"It has occurred to me that I'm far more afraid of my own government than of any 'terrorist organisation'. Our wonderful representatives in Ottawa spout off about human rights violations in Iraq, etc., but seem perfectly content to subject Canadian citizens to unwarranted search and seizure, take away the protection against self-incrimination, and break their own rules about equality under the law." -- email quote from RS, Justice Served Up Yukonslavia Style.
The two main federal documents supposedly assisting Kanuckistan in the maintenance of law, order and so-called justice are the Criminal Code of Canada and the Constitution of 1982.
It's nice that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverly McLachlin believes Canadians are fortunate to have the "made-in-Canada" Charter of Rights and Freedoms for dealing with problems.
From where I sit, it’s too bad the top court and lawmakers don’t use the Charter once in a while. It is in that important constitutional centrepiece where people should be able to find protection of their rights and freedoms.
But the myopic bozos who write and enforce laws don't recognize the Charter as anything other than a defense argument to be used in court.
These strong laws are supposed to be supreme law of the land and were designed to take precedence over other laws and distinguish this nation as a civilized democracy set above dictatorship standards.
All lower-ranking legislation is supposed to be Charter-and-Constitution-proofed before Parliament passes it and the Senate rubber-stamps it into law.
What is supposed to be and what is reality are two different things.
Next in the pecking order of importance under the Constitution is the blizzard of federal laws--some good, some not so good and some just plain awful. They supersede the provincial and territorial laws, which, in turn, outweigh the low-ranking municipal laws that come at the bottom of the heap.
The Criminal Code is the official bible police officers use in carrying out enforcement duties of keeping law and order and protecting people and property.
What people can and cannot do legally are clearly stated as are the punishments that befall those caught breaking the law.
The thick tome provides for such age-old measures as defense of self, family and property and laying charges against dishonest government agents for fraud and breach of public trust.
The Criminal Code offers checks and balances that should prevent command-and-control freaks from running roughshod over people's rights.
Individual rights are reinforced in the Charter. After all, federal politicians and lawyers spent over 25 years making an industry out of unraveling 115 years of perfectly good British law and repatriating the constitution.
Except for Marxists removing private property rights, the constitution is supposed to be replete with inalienable rights that protect everybody--not just a chosen few whenever it is political convenient to do so.
Judicial activists, lawyers, badge-bearing bullies, government functionaries, law-and-policy makers, politicians, moral uplifters, do-gooders, busy-bodies, prohibitionists, green zealots seemingly believe these legal documents were written in disappearing ink and carry no value.
While the laws are supposed to restrict the above-mentioned to a short leash, politically-correct public policy is quietly oozing in. Rights are being replaced with "privileges". Privileges are much easier to strip from the masses than are natural rights of which the government is not the source.
The government trusts the commoners won't find out what is being sprung on them until after the fact.
The United Nations is weaning democratic countries away from their respective criminal codes, constitutions and sovereignties, moving toward a corrupt one-world order that embraces a Communist Manifesto philosophy.
That is how Yukonslavia and other jurisdictions have allowed piddly-ass municipal bylaws to take precedence over the constitution and federal acts. The Liberal government, under top Marxist Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, started down this destructive path, one carried on by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, by refusing to Charter-proof draconian legislation covering such topics as environment, elections, anti-terrorism and firearms.
Former Liberal federal justice minister Anne McLellan contended everything would come out in the wash, failing to comprehend this is bass-ackwards. By her logic it was okay that ordinary citizens would be left with horrendous, ill-affordable legal expenses and must spend three or more years of their life fighting the state because the state infringed upon their rights in the first place.
The rule of lopsided law now is that the Crown does not have to prove anything, but the defendant must somehow prove that he is innocent. Reverse onus is virtually impossible to prove which is the reason Kanuckistan introduced it.
Until the Liberal government recognized reverse onus in its laws it was a provision reserved for dictatorships where unfounded accusations guarantee the helpless defendant is destined to either spend his remaining days in a hard labour Gulag camp or lose his head to a sharp-edged sword.
