framework will limit the unfair advantage that could be gained by Canada’s systemically important banks through the mistaken belief by investors and other market participants that these institutions are ? too big to fail.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 20, 2012

Your Right to be Free of Unreasonable Search and Seizure does not apply in bars or other private establishments



A 2005 court ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal makes it clear that bar staff of a privately-owned business cannot be considered “agents of the state” when they detain and search you on private property.

Judge-250x197The decision in R. v. Dell (2005 ABCA 246) is an interesting read and makes a clear distinction between private individuals employed by a private company and police or other agents of the state.

Brian Matthew Dell was discovered in the bathroom stall of a Calgary bar with a film canister that contained rock cocaine. He was found by a bouncer employed by the bar, whose duties included checking the bathroom every 15 minutes to ensure they were clean and there were no unsafe or illegal activities going on.

Mr. Dell’s attorney argued that the search by bar staff and subsequent detention until police arrived to arrest him was a violation of his Charter rights. He wanted the evidence against him, the canister of cocaine, tossed out because of that alleged Charter violation.

In upholding Mr. Dell’s conviction and denying the appeal, Madame Justice Fruman wrote the following:

[25] The Charter was instituted, in part, to address situations in which the administration of justice is called into disrepute. For this reason, remedies such as exclusion of evidence were crafted.There is no “administration of justice” involved in the momentary detention of Dell in the washroom. Dell argues that because the consequences of the detention and resulting search are grave(admission of the cocaine evidence), the Charter should apply. But Charter application depends on government action, not the severity of the consequences. Incriminating evidence collected by private persons is routinely admitted at trial without Charter scrutiny. In Shafie, supra,it was argued that although private action may not trigger the application of the Charter, when the state later proposes to use the evidence as part of a prosecution, the earlier Charter breach should engage s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court rejected this argument, noting at p. 34 that the question whether a person’s Charter rights were infringed must be tested at the time the alleged detention occurred.


[26] In summary, unlike citizen’s arrest, investigative detention cannot be reasonably construed to be a specific government function that has been delegated to private citizens. Therefore, the principles on which Lerke is based, and the government function exception recognized in Buhay,do not apply to extend Charter protection to investigative detention. Moreover, sound policy reasons dictate that no such extension should be made.

[27] Borrowing from the language of Buhay at para. 28, the bouncer’s work may overlap with the government’s interest in preventing and investigating crime. However, it cannot be said that in conducting a brief investigative detention, the bouncer was acting as a delegate of the government,carrying out its policies and programs. Accordingly, the Charter does not apply to the actions of the bouncer in detaining Dell, or the search and seizure flowing from the detention. The cocaine evidence was properly admitted. I would therefore dismiss the appeal of the conviction for possession of cocaine.)

In concurring with Madame Justice Fruman, Justice Côté wrote the following:

B. The Common Law

[30]R. v. Lerke is reported as (1986) 67 A.R. 390, 24 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (C.A.). That case held thata citizen’s arrest is carried out under authority historically derived from the sovereign as a citizen’s duty to help keep the King’s Peace, and later merely codified in the Petty Trespass Act (or s. 494(1)of the Criminal Code). So such arrest is a state function and subject to the Charter. Does the Lerkecase help one to decide that a temporary detention by a private citizen is subject to the Charter?

[31] I suggest that it does not, because the bouncer’s right here may not exist and is regulated only by private law, and has no trace in public law rights or duties.

[32] No one suggests that the King’s Peace, or common-law obligations to arrest felons, extended to mere temporary detention to investigate. The common-law citizen’s right to arrest certainly did not, because it only extended to actual felonies, not suspected ones, nor even a reasonable appearance of a felony, which in fact had not occurred: Walters v. W.H. Smith & Son (1913) 110L.T. 345.


He went on to write:

[36] Temporary detention by private employees,whether legal or not, is private and depends upon the private rights of the detainee and the business owner. If (as here) there is no question of a public breach of the peace, the topic has nothing to do with the King’s command, the King’s Peace, or any duty owed to the sovereign. That is precisely the distinction made in R. v. Lerke, supra. When a citizen arrests another for a crime, he acts under duty to the sovereign, and the person arrested must be brought to a justice or a constable, so that a court proceeding in the name of the sovereign may be started. Any penalty is exacted by or for the government. Neither the complainant nor the victim nor the citizen arresting is a party to that criminal proceeding: R. v. Lerke, supra, at para. 22. What the bouncer did here in the washroom,and the resulting wait of 2-5 minutes, involved no such duty. Temporary detention does not require court proceedings, nor lead to any right or duty to have a prosecution.

[37] It also follows that debates about whether the bouncer had the right to and did detain the appellant in the washroom for 2-5 minutes, whether he exceeded reasonable protection of property,and whether the appellant consented, all take place in the context of torts law (and maybe the other side of that coin, property law). They have nothing to do with constitutional law.

