Vancouver Sun “reporter” Ian Mulgrew needs a wakeup call. His references to “Dirty Harry” and “knee-jerk legislative responses” would laughable if it wasn’t clear that he actually believed the crap he wrote condemning citizens arrest laws.
He obviously thinks it’s better to allow honest citizens to be bankrupted by our court system, like they almost did to a Toronto shopkeeper, whose plight sparked the proposed revamping of citizen arrest laws.
But this “revamping” is hardly earth-shattering or revolutionary. Had Mulgrew actually bothered to read the proposed legislation, he’d have seen there are very few changes proposed to our current set of laws on this matter.
News Flash! When crimes are committed, the police aren’t there. In practically all cases, the only ones there are ordinary citizens, like you and me. I’m guessing that Mulgrew himself would stand idly by watching it all go down instead of actually doing the right thing given his moronic position on citizen’s arrest.
But I can’t say it nearly as well as Joe Gingrich of White Fox, Saskatchewan can, so I’ll let him explain the facts of life to Mr. Mulgrew:
I read ‘Go ahead, make my day punk! Dirty Harry would love Canada’s knee-jerk legislative response that would loosen citizen-arrest laws’ by Ian Mulgrew, February 28, 2011.
Mr. Mulgrew suggested that private policing not be used “on the streets as a substitute for real law enforcement.”
One of the most fundamental rights and freedoms we have is the right to security of the person -family, home and property. Affirmed in writings by John Locke and referred to as an absolute right by Sir William Blackstone, Canadians inherited their right from British law which exists as a basis for our Canadian Constitution in the forms of the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).
When Canada was being formed, all young men in several Maritime provinces were mandated by law to protect country, family and property with arms.
Who protects Canadians today? Certainly not the police. Although it states on some police cruisers “To serve and protect”, there is no legal obligation in Canada for police officers to save your life or protect your property. Seldom are police ever present when crimes are in progress. Usually the police investigate the case long after the crimes have been committed and the criminal has departed from the crime scene. [See Katey Montague’s video on Dial 9-1-1 and Die for more on this]
It’s the individual Canadian who is our first line of defense.
Isn’t Mulgrew’s attempt to infringe upon our right by implying that we first “Call 911 and Die”, deplorable? If today’s Canadians must be empowered by a law to protect themselves, their family and their property from criminals, so be it. If the Liberals, NDP and Tories enact a law to prevent innocent Canadians, who are exercising their civil rights, from being victimized not only by criminals but also some of our police, prosecutors and judges; we must encourage them.
Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox
Well said, Joe!
Joe Gingrich is absolutely right! Police are historians. Further, they are under absolutely no legally obligation to respond to a citizen’s cry for help. Does that make you feel warm and cuddly and protected?
Law or no law, like it or don’t like it, it is a natural instinct for humans to react to protect life, limb and property–that’s called self-defence. After the dust settles, the natural instinct is to apprehend the no-good rotter who perpetrated the dastardly deeds against your life, limb and property.
So, get over your narrow-minded, Marxist stance, Ian Mulgrew, or hope you don’t find yourself in a pickle of a predicament where you have to dial 911. The last time I tried that, I was put on hold.
Mulgrew is right – call the law first. As for standing by, Mulgrew is no wimp, as evidenced by his often belligerent attitude in the now defunct Press Club. Under duress he might well “do the right thing.”
Also, I am sure he learned a lesson when he inadvertently featured on his paper’s front page after assaulting his wife, and knows the legal consequences of manhandling another individual.