These parliamentary acts that declare the sinner guilty until he can prove his innocence contradict Section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Reverse onus became particularly apparent in the firearms legislation of 1995 (Bill C-68 cum Canadian Firearms Act) that violates the Charter of Rights no less than 28 times.
The non-gun-owning public, like the courts, pointed an accusing finger at those despicable gun owners when they were gored by the system. Now, reverse onus is standard fare applied to most government acts and bureaucratic regulations. It covers everybody. These days, any person hauled into court for any reason has to “eat” reverse onus--not just gun owners who were the first to walk the plank.
No judge has the fortitude to send the whole Firearms Act back to Parliament to Charter-proof the legislation and decriminalize “paper offences”, although the occasional judge, who still reads law as it is written, will occasionally toss out charges against gun owners based on anti-constitutional grounds.
Under the terrorist act a person can be arrested and held without being charged and brought before a judge. How third-world! How Stalinistic!
That annihilates the age-old writ of habeas corpus requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court within three days, especially to secure the person's release unless lawful grounds are shown for the detention.
Again, the courts are lazy and don’t want to be inconvenienced with burden of proof. The authorities simply lock up the suspects forever without charges which negates a reason for trial. If the State doesn’t have enough evidence to lay charges it certainly doesn’t have sufficient evidence to win a trial except by deceit.
This is especially prevalent under International Criminal Court law dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity that filters down from that corrupt, muscle-flexing, world police power known as the United Nations of which Canada is a member state.
The loss of habeas corpus rights is also noticeable when the United States deals with so-called terrorist suspects, some who are Canadian citizens. They are imprisoned and tortured for an indeterminate time at prisons such as Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without charges brought forward, mainly because there is no evidence, just unfounded accusations. In most cases, prisoners are tortured until information is extracted or they confess to sins they may not have committed. How Stalinistic!
Therefore, a military or criminal court doesn’t have to deal with the pesky, time-consuming business of a trial which would most assuredly make the authorities look like the fools they are. A military court’s decision isn’t binding in civilian court, anyway, and a prisoner found to be innocent can be returned to the Gulag for further incarceration.
The only power any level of government has is to declare War on Crime. When there aren't enough criminals, the government makes so many things illegal that it becomes impossible to breathe without breaking laws.
People have been dictated to, lied to, brainwashed, indoctrinated, muzzled, hosed, ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, counted and discounted.
They have been inspected, investigated, interrogated, measured, numbered, weighed, rated, berated, stamped, censured, refused, prevented, prohibited, admonished and monopolized.
They have been extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fleeced, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonoured, exploited, mauled, assessed, overtaxed, charged, sued, embarrassed, groped, stripped-searched, humiliated, tasered, beaten and shot.
Yet people keep accepting Marxist claptrap: "It's all for your own good."
Right, except unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures are not good for anybody, except the doorbusters who pocket the loot. That was one reason the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered Parliament to rewrite Criminal Code Section 117.04(1) in 2000.
The "incurable overbreadth" violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It allowed for wholesale fishing expeditions in which police were permitted to invade an individual's privacy in circumstances where they may have had no reason to suspect, let alone believe, that a crime had been or was going to be committed, or that the person possessed--what? Guns, drugs, stolen candy bars, ashtrays?
It also opened up the disgusting justification for the wrongly accused to be strip-searched in their homes, on lawns, streets and beside highways. That is one step removed from legalized gang rape which is exactly what the U.S. Homeland Security agents are doing along highways in the state of Tennessee as well as at airports, terminals, stations and shopping malls.
Sometimes judges dismiss cases on the grounds that police carried out an improper warranted search on a person's house, office, vehicle or body.
Or the police may have used the loophole of "exigent circumstances". However, sometimes a judge will decide a warrant could have been obtained without risk of losing important evidence.
If a judge determines the accused did not consent for police to invade a dwelling without a warrant, the charges may be dismissed. Warrant or no warrant, door-crashers must have reasonable belief they will find the goods sought.
A valid warrant has to be authorized and signed by a judge. On the document is the name and address of the unsuspecting schmuck whose premises is about to be rearranged; the location of the buildings targeted; and the items expected to be found at this specific place.