[38] Indeed, it is arguable that the very concept of detention exists in our law only when a police officer or a government official detains, not a private citizen. See the discussion in R. v. M.R.M.[1998] 3 S.C.R. 393, 233 N.R. 1 (paras. 66-68); 355-6 (para. 12), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 411, 417-18.

Given these decisions, it would be wise to remember when you are out in public, that even though you are in a public place, it is owned and run by a private business, and some of your Charter rights do not extend so far as extinguishing their Charter Rights and Freedoms.

I would suggest, if this subject is of interest, that you read the following decisions for a sound grasp of the limits of your Rights and Freedoms in terms of search and seizure by private citizens.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

October 15, 2012

Mass Hysteria: Government’s Age-Old Boogeyman


Has the world suddenly gone bonkers?

Well, no.

The world seemingly has been afflicted with mass insanity since time immemorial.

Hi-tech toys merely allow the madness to be refined.

Eavesdropping on every telephone conversation, snooping into every e-mail message, cameras and recorders spying on and listening to citizens on every street corner, super-snoop data-mining centers sucking up and storing our every word, thought, move, including bank statements, till receipts and credit and debit card transactions.

All are methods for identifying and disappearing “terrorists”.

But, of course, you aren’t a terrorist…as long as you can “prove it”, which you can’t.

This is called “reverse onus”.

“Presumed innocence until proven guilty” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is passé. Whereas the upside down “reverse onus” supposedly means “guilty until proven innocent” in governmentese, it actually means “GUILTY until proven GUILTY” because gun owners and terrorists, of which you are tagged one or the other, are not going to be found “innocent”.

The lunacy knows no boundaries.

Toll-free hot lines promote anonymous tips for every real or imagined slight.

Unidentified squealers are protected while the unknowing victim of the allegation is subjected to search, seizure and deprivation of liberty, all the while never able to know the identity of his accuser, let alone confront them in a court of law.

This civil-persecution system that views the accuser as always truthful and the accused as always guilty harkens back to “witch-hunting”.

The first mass witchcraft trials reached fever pitch sometime in the 15th century and crescendoed to mass hysteria between 1550-1650.

Nobody should be horrified that the “witch-hunters” have everybody under suspicion and surveillance in Canada today. The United States created mass hysteria searching for A Red Under Every Bed in the 1940-50s. These tactics also were used during the Nazi Germany and Stalinist eras of the 1930-40s.

Witchcraft trials were an on-again, off-again fad for nearly three centuries before witch burnings finally faded out of favour.

Then, just as today, public health and public safety issues played an integral role in the witch-hunts.

In the wake of the bubonic plague of 1347-49, which medieval Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio described as so rapid and devastating that the victims often “ate lunch with their friends and dinner with their ancestors in paradise”, rumours were rampant and fingers pointed accusingly at plague-spreading witches.

Forget about the disease-spreading rats and fleas. That would be too logical.

In Nazi Germany, Fuehrer Adolf Hitler convinced his stable of legalized murderers that vermin-carrying Jews were a threat to public health and had to be exterminated.

Today, terrorism is the latest fad setting off mass hysteria, and is used once again as an excuse for government to erode citizens’ rights. They do so under the same shop-worn mantra of “public safety” and “national security”.

Unfortunately, common sense can’t be legislated.

And for some strange reason, the public accepts the “safe” and “secure” premise wholesale, although government’s job is not to keep people safe; it can’t. The government’s job is to uphold the constitution and keep people free.

Sadly, people must be individually scorched by these Draconian laws before they will open their eyes and minds and stand against them.

The very notion of “justice” has been turned on its head. Only a government that fears its people would stoop to implementing programs that protect the identity of the accuser and leave the accused defenseless.

Nobody outside the firearms community paid heed to the gun owners rattling their sabers over a criminal law that blatantly violates Constitutional rights and freedoms no less than 28 times.

And, now, the unlawful provisions prescribed in that trailblazing piece of Liberal Party trash called the Canadian Firearms Act have finally caught up with the rabid non-gun owners alike. Hope you like all the strip searches on the lawns in broad daylight and surprise police raids into your homes without a search warrant while they “come in to look around and take what they want”.

Under a law only a dictator could love, firearms owners can be sent to a federal penitentiary for merely failing to report their address change. Yet countless violent offenders, child molesters and rapists roam the country, free from such “violations” of their civil liberties and whose names never get into the data banks.

They are called “informers” who are motivated by payoffs and perks to give information; it doesn’t matter if the information is correct before the police leap.

Hundreds of firearms owners have had their homes and businesses ransacked without due cause since the Liberals’ Bill C-68 came into effect in 1995. Many others have been thrown into jail cells without provocation. The police use their powers to force the prisoners to give up their guns without having to go to the trouble to apply for a search warrant.

Drivers don’t go to jail when caught operating a vehicle with licenses, registration or insurance cards that are expired or suspended, although there are fines, points and community services imposed. Why were gun owners demonized so harshly as second-class resident paper criminals (they don’t even rank as citizens)?

