Under Agenda 21 “Property Seizure” is Seen as “Profit-Sharing” by Jane Gaffin

Canada’s Constitution is the supreme law.

Any law passed by any federal, provincial, or territorial government that is inconsistent with the constitution is invalid.

The next highest law in the pecking order of paramountcy is the Criminal Code of Canada and the same rules of law apply–or should apply–under the Criminal Code as with the Constitution.

The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, otherwise known as SCAN, has been a bone choking my throat ever since it was invented from somebody’s zealous imagination.

By the same token, a noisy, disruptive drug house was a bone sticking in the craw of every property owner and tenant who lived in the otherwise quiet, peaceful, respectable Old Town area of Whitehorse.

This hastily-written piece of legislation was well-intentioned but any law passed to simply to take legal action against one specific target is misdirected.

And it’s hard to say where a law may lead to in future unless a judge has the fortitude to rule that it is invalid in relationship to the paramountcy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code.

SCAN is handy because it is based on civil law and depends on bureaucratic scrutiny; private parties can get into the act, too. It does not require criminal charges from the police and convictions from a court. Therefore, this flimsy non-law is open for drastic abuse.

Soon after SCAN’s enactment, sure ‘nuff, the Yukon legislature made a failed attempt to quickly usher in a draconian Civil Forfeiture Act. Thankfully, the quick-acting public, nimbler than the deceitful politicians, clamped the lid shut on the forfeiture refuse posthaste.

There are already enough laws covering all bases in the Criminal Code tome to choke an oversized camel. Why does a territorial government need to write more unlawful laws to deal with one particular drug house in one community?

It’s nothing but a useless piece of trash but that doesn’t prevent innocent people from being hurt by it.

If trained police officers can’t be trusted to conduct a proper investigation involving a firearms case, how can untrained bureaucrats be qualified to conduct so-called “investigations” into a property seizure case?

When Stephen Harper & Company passed Bill C-10 Safe Streets and Communities Act under the Omnibus Bill, one of the many pieces of federal legislation that had to be revised was the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Yukon territorial legislature didn’t have that pleasure; so they basically ended up with nothing but a bogus bill that could be easily countered in a court of law if the case were heard by a traditionalist judge.

Although the bureaucrats relied on the SCAN legislation to close down the targeted drug house, the legislation failed the litmus test in a subsequent attempt to evict a “suspected” drug user/dealer from another property.

The neighbours’ complaints and informants’ information were based on assumptions rather than facts. The tenant was alleged to be dealing drugs because she slept during the day and entertained known drug-users at night.

Whose business is it anyway? Does that mean that somebody who works nightshifts could be a target for property seizure?

In other words, the tenant, who probably received the eviction notice from a frightened landlord, was guilty by association; just like the anti-constitutional Canadian Firearms Act says. If you associate with a person who has been denied a license or is prohibited from owning firearms, then you are denied your rights to a license and firearms ownership, too.

Sorry, folks, but “guilty by association” doesn’t meet the litmus test.

In overturning the eviction notice, the Yukon Supreme Court Judge said the entire SCAN investigation process had been rushed and that the Director of Public Safety should have taken more time to prepare the case. Rather than approving the eviction himself under SCAN, he should have had the decision approved by the court.

Rather than incompetent bureaucrats making “legal” decisions that should be left in the hands of the judiciary, the purposed Civil Forfeiture Act would have been a court-driven process.

A judge would have to say whether personal property could be “lawfully” seized from the owner who may or may not be able to prove that he didn’t know that a tenant or family member was committing sin while living in or on the property.

The Safe Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, Safe Streets and Communities Act and all similar distasteful acts of this nature have been brought about by the United Nations’ Agenda 21–the 21st Century blueprint devised by a scant bunch of elite globalists to steer the masses into serfdom with a One-World Government.

Since God isn’t making any more real estate, property is valuable–too valuable to be in the hands of individual owners, so says Agenda 21. It must be redirected to public domain to be managed properly.

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of the society as a whole.”

Are you getting a clear picture?

To boot, the greedy United Nations has a voracious appetite for spending money and has directed governments worldwide to contribute more cash to the kitty.

The problem is that governments have been mandated to eliminate the middle-class–the working folks who have always paid the bills–in order to force them to peck in the gravel for a morsel of food alongside the poor classes.

Karl Marx, who penned the Communist Manifesto, called this societal adjustment “equity” or “social justice”.

Through attrition, governments are dismantling industries and destroying jobs. Therefore, not as much loot is coming into the coffers these days and there’s getting to be a scarcity of items to tax.

The die has been cast. Governments have already taxed everything that crawls, walks, runs, flies or breathes, but, for sure, the overpaid Ways and Means Committee has other innovative ideas in store as to how to leave the populace destitute.

Governments also have forgotten the adage “Charity begins at home” and continue, without taxpayers knowledge or consent, to prostitute themselves by contributing billions in fees and dues to the wasteful UN pimp.

Although governments everywhere are operating on mainly a beer-and-pretzel budget, they can’t curb their taste for champagne and caviar. If there is one bit of praise that can be offloaded onto the UN, it knows how to entertain in style–on our money and we weren’t even invited to the party.

One easy way to pad the treasuries so the UN can waste it is for governments to confiscate private property through “regulatory takings”, otherwise known as “bureaucrats for booty” program.

Like stealthy Nazis, politicians and back-room lawyers first alter the laws–or write new ones–so as to appear lawful rather than operating like a band of thieves that they are.

It’s known euphemistically as “profit sharing” under the Agenda 21 phrase “public-private partnerships”.

July 4, 2012

1 thought on “Under Agenda 21 “Property Seizure” is Seen as “Profit-Sharing” by Jane Gaffin

  1. jane,
    great post. does canadian law really say that if you associate with someone who has been denied a firearm license than you can be denied yours ??
    or is that just how it is being interpreted ??
    this is too funny !!
    if it does say so, then somebody ought to file a civil case demanding that the canadian government enforce that law against the people most often seen by the public associating with criminals… the police, the judges, and the prosecutors, and then once they lose their licenses, the politicians will lose theirs by extension and association, and this can continue by extension until only sane non-politicians and government enforcers will have guns !!
    hey, at that point canada would be a really nice place and i would be prepared to move there even though there will be a penalty for the lack of balmy weather !!! (:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.