The warrant stipulates the date(s) and daytime hours the raid can be legally conducted, that is dawn to dusk, or roughly 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Some robber barons, who judge-shop to obtain a warrant, have been known to illegally tamper with the hours when they are in the midst of a particularly lucrative haul for personal gains and don't want to be interrupted by a curfew. These tyrants never get punished for acting above the law and defacing a legal document.
If the alleged sinner is present when the police appear, he is presented with a copy of the warrant; if he isn't there, a warrant is supposed to be left on the kitchen table or tacked to the door.
In reality, standard procedure is that police roughly threaten said householder with "obstruction of justice" charges if they dare step foot inside their own home while it is under siege, although under the firearms act the homeowner is legally required to provide assistance to the police.
In either case, the officer is supposed to leave a note describing the items taken. In the inconceivable event "nothing was taken", a terse note expresses that phenomenon.
Regardless of how squeaky-clean a person thinks he is, nobody should ever underestimate the possibility of a surprise attack nor underestimate the trauma that goes with it.
It's like coming home to find your private sanctum trashed and burglarized by thieves, which it has been.
While the RCMP are supposedly trained in the delicate procedures of how to carry out a proper search to the letter of the Criminal Code, they are not always perfect. Sometimes hard-boiled outlaws are let off the hook because of a faulty search.
If trained RCMP don't always get it right, how far can any untrained Tom, Dick and Harriat get by rummaging an individual's private sanctum with any degree of legality?
Truthfully, they can't. They should stay out of people's bedrooms, washrooms and drawers. When any Tom, Dick and Harriat--who has no legal authority whatsoever, much less a judge-issued search warrant--can get by with conducting random searches on pedestrians, customers, students, tenants, private dwellings and offices, then Kanuckistan, formerly Canada, has disintegrated into an abhorrent, anarchical cesspool WORSE than Naziism.
As Friedrich August von Hayek contended in his famous book The Road to Serfdom,
"Many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of Nazism, and sincerely hate all manifestations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny."
Kanuckistan has been radically altered, step by step, by justices who are not following any law. Rather than interpret the law that is already written, these self-aggrandizing elitists make up politically-correct laws from the bench.
“What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of the court,” once wrote American jurist Antonin Scalia who recognized the same illegal, anti-constitutional problems in his country, too. “Day by day, case by case, the court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”
Canada’s top court justices demonstrated a bias for gun owners by convicting Allen Carlos for a law that did not and still does not exist. And they did it in 30 minutes!
The lower court judge had stated in this protracted case that the Crown did not have to prove anything and that her court was not the proper forum for arguing the constitution which was not allowed for defense.
If court isn’t the place to argue the constitution, where is? Obviously, the territorial deputy judge did not want to be inconvenienced by those pesky laws known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were supposedly designed to offer protection for Canadians.
More to the point, justices are gradually stripping both countries of their respective constitutions as prescribed by the United Nations. Unless stopped, the UN is set to rule the world with its Marxist one-size-fits-all constitution.
Yet Adolf Hitler didn't break the law. The Nazi dictator had the questionable “decency” to revise, gazette and publicize a new set of laws and suspend sections of the constitution before he unleashed his butchers to commit so-called "legalized" atrocities.
The extermination program was done under the familiar guise of public health and public safety. Who could argue against such virtuous principles?
The state categorized Jews, Gypsies, labour leaders, intellectuals, clerics and the "mentally ill" as verminous enemies of the state guilty of spreading disease.
Millions of people were suffocated in cattle cars, gassed, tossed in hot furnaces, shot, buried alive, starved and carved up for gruesome medical experiments as the elitists re-engineered society.
The experiment soured 65 years ago. But Marxism has regained momentum. New groups of sinners have been classified as threats to public health and safety: property owners, gun owners, land-users, smokers, entrepreneurs, Internet users, and the middle-class generally.
Three levels of government bureaucrats are cheerfully running amok to stamp out state enemies. Their collective, command-and-obey Rambo mentality is focused on repeating history while disregarding privacy and constitutional rights.
Section 8 of the Charter, "Everybody has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", weighs in heavily with case law. The word "unreasonable" has been dissected and interpreted in countless courtroom debates.