It wasn’t until the anti-terrorism legislation (Bill C-36) was rushed into law in late December, 2001–less than four months after the 9/11 attack on America which indicates it was waiting in the wings–that well-known Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby felt the pinch over the exact things that firearms owners had decried for years and he rebuffed.

Thinking along Liberal lines, his theory was that only police and the military needed guns.

Yet in a by-lined Globe and Mail article of December 11, 2001, Ruby expressed fears that the threat of terrorism was impelling Canadians to give up or distort their fundamental rights and democratic freedoms.

“It is the role of lawyers in a free society to defend the rights of the oppressed, and not to be conscripted by government to secretly inform on their clients,” he contended. “The chilling effect of these provisions may make it impossible for individuals or organizations targeted by the government to obtain any access to justice at all.”

It was on January 21, 2004 that Ottawa Citizen journalist Julie O’Neill personally felt the electric jolt from the same long arm of the law. She came to the stark realization that the future of her profession–and freedom of the press–was under attack.

On March 20, she told the University of King’s College School of Journalism in Halifax, Nova Scotia, she no longer took her freedoms for granted.

She, of all people, never should have taken her freedoms for granted in the first place. One must always be vigilant for lurking dangers.

On that fateful January day, O’Neill could have commiserated with gun owners’ plight. Her private life was shattered. Her sense of her home as a private sanctuary evaporated. She no longer assumes–and never should have assumed–that her telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence were private nor that her computer files belonged to her.

Every nook and cranny of her “castle” was searched. She was now living in a glass house. Not even her lingerie drawer escaped the indignities. Her garbage was whisked away by one of the 20 armed RCMP officers from the Orwellian 1984 Truth Verification squad who flooded her house, guarded her premises and simultaneously raided her newspaper office. (Suggested reading of this spooky matter is the detailed article The Wrong Arm of the Law, Ryerson Review of Journalism, summer 2005,

What had O’Neill done to invite and deserve such oppressive state-perpetrated tactics? After all, this is supposed to be Canada.

She had written a newspaper article.

O’Neill was incredulous when she discovered writing for a public journal can be hazardous to your health; it is punishable for up to 14 years in prison.

The police raided her home and office in search of her source of information and a document cited by her in an Ottawa Citizen article of November 8, 2003.

Her story focused on Maher Arar, the Syrian-born Canadian computing engineer. She related he was deemed an al-Qaeda terrorist by U.S. authorities. Arar was detained in New York and taken to Syria. When returned to Canada in October, 2003, a year later, he told tales of imprisonment and torture.

O’Neill’s story told how he came to the attention of anti-terrorist investigators in Canada and of a series of security leaks that linked him to terrorism.

I don’t know where this woman of the mass media press had been. But when she returned to the real world, hopefully she was less naive. This is Kanuckistan after all, the True North Proud and Gagged by such freedom-sucking legislation as C-68 (the Firearms Act), C-36 (Anti-Terrorism), and, at the relevant time, the new Elections Act.

I had long begged people of O’Neill’s ilk and prestige to keep vigilance on Yukonslavia as the Petri-dish of what was happening to Canada, but they obviously can’t be bothered with such trivial matters…not until their ox is gored.

Now my invitation doesn’t matter because these atrocities have gone on a global scale, thanks to the New York City-based United Nations that is leading the charge to a One-World Order totalitarian society in which individualism is taboo; the masses will dress, eat and think alike, live in identical stack’em-pack’em units and be allowed to own only bare, government-issued necessities to exist.

Interestingly, O’Neill was caught under the Security of Information Act portion of the anti-terrorism legislation which seemed redundant, anyway. O’Neill noted that s. 4 reads exactly the same as the dusty old Official Secrets Act of 1939, which she didn’t believe was intended to prevent journalists from doing their job.

I wouldn’t bet on that, although the accepted purpose was for Canadians to catch German spies and Communist infiltrators like their American counterparts were doing at the relevant time.

In 1949-50, the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers spy case was underway before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Hiss, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was a high-ranking employee in the State Department who denied any espionage involvement with Communists. Chambers, a self-confessed Communist, accused Hiss of espionage.

Believe it or not, a five-year statue of limitations existed on espionage, but no statute of limitations existed on perjury, for which Hiss was tried and sentenced to five years in a federal penitentiary.

The state is always able to find SOMETHING the sinner can be convicted of, no matter how self-serving.

The conviction offered little-known Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin a golden opportunity to make political hay. He railed that the State Department was infested with Communists.

Then came the mass hysteria.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been stalking those considered disloyal since 1947. The agency conducted a check of two million names on the federal payrolls and the 500,000 who annually applied for U.S. government jobs.

Any dirt–regardless how minor–would bring on a full investigation into a person’s past. No proof of subversive activities was necessary for dismissal.

Often, civil servants were fired without knowing why and not knowing who had accused them of having ties with the Communist Party. Since the accused didn’t know who they were fighting, they were defenseless.

Once the wrongdoer was pinpointed and neighbours interrogated, the victim and his family were automatically and immediately ostracized from society. So-called friends and neighbours were afraid to associate with someone accused of Communist activities.

Movie extras, film stars, entertainers–even kindergarten teachers–were blacklisted from working in their respective occupations. Successful one minute, they were out in the streets penniless the next.

Justice under the vigilantes was kangaroo-court style. The deck was forever stacked against the accused, despite investigators lacking any knowledge at all about the informer’s background or motives. And they didn’t care.

It was akin to the Puritans’ Salem witch trials of 1692, and just as bad, if not worse, then what has happening in Soviet Russia under Communism, and what Canada has adopted today.

Sometime back in the late 15th century Europe, Christian church clergymen had been directed that when sorcery with the Devil was charged by someone, but went unproven, the consequences would be suffered by the accuser–NOT the accused.

It did wonders for minimizing false accusations against the innocents and certainly cut down considerably on expensive public-funded trials.

I advocate returning to this policy posthaste.

October 14, 2012

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

September 10, 2012

Freedoms: Yours Until They Are Stolen

People don’t give a whit about freedom as long as they naively believe the government is not goring their ox, which, they painfully discover with time, it was their own personal inalienable rights that were stealthily chipped away in silence until those freedoms no longer exist.

Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller

Frequently, freedom-lovers allude to the famous “First They Came For” passage that refers to the dark 1930s, when Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler was stoking up a full head of steam for his relentless rampage to enslave and conquer the world.

The chilling quote which warns of the dire consequences awaiting those who do not speak up, was penned by Lutheran clergyman Martin Niemöller (see his biography on page 6 of Rights and Freedoms Bulletin #91, June 30, 2012)

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
“Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
“Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
“Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
“Then they came for me, and by that time, nobody was left to speak up.”

For some inexplicable reason man has a nasty habit of wanting to repeat history in the name of “progressivism”.

By inserting altered passages into the “First They Came For” theme that are appropriate to a present-day context, it is easy to see how the cunning globalists, through brainwashing techniques, are successfully managing to repeat history by stealing individual freedoms while the masses sleep.

Here are some examples:

First they came for the petroleum industry, and you didn’t speak up because you were against big business polluting and making profits.

Then they came for the fur industry, and you didn’t speak up because you weren’t a trapper whose livelihood depended on the markets and working on the land.

Then they came for the tobacco industry, and you didn’t speak up because you aren’t a smoker and hate those who are.

Then they came for the corporations’ rights to advertise and promote in print, electronically and on billboards or to sponsor whoever they choose, but you didn’t speak up because you don’t own a business.

Then they stripped the tobacco companies of their intellectual property rights, such as packaging designs and logos, but you didn’t speak up because you don’t own–and don’t intend to own–any copyrights or patents. (However, once it is established in precedent-setting law that the government can ban intellectual property, then it has the vehicle to use to confiscate any and all of an individual’s intellectual, personal and fee simple property.)

Then they did confiscate fee simple mineral claims, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a miner or prospector whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they came for the forestry industry, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a logger whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they told the farmers where and for how much to sell their grain, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not an agronomist.

Then they came for the farmlands, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a farmer whose livelihood depends on the land.

Then they came for the ranchers who depend on land to run their herds, and you didn’t speak up because you don’t raise livestock.

Then they came for the firearms, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a gun owner and don’t like those who are.

Then they came after the churches, and you didn’t speak up because you’re not a religious person.

Then they took away 5,000 people’s mailing addresses in one town, and you didn’t speak up because you still had your postal address and the post office wasn’t losing your cheques and personal letters.

Then they passed one piece of evil legislation, treaty and policy after another through the parliamentary factories and United Nations Councils that dictate what you can and cannot do with your property, how you will behave, what you can speak and write, what you can eat, wear and own, where you can live, and what kind of light bulbs you can use, and you didn’t speak up because you weren’t paying attention.

Then they came forward with unfounded accusations and charged innocent people unjustly in the courts, and you didn’t speak up because you selfishly didn’t care what they did to somebody else as long as it wasn’t you who was being persecuted and prosecuted.

One day, they will surely come for you and your mind, intellectual, personal and real property, land, business, home, vehicles, money, and other valuables — even your children — then they’ll go for your soul, which they will conquer because you aren’t a spiritual person.

By then, nobody will be left to speak up in your defence.

You get the idea how the demonizing game works.

As Niemöller warned, people cannot rely on others to fight their fight.

You and you alone are personally responsible for vigilance in protecting your freedoms which are only yours until you let somebody else come along and steal them from you.

Yours in Liberty,

Jane Gaffin — Whitehorse, Yukon

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

August 12, 2012

Hypocrisy Gone Wild: Niagara Regional Police Constable Nathan Parker files Human Rights complaint after being disciplined for police brutality


As astounding and incomprehensible as it sounds, a Niagara Regional Police Constable who went berserk on a cyclist on May 6, 2008 filed a human rights complaint against his superiors because they hurt his feelings.

Constable Nathan Parker, who has never shown one iota of remorse for his disgraceful actions of that day, felt hard done by when a police disciplinary board ruled he should be docked 120 hours of pay.  Oh, the poor little hard-done-by crybaby.

Constable Nathan Parker has a history of abusive actions against those I refer to as “mere citizens”.  You know who they are… they’re you, me, our wives and children; anyone who doesn’t wear a badge and gun and call himself a “police officer” when he is merely a police constable.

One such mere citizen, Pino Carbonara, was riding his bicycle down the street on May 6, 2008 when an off-duty Constable Nathan Parker practically ran Carbonara over with his vehicle.  Understandably upset at nearly being killed, Carbonara shook his fist and yelled at the fleeing motorist.  If you can call that a mistake, then Pino Carbonara made one that day and paid the price for it.

Constable Parker pulled over, hopped out of his vehicle and began screaming at the cyclist.  He then grabbed Carbonara and physically pulled him off his bicycle.  His feet still locked into his bike pedals, Carbonara crashed to the ground and was placed in handcuffs. Parker then called for backup and had Carbonara taken to the police station and booked for criminal mischief.

After hearing what went on, not even Parker’s superior officer, Staff Sgt. Chris Scotland, would back Parker’s version of events.  He ordered the thug cop to release Pino Carbonara unconditionally.

He feels he is being picked on by his employer and is the victim of bias.  His actions were those of a bully. He’s shown no remorse and is unapologetic. The actions of Const. Parker are an embarrassment to the whole service,”  said Niagara Regional Police Inspector Lorne Lillico.

As I wrote back on April 27, 2011:

That’s a pretty strong statement from the Blue Wall that your actions were out of line, don’t you think, Constable Parker?

When your own supervisors won’t back your play, one would think you’d get the message that you’ve been out of line.

Naturally, Parker is upset that Carbonara has brought an official complaint against him, as well as a civil suit.

I guess you shouldn’t act like such a colossal jerk if you don’t want to suffer the consequences of your actions, Constable Parker.

Constable Nathan Parker was eventually found guilty of two counts of unlawful exercise of authority under the Police Services Act in June.

As I mentioned at the outset of this article, this isn’t the first time Constable Nathan Parker has abused his authority and been found guilty by police review boards.  It’s not even the second time.  Or the third…


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 29, 2012

Ezra Levant’s 5-Point Plan to eradicate the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council and Section 5 of the Canadian Television Broadcasting Regulations


On the June 18, 2012 edition of The Source, host Ezra Levant put forward his 5-point plan to rid Canada of the Canadian Censors Council, or as they like to call themselves, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).

As I wrote last week, membership in the CBSC is 100% voluntary. If you do NOT want a television broadcast license, you have no need to “volunteer” to join the CBSC.  However, if you actually want to create a broadcast television channel then there is nothing voluntary about it.  You must join or your application will be denied.

Once you voluntarily join the CBSC you are required to abide by its Code of Ethics.

Ezra Levant was found guilty of violating Clause 6 of the CBSC Code of Ethics by the Canadian Broadcast Censors Board.

That clause reads as follows:

Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

The problem is not that Levant violated this section; it’s that he actually exceeded its requirement and disclosed the full and complete facts about the Chiquita Banana corporation and their long history of paying off terrorists in order to produce their crops in third-world nations.

That was considered impolite by the censors, or as they prefer to be known, “impartial adjudicators” and they decided they needed to make Ezra Levant shut up.

Now, am I really saying these people specifically have it in for Levant and Sun TV?

No, I’m not.

What I’m saying is they are using the system put in place 30 years ago to their advantage.  That’s just human nature.  That’s also why the system needs to be changed, to be stripped of the power to censor someone simply for expressing an opinion they, the censors, don’t like.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

June 24, 2012

And in British Columbia the Legalization of Killing Continues…

Pastor Jim Butler

With the recent decision of a B.C. Supreme Court judge, that province inched one step closer to creating a macabre open season on human beings.

In a strange twist of logic, Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith ruled that the provisions of the Charter of Rights unjustifiably infringe on a disabled person’s life, liberty, and security.[1] If this logic were applied to liberty and security, the Justice would authorize freemen plunging themselves into slavery and secure men placing themselves in harm’s way. Why bother with a Charter of Rights at all?

This recent decision should come as no surprise: in light of legalized abortion (a feature of Canadian society since 1969), it was only a matter of time until other human beings were the lawful subjects of murder, whether self-inflicted or “physician” assisted.

The late John Murray said, “Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of life.”[2] A society that justifies murdering the most helpless members of that society is certainly proclaiming its moral bankruptcy. It is an unfortunate and grim reality: “Beautiful B.C.” is a place where those deserving increased protection are marginalized and disposable.

This disregard for human life is a further indication of how far society has devolved from an objective moral standard, namely, the revealed truth of God. I suspect some will question the validity of such a position, but follow along for a moment.

The Bible reveals that God made man in His own image and wrote His law upon man’s heart. Man defected from God shortly after his entrance into the world, but he can never fully shake the law of God. He is conscious of certain truths, even though he tries very hard to suppress those truths when they conflict with his wishes.

One of those truths is the commandment, “You shall not murder.” If a society excludes this particular commandment, there will be inevitable consequences: physician assisted suicide, abortion on demand, and any number of horrific crimes may potentially become accepted realities. The society in question is left without an objective defense against the encroaching tyranny of lawless men.

After all, why shouldn’t the government declare open season on any or all groups within that society? Why shouldn’t the government commit any number of atrocities if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? A society that authorizes the murder of the preborn and the disabled is a society that has created a culture of death; death becomes the solution for any who do not meet the societal standard of being wanted or having a certain agreed upon quality of life.

The law of God is the standard of right and wrong that will protect man from the always arbitrary and oftentimes murderous tendencies of governments.  Science effectively tells man what is, but science can never tell a man what ought to be.

Francis Schaeffer wrote,

In the flood loss of humanness in our age – including the flow from abortion-on-demand to infanticide and on to euthanasia – the only thing that can stem this tide is the certainty of the absolute uniqueness and value of people.  And the only thing which gives us that is the knowledge that people are made in the image of God.  We have no other final protection.  And the only way we know that people are made in the image of God is through the Bible and in the incarnation of Christ, which we know from the Bible.[3]

The Bible reveals that man is created in the image of God, and therefore to murder man is to assault the divine majesty.[4] The fact that man is created in the image of God is not true only of healthy adults, but it is true of man in every phase of his life. Man is the image of God before the fall into sin (Gen 1:26-28), after the fall into sin (Jas 3:9), in the womb (Ex 21:21-25, as a child (Lev 18:21; Eph 6:4), as one physically handicapped (Lev 19:14; Mk 10:46-52), as an elderly person (Lev 19:32; Prov 16:31; 1 Tim 5:1), and as having dominion over the animals (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:6-8).

Instead of authorizing murder for the vulnerable ones in society, the Supreme Court ought to uphold the Charter of Rights for every person, for a failure to uphold the Charter is wrong in at least two ways.

In the first place, it is wrong to permit the unlawful killing of another human being.  It is unfortunate that reasons have to be added to this most fundamental principle, but such is the hardness of man’s heart. And secondly, if the rights of one group are violated, it will not be long until the rights of all groups are violated. That potential open season on human beings may be extended in the next Supreme Court ruling and another group’s right to life, liberty, and security may be at risk.

Jim Butler was born and raised in Long Beach, California. After serving four years in the US Air Force, he was saved by the grace of God in Palmdale, California.  He joined the Palmdale Reformed Baptist Church and received training for the gospel ministry.

In 1997 he was sent out as a church-planter to Chilliwack, B.C. and has since served as the pastor of the Free Grace Baptist Church.  His formal theological education is through Whitefield Theological Seminary where he earned the Master of Divinity and the Master of Theology degrees.

He is happily married to Rebecca, has five children, and three grandchildren.

[2] John Murray, Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing, [1957] 1984), 122.

[3] John Piper, A Hunger for God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997), 158.

[4] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology:  Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing, re. 1991), 54.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 30, 2012

Judge to RCMP: Citizens have Rights. You violated them. Case Dismissed.


In what is becoming a trend across Canada, judges are having less and less patience with police forces who illegally search a person’s vehicle, residence or person.  The latest case involves two people who [allegedly] have known gang affiliations in Burnaby, BC.

Damion Ryan and Theresa Latham faced a total of 30 gun charges after police searched their home after responding to a 9-1-1 call outside their residence in August 2010.  The Emergency Response Team was responding to a “shots fired” call when they forced their way into Ryan and Latham’s basement suite.

Police claimed to be searching to see if anyone was injured inside the basement suite, which is legitimate.  What is NOT legitimate is using that excuse, searching for injured people, to search the entire suite for anything and everything else, including hidden firearms.

“The critical issue regarding the lifting of the mattress is the reasonableness of that act to look for an injured person,” Provincial Court Judge Brian Bastin said.

“In my opinion, it was not reasonable to believe that a person injured or otherwise could have been under the mattress. There was no lump in the mattress.”

None of the firearms were in plain sight, which is the only way police would have a legal leg to stand on.  They weren’t searching for weapons, they were searching for injured human beings.  They did apply for a search warrant, but not until after they had already performed the illegal search, and that search warrant contained gross errors.

“Had the true state of affairs been presented to the Judicial Justice of the Peace, it is my opinion that the search warrant should not have been issued,” Judge Bastin said. “I have found that police exceeded their powers both in entering the basement suite in question and in the manner in which they searched the suite thereafter.”

Thankfully we have judges like Judge Bastin willing to protect our Rights when nobody else will.  He even went so far as to call the actions of police to be “serious collective carelessness by the police officers involved.”


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 17, 2012

Can you get fired for wearing a symbol of your faith to work? Only if it’s a Christian symbol…


The government of Britain is about to argue before the European Court of Human Rights that because the cross or crucifix is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, wearing a cross to work is grounds for dismissal from your job.

Wearing symbols of other religions, such as a turban or a hijab, are (of course) exempt from this absurd religious symbol restriction.   Wearing a cross will offend people, but wearing a turban or hijab or some other article of religious significance will not.  That’s the logic at play here, and it’s ridiculous.

Can you imagine going to work one day and being told that if you do not remove your cross that you would be fired?  Can you imagine the same threat being used against a Sikh, a Muslim or a Jew?

What’s next?  Will the British Government tell Jewish men that they can no longer wear a yarmulke in public?  They wouldn’t dare.

How about Wiccans or Celtic Druids?  Shall we ban them from wearing symbols of their religion and fire them if they don’t toe the line as well?

I say again, these idiots wouldn’t dare.

Freedom of Religion just doesn’t mean what it used to, that’s for sure.  Britain, the land that gave us our Common Law heritage of Rights and Freedoms through the Magna Carta and other historic documents, clearly has lost her way.

Bishop of Peterborough Donald Allister said, “It is a duty of a Christian to be public about their faith as well as private, and that is clear New Testament teaching.”

The Nanny State is in full swing in Britain and whatever nonsense goes on in Britain inevitably makes its way across the Atlantic to North America.

God save us all from this politically correct nonsense!


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 16, 2012

Lawyer Solomon Friedman hits a home run before the Canadian Senate


I’d happily add my 2 cents worth to what Mr. Solomon says in the video below, but then I would be robbing you of the opportunity to listen to someone who, on a daily basis, has been battling the stupid legislation we know as the Firearms Act and its Criminal Code amendments.

Lawyer Solomon Friedman does an excellent job of explaining why ordinary, law-abiding Canadians are fed up with being the scapegoats for the actions of violent criminals.

So, without any more from me, here he is.  Enjoy!

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 13, 2012

Withdraw from the UN’s Agenda 21. It’s easy. Just follow the lead of College Station, Texas.


Jane Gaffin wrote a great article about the United Nations’ Agenda 21 the other day titled Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don’t Know It.  After reading that I stumbled upon an article about a city in Texas named College Station.  This Texas city had withdrawn from Agenda 21, the program created at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit on climate change held in Rio de Janeiro.

Specifically, College Station, Texas, was opting out of International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that promotes what it calls “Local Governments for Sustainability” by enforcing “sustainability, climate protection, and clean energy goals” on its member communities.

City Councilman Jess Fields explains why College Station decided to cancel their ICLEI / Agenda 21 membership.

At last Thursday’s council meeting, I proposed to the council to withdraw College Station’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – an international organization founded in 1990 by the United Nations. Our city has been paying somewhere north of $1,000 to be a member of this organization, yet it is not to be found anywhere within the budget. Few have ever heard of ICLEI, and fewer still know that College Station has actually been a member since 2009.

I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station budget will not include funding for this organization. It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous.

I applaud our management staff for their thoughtful decision to agree to withdraw from ICLEI in the next budgetary year. In particular, I’d like to thank Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager, for his extraordinarily thorough research into this and many other topics. Our staff has made the right decision here.

I also want to thank a citizen, Mary Oliver, for her steadfast efforts to bring this issue to my attention over the past couple of years. Without her interest in the subject this might not have been possible. College Station is blessed to have citizens like her who care about what goes on with their local government.

For those who think a single person can’t make a difference, I give you Mary Oliver of College Station, Texas.  I also congratulate her for her tenacity to see her city remove itself from ICLEI and Agenda 21.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 12, 2012

Bill 36: Stripping Property Rights from Albertans


Alison Redford’s so-called conservative government’s decision to implement Bill C-36, The Land Stewardship Act, which effectively gives control of all land in Alberta to the provincial government, is a death blow to property rights in Alberta. Under this law, government bureaucrats will now dictate to land owners what they can and cannot do on their own land.

If this sounds obscene to you, then you’d best hang on tight, because it gets worse.  Much worse.  But first, a little background.

Bill 36, The Land Stewardship Act, was initially brought forward by former Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach’s government.  It caused a lot of outrage among farmers and oil patch workers, and with good reason.  The Bill allowed government bureaucrats the ability to rescind water licenses, feed lot approvals, oil patch licenses, and much more, without the ability for the land owner to challenge the decision in court or be paid compensation for the loss of use of their land.

This is the sort of abuse I would expect to see in Soviet Russia, not in the province that most Canadians view as the lone province that still defends Freedom and Liberty in Canada.  Of course that perception is not true and hasn’t been for decades, but it still persists despite all proof to the contrary such as that embodied in Bill 36, The Land Stewardship Act.

When Alison Redford took over as leader of Alberta’s Progressive Conservative Party and with it, the office of Premier of Alberta, the very first thing she did was stop Bill 36 dead in its tracks.  That was a good sign that the new but unelected Premier of Alberta was going to respect the rights of Albertans.

That good sign was, however, very short-lived.

While Premier Redford did create a Property Rights Task Force that traveled the province to garner feedback on the proposed bill, she has promptly ignored everything the Task Force told her in the report and will now move Bill 36 forward unchanged.

Redford obviously has a very different definition of “democracy” than I do.  Her definition would appear to read as follows:

Democracy according to Alison Redford: the right of the Premier of Alberta to follow the dictates of unelected career bureaucrats and their anti-freedom agenda while utterly ignoring the will of the people and their Rights while trampling their Freedoms and Liberty into dust.



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 11, 2012

Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don’t Know It


I can ask people if they have heard of Agenda 21. The inevitable answer is “no”. The response to my short explanation is either met with disdainful silence or with a “you don’t know what you’re talking about” retort. If I ask the same people the same question 30 days later they still say “no” they haven’t heard of Agenda 21. Obviously, my explanation didn’t register with them.

On the contrary, my audience has heard of Agenda 21. Everybody has heard of it. They just don’t know it because the term has seldom if ever appeared in the major media outlets in the 20 years since the project materialized at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil during a United Nations Earth Summit Conference in June, 1992.

Anybody who has heard the shop-worn terms and guilt-ridden phrases from the random collection below used in their communities, counties, provinces, territories, states, countries has heard of Agenda 21:

  1. Sustainable Development
  2. Sustainable America
  3. President’s Council on Sustainable America
  4. White House Rural Council
  5. Land councils
  6. Sustainable Development Initiatives
  7. Environmental Initiatives
  8. Community Initiatives
  9. Sustainability
  10. Unsustainable
  11. Stewardship
  12. Partnership
  13. Stakeholder
  14. Smart Growth
  15. Environmental (this or that) (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 1, 2012

Police overwhelmingly support C-30’s warrantless searches and violation of privacy

Come Back with a Warrant

It really isn’t a shock to see police chiefs from across Canada coming out in support of the warrantless search and privacy violations contained in Bill C-30, disingenuously named “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”.  The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) even go so far as calling it a “reasonable tool” in the battle against crime.

Obviously they use a very different dictionary than I do, since mine doesn’t classify warrantless searches and privacy invasion as “reasonable.”  Then again, there isn’t a lot the CACP and I agree on.  If a law or proposed law violates yours and my Charter Rights, then it’s a lock that the CACP will be for it and I will be against it.

Bill C-30 is no different.

Dubbing it “lawful access” as if simply calling warrantless searches “lawful” can make them so, police do themselves and Canadians a great disservice by playing these types of semantic games.  There is nothing “lawful” about violating our Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Under the title “Why we are asking for “Lawful Access,” the CACP says the following:

The Global Internet, cellular phones and social media have been widely adopted and enjoyed by Canadians, young and old. Many of us have been affected by computer viruses, spam and increasingly, bank or credit card fraud. These new media are also being used as a safe haven for serious criminal activity – identity theft, child and sexual exploitation, gangs, organized crime and national security threats.

I have no doubt that all of these things are happening, and that police should be doing what they can to prevent them where possible and prosecute the offenders where it is not, there is still this pesky little thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

The CACP and the police forces it represents would be much happier, I am sure, if the government would simply tear up that document so police could do whatever they want. (more…)

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 26, 2012

Unless you have a Government Permission Slip to break the law (a licence) you’re going to jail


What is a licence?  It is nothing more than a Government Permission Slip (GPS) to break the law.  Just because you may choose not to believe me doesn’t make it any less true.

It is a crime to do a myriad of things in Canada today; things that should not be a crime, yet are. Politicians mistakenly believe they must always be doing something when the very best thing they could do for our nation is to do absolutely nothing.

I would happily help fund their outrageous paychecks and even more outrageous pensions if they would only leave Ottawa, comb through every Act and Regulation that’s been passed and find all the items that can be repealed.  One month a year they could converge on Ottawa solely for the purpose of repealing everything that is needless and wasteful.

I know, it’s a fantasy that will never happen.  I get that.

A politician’s primary job, once elected, is to get re-elected.  Period.  I get that too.

Doing what’s right for their constituents happens only to the degree to which it will get them re-elected.

So instead of politicians ridding Canada of all the unconstitutional laws, regulations and statutes on the books, we get something far more useless.  We get endless reams of legislation that panders to one voting block or another and is generally destructive to the Rights and Freedoms we’re all supposed to enjoy.

We get more legislation making more things illegal…. requiring more government bureaucrats to manage more government programs, issue more licences to individuals who the government deems worthy of breaking all of these laws.

You see, every time the government makes something illegal, they have to create a regulatory body filled with bureaucrats to issue permission slips to some part of the population.

Most people don’t comprehend what a Government Permission Slip, or licence as we commonly know it, really is. A licence is, as I said at the beginning of this article, nothing more than permission from the government to commit a crime.

Yes, it really is that simple.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player