Harper Government Wants Police to Spy on ALL Canadians With No Warrants

reply to post by Unity_99


I must confess you make the best of common sense for common men.
How much longer good men can stand by while bad people rampage through our halls of goverment despoiling our country and its peoples wealth and lives?
Even the smarter cops MUST see the handwriting on the wall.....
It time for them to step up and champion the people who pay the bills instead of the cronies who rape the public for their very livelyhood and even their own self woth.
By allowing the crash of twenty nine back then, the goverment and wall street deliberately let 7 millions of Americans alone, starve to death...literally, coldly, let them starve......
This enriched their wall street cabal with such an influx of money, that they were able to literally buy the control of the republic out from under the people.
That persists to this day.....Canada has gone through the same processes and is in the midst of total nazi control.....
This is where that megalomaniac Harper has always been headed......
God help us if we do not stand.......This is as good as a declaration of war......
Our fathers fought the world over tpo stop this nazification of goverments, and they let their guard down too soon....the infiltration of the wests business and goverments has been nearly completed.
It is now up to the people, and their sympathetic
ilitary and Police to arrest and jail these arch criminal traitors.....!
Benjamin Fulford has at least called it right announcing the wars beginning in earnest.....
Opening salvoes have been fired from both sides, and we will have to stand as one to overcome the enemies of peace and freedom as we once knew it..............God Bless us all.............

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Okay I didn't watch the video because the civil liberties associations doesn't impress me with their logic at the best of times but I had a nice long look at the two bills..

The first one, C-52, happens to be the "Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" and from a quick perusal, I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. Can you point out exactly what is the problem?

Actually one phrase that strikes me as being GOOD is "

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;"

It's worded a bit oddly but still works.

As for the other bill, C10, even from looking at just the Background and Summaries of each of the different sections, I don't see this "spy on all canadians with no warrants" issue, except in the following sentence on page 88

"Clause 92 adds the new section 137.1 to the CCRA to allow any peace officer "to arrest without warrant any offenderwho has committed a breach of a condition of their parole, statutory release, or unescorted temporary absence or whom the peace officer finds committing such a breach".

Boldness is mine..

Please show me in the document where it says that police can spy on ALL Canadians all the time without a warrant.


Edit to add: I'm not in favour of increased government control, but to spuriously cry outrage over something that isn't obvious to me or hasn't been looked at by anyone other than the CLA looks a lot like a OWS protest.. no offense intended...

I WILL NOT bend, cower, grovel or beg.

I WILL stand, speak, fight and deliver.

I WILL be free.

Peace

reply to post by juniperberry


Bill c 52 is loaded with violations of our freedoms. No offense, but u may not have read very far. I'm on my mobile and promise to point a few things out for you once I'm near my laptop.

Did you read past the title of the bill? It doesn't take very long to get to the meat of it.


Bill c 10 is just as bad if not worse. Do you believe that one's just as harmless?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by juniperberry

 

Bill c 52 is loaded with violations of our freedoms. No offense, but u may not have read very far. I'm on my mobile and promise to point a few things out for you once I'm near my laptop.

Did you read past the title of the bill? It doesn't take very long to get to the meat of it.

edit on 30-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Bill c 10 is just as bad if not worse. Do you believe that one's just as harmless?

edit on 30-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

I await anxiously for your insight into the bills. Please include samples and page numbers.

reply to post by juniperberry

SUMMARY

This enactment modernizes the regulatory regime for consumer products in Canada. It creates prohibitions with respect to the manufacturing, importing, selling, advertising, packaging and labelling of consumer products, including those that are a danger to human health or safety. In addition, it establishes certain measures that will make it easier to identify whether a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety and, if so, to more effectively prevent or address the danger. It also creates application and enforcement mechanisms. The enactment makes consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Check the enforcement mechanisms later on in the bill, it's all there, you just have to want to find it.

Even the summary admits that they have complete control to deem anything they want as a danger. If your political poster is deemed offensive or a danger, you're fair game for getting arrested.

I'm sorry but the other portions of the pdf aren't allowing me to to copy and paste. If I were to point out some sections, would you be willing to read?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


I'm sorry but the other portions of the pdf aren't allowing me to to copy and paste. If I were to point out some sections, would you be willing to read?

edit on 30-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Absolutely! I found that problem as well. Then I can see what the context of the section is.

PS, please add page number.. as there are only 10 sections... on bill c52 anyway..

reply to post by juniperberry


These copy and paste issues are a real buzz kill. I have highlighted certain portions of the bill that I think you should check out. Please keep in mind that there is a lot of content, and it's not numbered in pages but in section. Here are the main parts, but I urge reading the full bill because there is a lot of hidden language. You may not see it the same as I do, but this is an extreme violation of our freedoms.

Here, check these parts:

INTERPRETATION, PURPOSE,APPLICATION, PROHIBITIONS, TESTS, STUDIES AND COMPILATION OF INFORMATION, PREPARING AND MAINTAINING DOCUMENTS, DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF AN INCIDENT,DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE MINISTER, INSPECTORS, INSPECTION,PROCEDURES FOLLOWING SEIZURE, ANALYSIS, INSPECTORS’ ORDERS, REVIEW OF INSPECTORS’ ORDERS, INJUNCTION, REGULATIONS, INTERIM ORDERS, OFFENCES, ADMINISTRATIVE MONETARY PENALTIES, Violation,Powers of the Governor in Council and Minister, Proceedings, Penalties,
Compliance Agreements,Review by the Minister, Enforcement, Rules of Law About Violations,


Other Provisions
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
Excise Act
Hazardous Products Act

Sorry for the clutter, I hate pdf's!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


My apologies, I meant the OTHER bill for the page numbers.. the 154 page one.. C-10

As for C52, I am reading it.

Interesting thing about Canadian law is it must be in plain language. Which means that there can be no violations based on "hidden language". In fact, right out of my Criminal Law text, it states that one of the fundamental requirements for the Rule of Law in Canada is that "Laws should be open and clear. Those who are to be governed by the law must be able to understand it. Laws should not be vague or uncertain."

I don't see this "hidden language". And don't forget that we don't have the same rules as the US.

For example, you indicate that I should read INTERPRETATIONS. Well specifically those are merely definitions of the terms used in the bill. Those have been laid out in law for a number of years.. not a problem or it would have been brought up earlier.

PURPOSE: " The purpose of this Act is to protect the public by addressing or preventing dangers to human health or safety that are posed by consumer products in Canada, including those that circulate within Canada and those that are imported."

Not seeing a violation anywhere in this sentence.. and no "hidden language" either..

So, I'm afraid you're going to have to point to a specific or section that is a problem. And please show how it relates to the title of your thread.

Thanks!
PS, no I'm not a lawyer.. (that's a HELL NO!)..

reply to post by juniperberry


It's not exactly hidden, read on friend.

These laws you speak of are no longer applicable, have you not noticed the amendments in both these bills?

Harper has wiped his arse with the Canadian flag and you haven't seemed to catch on yet. I mean no disrespect, it has been pleasant debating with you, but you've even said you have read the bills, and to say that you see nothing wrong...

Take care my friend and peace be with you.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Another interesting thing about Canadian Law is that whoever makes the claim, must carry the burden of proof.

Actually, I think that's just the basic rule of democratic debate.

But whatever..

reply to post by juniperberry


Sorry, I came off a little snarky there.

What are your thoughts on (c 52) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE MINISTER (part 15) then please continue reading on through which covers INSPECTORS, INSPECTION, PROCEDURES FOLLOWING SEIZURE.

You should have a little better idea of what I mean once you reach part 29. But don't stop there I urge you to intake it all.

Originally posted by GlobalControl
Harper and Obama are getting ready to implement the NORTH AMERICAN UNION. This may be the year people. We must not let this go unnoticed. These people are CRIMINALS, they have been stealing our wealth, and reaping our resources! We must all take notice to this and we must all work as a TEAM with our local peace force and ARREST THEM!

edit on 30-12-2011 by GlobalControl because: (no reason given)

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Things are getting pretty scary and the noose appears to be tightening.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Okay..

15. The Minister may disclose personal information to a person or a government that carries out functions relating to the protection of human health or safety without the consent of the individual to whom the personal information relates if the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety."

That COULD be a problem except for this last phrase "if the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety". The wording is such that the serious danger must already exist (and because of "articulatable cause" rule of law, there is no such thing in Canadian Law regarding "hunches" or "intuition". I don't have a problem with this one.

Number's 16,17, and 18 carry on in the same vein, and I'm still okay with those. You have to understand the context in which they are carried out. The Minister isn't giving the information to just ANYONE. And I have one example of how this is a good thing. When China started exporting their milk containing melamine.. That's kind of a problem.. especially when the product is imported through people sent over here for the very purpose of receiving goods "legally". Or someone who goes to another country and spreads HIV without telling anyone. That's kind of a problem too..

Under #21, the only phrase I have an issue with is this 2(c) as it doesn't relate specifically to the articles or goods being sold or manufactured. "2(c) examine a document that is found in the place, make a copy of it or take an extract from it; " That's a little too broad I'll agree..

However, the rest of that section is predicated by "the Inspector who is carrying out their functions...". That only means that he'll be nailed to the cross if he ISN'T carrying out his duties. And his duties involve a property under the scope that "manufactures, imports, packages, stores, advertises, sells, labels, tests or transports a consumer product". In the interests of public safety I'm okay with this as a business isn't a dwelling house.

And further to the above because I know someone will ask. #22 specifically states: "22. (1) If the place mentioned in subsection 21(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2)."

And be aware that if someone is charged with an indictable offense, that means there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that this person is endangering public safety.

I can go on but there's 4 pages of small print.. This bill does NOT give sweeping powers to the police, and the inspectors better have a VERY good reason to do what they have been given to do..

reply to post by juniperberry

This bill does NOT give sweeping powers to the police, and the inspectors better have a VERY good reason to do what they have been given to do..

Every Canadian that I know who has an at least basic level of comprehension disagrees.

You even pasted some of the nasty stuff, and called it innocent. I'm beginning to wonder now...

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Did you even look at the rationale?

You have to look at it in CONTEXT.. it does NOT give sweeping powers..

Reading the disagreement in this thread, I'm forced to think about the NDAA. It's the wording and how each person CHOOSES to interpret it.

Conclusion: The US and Canada are playing the same game at the same time with its citizens.

End Game: THEY will interpret it however THEY choose to. Nobody will be exempt and words are only words. It's how the OFFICIALS interpret them that will matter in the eleventh hour. THEY are the ones who have the yes men attorneys in their pockets when they decide who is a danger to society.

How many here on this thread can afford a stellar attorney?
Not I.

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Harper needs to go now ! Lets kick this clown out of office asap,Harper needs to go now ! Lets kick this clown out of office asap,...

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


We got 3 years of his majority government left

...

learn to reciprocate, spy on/get some dirt on him and you don't need to wait 3yrs
lol of course all these laws don't apply to them

Originally posted by Domo1
Every American knows that Canadians are terrorists, miscreants, and have a certain proclivity towards sexual deviance. I for one am glad to see that nation of ne'er do wells monitored.

oh yes, have to watch out for those canadian girls as well

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

These copy and paste issues are a real buzz kill.

google is your friend!
[even if its a scanned image of a text doc] if you want to copy text and the pdf is on the webs, just google the document and select quick view [requires a gmail] then in view select plain HTML and Guguru!! you will be able to select text. used to be a view as html option but i guess google changed

Originally posted by Afterthought
Reading the disagreement in this thread, I'm forced to think about the NDAA. It's the wording and how each person CHOOSES to interpret it.

Conclusion: The US and Canada are playing the same game at the same time with its citizens.

End Game: THEY will interpret it however THEY choose to. Nobody will be exempt and words are only words. It's how the OFFICIALS interpret them that will matter in the eleventh hour. THEY are the ones who have the yes men attorneys in their pockets when they decide who is a danger to society.

How many here on this thread can afford a stellar attorney?
Not I.

Excellent summary.

We also need to stress that all these "laws" are written by lawyers, not average citizens.

They use language that can be turned around at any time depending on what somebody in power wants.
(not necessarily politicians either)

Definitions of words can be changed by whoever yells the loudest.

The courts decide in favor of the highest bidder.

The citizens are not the highest bidder.

Everything is written and enforced based on the commercial corporatism complexes.

We live under Admiralty law.

Laws CAN be specific, but in this case, they do not want specifics.