Police, who have been awarded individual discretion, have been apprised in this matter but their contemptible mantra still is, "Tell it to the judge". It jams court dockets with innocent victims. But the court system has become an industry unto itself and needs to drum up business.
As mentioned, federal or provincial police are supposed to obtain a judge-issued warrant or special warrant before door-crashing. When the secondary layer of green cops, water cops, fish cops, thought cops want to raid offices, mining camps, government chambers, they go to the RCMP who apply for a warrant and accompany the specialty cops on their missions.
City bylaw officers, security guards, Custom agents and other special sub-species enforcers aren't mentioned, supposedly because their duties are restricted to controlling four-legged critters, muzzling the mayor, issuing tickets and detaining shoppers and travellers. Yet laws secondary to the Constitution and the Criminal Code of Canada have granted more powers to the sub-species enforcers than to the police.
Off-their-chain bylaw bloodhounds started running loose flushing out smokers, gardeners, lemonade sellers, yard sale vendors and the like. Since the police are restricted to needing “reasonable belief they will find the goods sought” they couldn’t barge into schools to conduct searches of students. No problem. School authorities imported civilian dog-handlers to illegally search students, lockers and backpacks until an outraged mother brought their distasteful practice to heel by filing a complaint in the Yukon Supreme Court.
In some jurisdictions, off-duty or retired RCMP officers, who possess a perverted delight in harassing people, accompany bylaw officers to offer credibility, especially when enforcing smoking bans.
"Nicotine", "tobacco" and "smoke" are not listed in Schedules I to VIII of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act regarding search warrants and special warrants of illegal products. Clue: tobacco isn't an illegal product and is controlled--not banned--under the federal Tobacco Act.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and hence clamorous to be led to safety," proclaimed H.L. Mencken, an America newspaper columnist of the 1930s. "Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon 'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel."
The amateurish smoke sniffers are only supposed to attend so-called "public" places, many of which are privately-owned facilities. They aren't supposed to stray beyond areas designated for the general public. And they are not supposed to be pawing through people's purses, pockets and panties.
Bylaw officers going into public washrooms is one-step removed from a strip search. Somebody in there has his or her pants down. There is a long-standing right in this country for individuals to have ultimate say over who can and cannot touch their bodies inappropriately.
Oh, but it is necessary in the name of public safety. Isn't that what Hitler sold to the naive German people?
Officers forcing their way into storage areas and private offices without a warrant, and where the general public is not allowed access, is one-step removed from these fascist bullies conducting unwarranted raids on residential dwellings.
There is a long-standing right of any resident in this country to determine who shall and who shall not be permitted to enter his home, even if the home is nothing more than a shack, tent or spruce bough lean-to.
In 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an age-old law: "A person's home is his castle and fortress, a place for his defense against injury and violence, as well as for his repose."
In other words, stay the hell out unless invited in. That also applies to overbearing, non-warranted Statistics Canada agents rampaging through gardens like a mad moose and barging into homes on Sunday afternoons and threatening occupants with "compliance or prosecution".
Anybody invading a private place for the purpose of conducting a "search and seizure" and is not properly papered ranks as a common thief who has committed what is described in the Criminal Code as Break and Enter, Trespassing and Burglary--even if he just "took" pictures.
Cities across Canada and the United States have banned children’s lemonade stands, growing vegetables, catching rain to water the vegetables, cash for commerce, bloggers' free speech rights as well as threatened seizure of rural property because the owners were not licensed to entertain personal friends, snooped for unlicensed vehicles parked on private property, and so forth.
Then mean-spirited bloodhounds are unleashed to enforce unlawful laws that are crafted behind closed doors and perpetrated against innocent civilians who are the ones paying the freight and supposed to be the ones who have a say in writing the laws.
The whole so-called Justice system is in complete confusion and disarray and will worsen unless Kanuckistan quits listening to the odious despots running and ruining our lives from the United Nations.
November 24, 2011
Below are a few links to Christopher di Armani's classic pieces related to the above article...or, better yet, browse the entire Blogsite for his columns on Charter of Rights and Freedoms breaches and abuses and some of his comments on the good, bad and the stupid in judicial decisions: