I don't understand the idea of mass protests. I do understand disagreeing with something or wanting to change government policies but I don't understand how protesting would do that. It seems if you don't like the colour of your neighbour's house, protest! I don't understand riots either. From what I've been seeing in the news, riots break out when the protester’s idea of democracy doesn't work. The image I currently have of protesters is “Hey wait, the government didn't bend to my will, break stuff!”
Here are the protests that currently stick out in my mind. The Occupy Movement and the Quebec student protests. What do these people expect from their actions? Why is their idea of democracy more important or more valid than anyone else’s? I vote, I participate in government decisions as often as I can. I speak to my representatives as I need to. I don't go out onto the street, march in large groups and light vehicles on fire when things don't go my way.
When Occupy Calgary was active, they showed liberal hypocrisy at it’s finest. Occupy Calgary decided their movement would camp in a downtown park, which is not legal in this city. When they were told they could not do this, and were even fined for it, they whipped out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The occupiers stated it was their Charter right to camp in the downtown park for as long as they wished. They had “Freedom of Peaceful Assembly” since they were a protest movement (just with no tangible message). What this section doesn’t mention however, is camping. It does talk about people coming together collectively to defend a common interest, so why couldn’t the occupiers do this during legitimate park hours? Next, in the name of democracy, the occupiers said they would stay in the park until the government met their ridiculous list of demands. I’m sorry what? What government, democratic or otherwise, bows to force like that? I also have to question why they think their democratic right is more important than mine? Ah yes... They have an entitlement complex so big it doesn’t fit into most stadiums.
What started the Quebec student protests was a tuition increase to post secondary education. Their tuition is to increase by $325/year for 5 years. It was then changed to an increase of $1800 over 7 years which works out to about $260/year. The Quebec student protesters believe the tuition either remain the same or be struck all together. I question while they rage against the tuition increase, how many of them have smart phones? How many of them pay the bill, and what would they do if their monthly rate increased?
It has become well known that tuition in Quebec is lower than anywhere else in Canada. The rest of the tuition cost is paid for by Canadian taxpayers. If tuition is to stay where it is now, it means the equalization payments they currently receive (which is also the highest in Canada by more than twice as much as the next province) would have to be budgeted to subsidize the schools, yet be taken away from something more important like health care. Taxes would also have to increase in Quebec by a substantial amount for the working class to subsidize the entitled class. If these protesting students were ever to become working class, they may no longer feel increasing taxes is an acceptable solution.
Some of the protesting rioting students want free post secondary education. They truly believe it should be fully subsidized by the government. I have an even bigger issue with this. Where do these small minded, highly entitled rioters think the government’s money comes from? I personally don’t want my taxes to increase to allow them free access to university. If, by some weird chance they did get their way, I would want course availability be ones that create productive working class citizens to be paid for by the government. I don’t only mean trades, other examples would be business applications, nursing, and so forth. “Psychology of the Exceptional Human Experience” or “Learning from Youtube” should not be tax payer subsidized as they would be useless in the real world. If someone wants to learn “Philosophy of Star Trek” (honest to God) they can do that on their own dime.
As it stands, I truly believe Quebec’s equalization payments should decrease by a substantial amount. They need to get their house in order, so to speak. As long as Quebecers are willing to destroy their own cities, they should not be deserving of the rest of Canada’s money except for food, clothing, health care and police. Why should they get more, they’ll only burn it. The protesters and rioters are of the age of majority, and as it stands, we in this country believe that those over 18 years old should be responsible members of society. That also means they need to learn to live with the consequences of their actions and right now, what they are doing is affecting their entire province. The protesters are getting out-of-province union money, they don’t need anyone else’s. Perhaps they can use that money to fix the damage that’s been done.
These protesters, all of them, not just the Quebec students or the occupiers, have not considered what they’re asking for when they demand a fully socialist government. These people say hate the rich, take from the rich, tax the rich. What happens if the socialist protesters win? There will be no more rich in their perfect world as capitalism will no longer exist and everyone will be on equal footing. The currently rich will only exist for so long then the money is all gone. The evil capitalist corporations they hate so much, that support the system they decry but pay the taxes they love will be nationalized in said perfect world and their money is gone. People who were rich or working to become rich no longer have anything to work towards. There would be no point. They would only lose it all to entitled socialist brats who have never had to work for anything more than a passing grade. And even that is slowly disappearing from our educational system in the name of “self-esteem.”
Even through all of this, what troubles me most about these protesters/rioters is their hypocrisy and the fact that they can’t see it. In a lot of cases, when their own hypocrisy is pointed out to them, they simply ignore it. If you even try to tell one of these protesters that what they are doing is not democratic, they tell you that you are wrong. They don’t debate, they dictate. Giving a government an ultimatum in any other country is called a coup or terrorist act. Here, they call it freedom of speech, only with burning cars and injured officers.
I hope one of these days these useless and damaging protests and riots end. Maybe these people who are so eager to yell at the world will realize that protesting every little inequity doesn’t change anything. I also hope that the entitled class realizes that just because they don’t get their way, they can’t throw a temper tantrum and break their neighbour’s toys in retaliation. The rest of us stop listening to them and will never take them seriously. Attacking or injuring a police officer may seem cool today but tomorrow we’ll all see it on TV and guess what, we’re the ones that might see your resume on our desks.
We could go out and protest about the evils of the world... Wait, no we can’t. We’re too busy working for a living.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Recent Riots and the Entitlement Complex
Lately as I read the news, I get more and more depressed about the future of the world. I wonder how children are raised as I see and infer the values of teens and 20 somethings. Are they raised so poorly, or are they in fact less intelligent? Where did this massive entitlement complex that I've been witnessing come from? I did a lot of reading on various protests during the height of the occupy movement, and it’s forefront on my mind again with the protests and riots in Quebec.
There have always been and will always be protests and riots. In 2003, I was part of an aquaculture rally. Environmentalists showed up to protest fish farming with their little signs and we were prepared with our own. What I noticed though is ours didn't have derogatory words and vile comments on them. Because of this, we were using our signs to cover theirs up - not because we felt our message was more important, but because there were children in the crowd. The so called pro-environmental anti-fish farming protesters got quite upset by this. We got physically threatened by the environmentalists, so I just stood close to my professional accountant husband who just happens to be 6'2” with 52” shoulders. Why did the environmentalists/protesters believe they had a right to threaten us in any manner or for any reason? I would never think to physically threaten anyone.
With the occupy movement last year, the protesters took over parks in all kinds of cities maintaining it was their right. The one overriding message I received from the movement was money should be given to everyone who has never earned it as long it's taken forcibly from all those who did. I saw millions of dollars of damage caused by the occupiers in these cities, including my own, justified by them as a consequence of the occupation. I saw people hurt, assaulted and killed in various places due to the occupation. The occupiers wanted rules changed to suit their wants and desires, and they wanted anyone who worked for a living to be harmed economically. I question where this attitude of money for nothing comes from. When did this attitude of physically harming each other consequence-free spring forth? I also ask why due process is good for occupiers, but should be thrown out the window for anyone with more than two cents to rub together? I wished for the occupiers to be removed from my city park using lawful means. The occupiers on the other hand felt it was their right to break the law as long as they were protesting some non-issue.
In England last year and Greece this year, there were anti-Austerity protests turned riots. In both cases, during the riots cars and buildings were damaged and vandalized, and looting was rampant. Arson attacks were also common in both cases. There were many injuries and arrests. The damage was so excessive that the countries are in economic crisis. I'm having a problem understanding the mentality that says “the government is doing something I don’t like, quick, destroy something!” In the videos that I watched, most of the people throwing things, screaming, marching down the street appeared to be in their twenties.
From what I read, the countries are in trouble and are in a situation where they MUST borrow money. The creditor countries gave them terms and conditions, as I would expect. In an effort to save their economies, the troubled countries agreed to the terms and conditions, but the citizens said no, they want status quo. It was status quo that was killing their countries in the first place. So, to make their respective governments do exactly what they wished, the citizens trashed their own backyards. Apparently money can be invented from nothing, but what do I know - I've only gone to school, on my own dime, for business and finance related topics.
In Montreal, students began protesting over a tuition increase proposal of $325 every year for 5 years. Considering Quebec resident students have the lowest tuition of any Canadian, that isn't bad. Our tax dollars pay the rest of their school costs. Quebec students on the other hand think this is a total slap in the face, and have actually stopped going to school to protest this increase. At first the protests were peaceful. The striking students went from peaceful protesters to violent rioters in no time flat. Rocks have been thrown, bank windows have been broken, cars have been attacked and lit on fire, journalists have been pepper sprayed, and officers have been injured. The damage they’ve caused so far is probably far more than the proposed increase. That, to me, would mean all taxes in Quebec should increase to cover the cost of the riot. I've read of about 85 arrests so far, but who knows what else is happening. Now, here's the best part: in at least one of the schools, the striking students are contemplating a class action lawsuit against the school to prevent the school from penalizing them for boycotting classes or missing exams! http://bit.ly/K4y48X I beg your pardon? Did I actually read that correctly?
In each of these examples, the protesters seem to be demanding something for nothing or want life to be easy. When it's not, the peaceful protest becomes a violent riot. That is one severe entitlement complex and it's not contained by one city or even one country, it seems to be everywhere. I have my own theories on why the younger generations are affected by this “little emperor” complex. (I do realize I'm making sweeping generalizations.)
I'm 35 years old so I'm not really that much older than those of whom I'm speaking, but I seem to have a very different attitude. The twenty-somethings today and those younger seem to have grown up completely differently than I have, with a different value set. I've been told that comparing to myself isn't fair as I did part of my growing up in Inuvik, NWT, but I disagree.
I believe that the generations just younger than mine have not been given any rituals. I'm not only talking religious rituals, I'm talking any. Families don't generally sit down together for supper, kids don't have chores, there is no game night. If a family tries to do any of this, a lot of times, the children try to rebel against it because it's not viewed as “cool”. They’d rather be texting, facebooking, gaming, what-have-you.
The only consistent ritual that younger generations were raised with today is political correctness. Very few other rituals were introduced to them or if they were, it was not consistent They were not taught religion, or given chores, or even taught they had to work for their toys. If they played team sports, everyone was given a participation certificate and no one won, because everyone was a winner. In school, no one could fail. Children are even taught how to speak correctly so as not to accidentally offend anyone. This is their ritual. Any other morals and ethics are left out because it might be some kind of secular teaching and that's not good for them.
The problem with this type of teaching is, it does not prepare children for the real world. It gives an entire generation an entitlement complex so big, deflating it becomes near impossible. With this, they learn that if the whine, cry, and paint a banner, they too can change the world. If they were given any other ritual - be it family or religious - I believe they’d have another moral and ethical basis to work from. But because family is an inconvenience and religion is not politically correct, they were not taught there are in fact real world consequences to their actions, and not everything is easy. There is actual work involved in world-changing situations, so when things don't go their way, they have an emotional melt down.
The only things they have ever been taught is “power of positive students” and they can't fail no matter what. Being truly denied is not something they are equipped to deal with. When all out denial or opposition happens, and they're in large groups, they go off the deep end and feel a violent rampage is well within their right, as their lives have never before had anything except for positive consequences.
Instead of protesting or rioting, these people need to realize that they need to work at change. Things don't happen all at once and all actions - positive or negative - have consequences. I'm hoping that something is learned from these riots before something more severe happens. People have already been hurt and killed; personally, I don't want those numbers to increase.
I just had the advantage to sit and talk with my husband’s grandmother. She’s 92 and said something very interesting to me about these protests and riots by entitled twits who want something for nothing. “This is what I gave 5 years of my life for?” is all she had, and all she needed to say. She served during World War II and she’s disgusted with protesters and rioters today, and I don’t blame her one bit. She can’t believe why people start massive protests and what causes riots. She served so we could have freedom and she sees it being squandered. The entitlement complex is working us towards severe socialism and dictatorships when we should be working towards more freedoms.
My dad escaped East Germany for freedoms and the entitlement complex of these people is causing government to create laws that control us more and more. I have a big problem with this. He came here because it’s a free and democratic country. What these highly self-entitled protesters and rioters don’t realize is, with their wanting something for nothing, we’re slowly losing our rights and freedoms.
Due process doesn't always work in my favour, but it is there for a reason. I don't wish to live in a world of anarchy, nor do I wish to live in a socialist dictatorship. I work within the laws, and use them. I try to change them if I don't think they're right, but try I'll never burn down the buildings the laws are written in.
There have always been and will always be protests and riots. In 2003, I was part of an aquaculture rally. Environmentalists showed up to protest fish farming with their little signs and we were prepared with our own. What I noticed though is ours didn't have derogatory words and vile comments on them. Because of this, we were using our signs to cover theirs up - not because we felt our message was more important, but because there were children in the crowd. The so called pro-environmental anti-fish farming protesters got quite upset by this. We got physically threatened by the environmentalists, so I just stood close to my professional accountant husband who just happens to be 6'2” with 52” shoulders. Why did the environmentalists/protesters believe they had a right to threaten us in any manner or for any reason? I would never think to physically threaten anyone.
With the occupy movement last year, the protesters took over parks in all kinds of cities maintaining it was their right. The one overriding message I received from the movement was money should be given to everyone who has never earned it as long it's taken forcibly from all those who did. I saw millions of dollars of damage caused by the occupiers in these cities, including my own, justified by them as a consequence of the occupation. I saw people hurt, assaulted and killed in various places due to the occupation. The occupiers wanted rules changed to suit their wants and desires, and they wanted anyone who worked for a living to be harmed economically. I question where this attitude of money for nothing comes from. When did this attitude of physically harming each other consequence-free spring forth? I also ask why due process is good for occupiers, but should be thrown out the window for anyone with more than two cents to rub together? I wished for the occupiers to be removed from my city park using lawful means. The occupiers on the other hand felt it was their right to break the law as long as they were protesting some non-issue.
In England last year and Greece this year, there were anti-Austerity protests turned riots. In both cases, during the riots cars and buildings were damaged and vandalized, and looting was rampant. Arson attacks were also common in both cases. There were many injuries and arrests. The damage was so excessive that the countries are in economic crisis. I'm having a problem understanding the mentality that says “the government is doing something I don’t like, quick, destroy something!” In the videos that I watched, most of the people throwing things, screaming, marching down the street appeared to be in their twenties.
From what I read, the countries are in trouble and are in a situation where they MUST borrow money. The creditor countries gave them terms and conditions, as I would expect. In an effort to save their economies, the troubled countries agreed to the terms and conditions, but the citizens said no, they want status quo. It was status quo that was killing their countries in the first place. So, to make their respective governments do exactly what they wished, the citizens trashed their own backyards. Apparently money can be invented from nothing, but what do I know - I've only gone to school, on my own dime, for business and finance related topics.
In Montreal, students began protesting over a tuition increase proposal of $325 every year for 5 years. Considering Quebec resident students have the lowest tuition of any Canadian, that isn't bad. Our tax dollars pay the rest of their school costs. Quebec students on the other hand think this is a total slap in the face, and have actually stopped going to school to protest this increase. At first the protests were peaceful. The striking students went from peaceful protesters to violent rioters in no time flat. Rocks have been thrown, bank windows have been broken, cars have been attacked and lit on fire, journalists have been pepper sprayed, and officers have been injured. The damage they’ve caused so far is probably far more than the proposed increase. That, to me, would mean all taxes in Quebec should increase to cover the cost of the riot. I've read of about 85 arrests so far, but who knows what else is happening. Now, here's the best part: in at least one of the schools, the striking students are contemplating a class action lawsuit against the school to prevent the school from penalizing them for boycotting classes or missing exams! http://bit.ly/K4y48X I beg your pardon? Did I actually read that correctly?
In each of these examples, the protesters seem to be demanding something for nothing or want life to be easy. When it's not, the peaceful protest becomes a violent riot. That is one severe entitlement complex and it's not contained by one city or even one country, it seems to be everywhere. I have my own theories on why the younger generations are affected by this “little emperor” complex. (I do realize I'm making sweeping generalizations.)
I'm 35 years old so I'm not really that much older than those of whom I'm speaking, but I seem to have a very different attitude. The twenty-somethings today and those younger seem to have grown up completely differently than I have, with a different value set. I've been told that comparing to myself isn't fair as I did part of my growing up in Inuvik, NWT, but I disagree.
I believe that the generations just younger than mine have not been given any rituals. I'm not only talking religious rituals, I'm talking any. Families don't generally sit down together for supper, kids don't have chores, there is no game night. If a family tries to do any of this, a lot of times, the children try to rebel against it because it's not viewed as “cool”. They’d rather be texting, facebooking, gaming, what-have-you.
The only consistent ritual that younger generations were raised with today is political correctness. Very few other rituals were introduced to them or if they were, it was not consistent They were not taught religion, or given chores, or even taught they had to work for their toys. If they played team sports, everyone was given a participation certificate and no one won, because everyone was a winner. In school, no one could fail. Children are even taught how to speak correctly so as not to accidentally offend anyone. This is their ritual. Any other morals and ethics are left out because it might be some kind of secular teaching and that's not good for them.
The problem with this type of teaching is, it does not prepare children for the real world. It gives an entire generation an entitlement complex so big, deflating it becomes near impossible. With this, they learn that if the whine, cry, and paint a banner, they too can change the world. If they were given any other ritual - be it family or religious - I believe they’d have another moral and ethical basis to work from. But because family is an inconvenience and religion is not politically correct, they were not taught there are in fact real world consequences to their actions, and not everything is easy. There is actual work involved in world-changing situations, so when things don't go their way, they have an emotional melt down.
The only things they have ever been taught is “power of positive students” and they can't fail no matter what. Being truly denied is not something they are equipped to deal with. When all out denial or opposition happens, and they're in large groups, they go off the deep end and feel a violent rampage is well within their right, as their lives have never before had anything except for positive consequences.
Instead of protesting or rioting, these people need to realize that they need to work at change. Things don't happen all at once and all actions - positive or negative - have consequences. I'm hoping that something is learned from these riots before something more severe happens. People have already been hurt and killed; personally, I don't want those numbers to increase.
I just had the advantage to sit and talk with my husband’s grandmother. She’s 92 and said something very interesting to me about these protests and riots by entitled twits who want something for nothing. “This is what I gave 5 years of my life for?” is all she had, and all she needed to say. She served during World War II and she’s disgusted with protesters and rioters today, and I don’t blame her one bit. She can’t believe why people start massive protests and what causes riots. She served so we could have freedom and she sees it being squandered. The entitlement complex is working us towards severe socialism and dictatorships when we should be working towards more freedoms.
My dad escaped East Germany for freedoms and the entitlement complex of these people is causing government to create laws that control us more and more. I have a big problem with this. He came here because it’s a free and democratic country. What these highly self-entitled protesters and rioters don’t realize is, with their wanting something for nothing, we’re slowly losing our rights and freedoms.
Due process doesn't always work in my favour, but it is there for a reason. I don't wish to live in a world of anarchy, nor do I wish to live in a socialist dictatorship. I work within the laws, and use them. I try to change them if I don't think they're right, but try I'll never burn down the buildings the laws are written in.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The Battle is Won but the War is Just Begun
April 5, 2012 was a great day as tonight the long gun registry was done away with. It's no longer available to authorities and we don't need to go through this useless process for buying and selling non-restricted rifles and shotguns anymore! Well, everyone EXCEPT gun owners in Quebec which is unfortunate. I'm seriously hoping they win with the rest of us.
This is a big deal because I'm currently helping out at the Calgary Gun Show. It was a very different show from last year. I've been seeing many more people buying, trading, and selling rifles because the process is that much easier. It's nice. Everyone who has a gun, has a license. It's a room full of lawful people doing lawful things lawfully and NOT being punished for simply wanting to own a firearm.
As much as I would like to say the fight is over, it really isn't. This is just a step in the right direction. So many other things about the Firearms Act must change. How lawful firearms owners are viewed needs to change. Gun control advocates have to stop vilifying law abiding citizens and realize it is the actual criminals that require punishment, not us.
There are changes that need to happen in the criminal code. For example, there needs to be a repeal of Section 91 and 92 of the criminal code. These two sections are:
If the person leaves their home, with their restricted firearm but forgets the registration certificate at home, they are deemed a criminal. Again, this person could be jailed for up to four years. What bothers me about this is, if actual criminals are caught with unregistered or stolen firearms, the first thing they try to have removed from their case is the firearms offence and they are successful a good deal of the time. Not only that, actual criminals have lesser sentences for actual crimes. Law abiding citizens, who have never done anything wrong in their lives however are raked over the coals for paper crimes. How can anyone think this is okay?
What I have JUST learned is the firearms license is the ONLY document that keeps law abiding citizens from being convicted under the section 91. This is scary for so many reasons. There is this person called Governor in Council that can revoke any and all licenses under section 119 as long as a letter of explanation is presented to Parliament. So in one fell swoop, all law abiding Canadian gun owners could be made criminals because this person decides it. The best part, the Governor in Council is another name for the Minister in Charge of the Firearms Act.
There are a number of worries with section 91 and 92 but what everyone should concern themselves with is this: if/when there is a conviction under these sections, there was never a threat, intimidation, robbery, injury, violence, murder, or a victim. The once law abiding citizen can go to jail for up to 10 years for a paper crime and there is almost nothing they can do about it.
Something else that I've learned about is Clause 69 and Clause 70. A Chief Firearms Officer can refuse to issue a license, registration, or ATT as long as you are provided notification. The owner has a right to appeal but I don't actually know the process or why a CFO would refuse or revoke these for anyone. Then again, I don't know why anyone would write such spiteful laws against law abiding people. Personally, I would write laws to punish criminals, not honest people. But, that's just me.
The Federal Liberal Party put so many laws in to punish the law abiding so many years ago and over time it's gotten worse. Not only that, the police and the government have actually punished lawful people using the firearms act. The ONLY advantage that's come of this is to tighten up the laws and make them more understandable. They were written vaguely so that they could be interpreted any way authorities wished at the moment. This is not a good way to treat a population of any country, especially a group of people that should be the biggest advocates for police and safety of a country.
What I hope left wing gun control advocates realize is punishing lawful people will get them no where. Blaming us or blaming the tool for tragedies is never a good idea. If so, then cars should be blamed for crashes, fast food restaurants should be blamed for overweight people, knives should be blamed for stabbing, and bombs should be blamed for war.
Royal assent of Bill C-19 is merely a step in the right direction. We need to keep fighting for our rights and freedoms. As long as we keep at it, keep speaking with those in power and keep using due process, we will win. We can't stop, ever. If we're quiet for even a minute, they'll think we've gone away. The world is changed by those who show up.
This is a big deal because I'm currently helping out at the Calgary Gun Show. It was a very different show from last year. I've been seeing many more people buying, trading, and selling rifles because the process is that much easier. It's nice. Everyone who has a gun, has a license. It's a room full of lawful people doing lawful things lawfully and NOT being punished for simply wanting to own a firearm.
What I don't think the left wing liberal crowd realizes is we won this step through due process. Gun owners didn't protest in the street. We didn't scream and yell or get ourselves arrested and call that a win. We didn't damage public property and stop traffic or feel entitled and put upon when we didn't get our way. For 17 years, we fought to have the laws changed so that law abiding people didn't get punished for simply wanting to own a gun. We also didn't expect this change to happen overnight simply because we wanted it. We fought for this step tooth and nail.
There are changes that need to happen in the criminal code. For example, there needs to be a repeal of Section 91 and 92 of the criminal code. These two sections are:
- Section 91 – Unauthorized possession of firearm;
- Section 92 – Possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized.
If the person leaves their home, with their restricted firearm but forgets the registration certificate at home, they are deemed a criminal. Again, this person could be jailed for up to four years. What bothers me about this is, if actual criminals are caught with unregistered or stolen firearms, the first thing they try to have removed from their case is the firearms offence and they are successful a good deal of the time. Not only that, actual criminals have lesser sentences for actual crimes. Law abiding citizens, who have never done anything wrong in their lives however are raked over the coals for paper crimes. How can anyone think this is okay?
What I have JUST learned is the firearms license is the ONLY document that keeps law abiding citizens from being convicted under the section 91. This is scary for so many reasons. There is this person called Governor in Council that can revoke any and all licenses under section 119 as long as a letter of explanation is presented to Parliament. So in one fell swoop, all law abiding Canadian gun owners could be made criminals because this person decides it. The best part, the Governor in Council is another name for the Minister in Charge of the Firearms Act.
There are a number of worries with section 91 and 92 but what everyone should concern themselves with is this: if/when there is a conviction under these sections, there was never a threat, intimidation, robbery, injury, violence, murder, or a victim. The once law abiding citizen can go to jail for up to 10 years for a paper crime and there is almost nothing they can do about it.
Something else that I've learned about is Clause 69 and Clause 70. A Chief Firearms Officer can refuse to issue a license, registration, or ATT as long as you are provided notification. The owner has a right to appeal but I don't actually know the process or why a CFO would refuse or revoke these for anyone. Then again, I don't know why anyone would write such spiteful laws against law abiding people. Personally, I would write laws to punish criminals, not honest people. But, that's just me.
The Federal Liberal Party put so many laws in to punish the law abiding so many years ago and over time it's gotten worse. Not only that, the police and the government have actually punished lawful people using the firearms act. The ONLY advantage that's come of this is to tighten up the laws and make them more understandable. They were written vaguely so that they could be interpreted any way authorities wished at the moment. This is not a good way to treat a population of any country, especially a group of people that should be the biggest advocates for police and safety of a country.
What I hope left wing gun control advocates realize is punishing lawful people will get them no where. Blaming us or blaming the tool for tragedies is never a good idea. If so, then cars should be blamed for crashes, fast food restaurants should be blamed for overweight people, knives should be blamed for stabbing, and bombs should be blamed for war.
Royal assent of Bill C-19 is merely a step in the right direction. We need to keep fighting for our rights and freedoms. As long as we keep at it, keep speaking with those in power and keep using due process, we will win. We can't stop, ever. If we're quiet for even a minute, they'll think we've gone away. The world is changed by those who show up.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Follow-Up Meeting on the Landfill Fire
On March 29th, my husband and I went to a follow-up town hall meeting put together by Alderman Colley-Urquhart regarding the Tsuu-T'ina landfill fire that started on February 8th, 2012. There weren’t nearly as many people at this one as at the first. You’d think it would be quieter but it wasn’t. She had invited a panel from the Alberta Health Services to explain to us their role during that time. It was quite the interesting meeting.
In the first five minutes, Alderman Colley-Urquhart explained her position on the media attack of her first meeting. As Alderman, it is not her in her purview to invite Chief Big Plume to anything as he is the band leader. That would be the responsibility of the mayor to do so and once she said it, it made a lot of sense. Personally, I never thought it was her responsibility to invite him as she made it clear to us that she wanted the perspective of the residents in her ward before she moved forward. Having him there would have been a detriment to what we were trying to accomplish that first night.
The panel that addressed us was a five member panel from Alberta Health Services and Environmental Monitoring. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail because I didn’t record it, so most of this is from memory. Each person explained what they did and who they spoke to. They did explain in great detail how air quality was measured (I found out from their map that one of the monitors was very close to my home). They also explained why it took so long for the process to start.
The doctors that were there explained that as information came to them, they called schools and media to tell them what they needed to know about the situation. They also told us each of the departments wrote reports on their responsibilities. These reports are being studied and compiled so that they can come up with a better response if something like this were to happen again. This is reactionary, but like everyone else, AHS needs to learn as well. I’m hoping an incident such as this doesn’t happen again but being this is the third incident from the reserve that people remember, we all worry.
For environmental monitoring, Alberta right now only has one very specialized vehicle and it was in Edmonton. From the time it was determined there was this massive fire to “we need to know what people are breathing in” it took 3 hours to get the vehicle down here. It's a little scary but I'm glad to know. We also learned that the Tsuu T’ina used 3 separate volunteer fire departments to help put the fire out and never did call the Calgary Fire Department.
One of the doctors did explain that the schools were told to close their fresh air intake. A gentleman in the crowd brought up that for homes this isn’t an option as gas furnaces require the fresh air intakes to run. That’s when I learned (like many others) that furnaces have two intakes; a fresh air intake and a combustion air intake and we should have closed the fresh air intakes to our homes as well. Again, stuff I would have liked to know but never found and was never told until long after the fact.
Some of the questions that the panel could not answer were:
To me, the panel was there to address their participation in “the incident” as they called it. They were not there to address their participation in other incidents or tell us “should have beens.” I believe they described what they did very effectively. Not only that, they described to my satisfaction the next steps to be taken. Obviously, it's not helping us out for the this fire but I would like to have had this information at the time.
I really did feel alone and helpless. I heard a couple of times (from my husband as well) that they didn't hear about the air advisory until it was all over. The only reason I knew about it is because I looked for it. To me, that means Alberta Health Services didn't let the media know how truly important this was. If AHS needs to stand out on the street and yell it at the neighbourhood, then do so! It did affect asthma sufferers and from what I've understood, some people are still suffering some ill effects. At least one person had to stay in a hotel and it was a very real possibility for my husband.
I did a quick estimate of the number of people that were affected by this fire and I know that this number is low. I believe it to be roughly 100,000 people yet I feel we were not taken very seriously. I understand now that a few different services were involved in making sure we were safe but we weren't told. I had to search hard for the smallest amount of information and I am good at finding almost anything on the internet.
A lot of questions came up here that did come up at the previous meeting. Some general complaining happened as well but that's to be expected at anything like this. I didn't mind that so much. That way I knew I wasn't the only one feeling helpless. What I didn’t appreciate was the one woman who spoke up, sitting in front of me. She said she was hearing a lot of racism towards the Tsuu T’ina Nation. Apparently we were at different meetings. I had to disagree with her. I myself am aboriginal (I’m not from the Tsuu T’ina Nation) and if I felt any racist comments were being made, I would have been the first to speak up. She wanted those at the meeting to show respect and compassion for those on the reserve. Just as I was about to speak up, another woman sitting just to my left said very loudly “Do you want us all to leave then!” and that pretty much summed it up for me. I had nothing to add to that. I loved it! We were there to discuss how this fire and any potential future disaster would affect us and what the city could do and this woman was taking offence on behalf of someone else. Not only that, she didn't even take the time to see if there were other aboriginals in the room. That just annoys me, that does!
What I knew that morning was I woke up at 4am with my house full of smoke. When I discovered it wasn’t my house or my neighbours house that wasn’t on fire, it took hours to find anything on what it was. I had to search the internet hard to find one small paragraph at 9:30 am that told me there was a fire on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. I didn't find reference of the air advisory until 5pm that evening and I was one of the lucky ones to know that much. After a while, I knew the Calgary Fire Department wasn't going out to help. Other than that, I didn’t know much. I saw a lot of conflicting reports on what was going on. It was a controlled burn, it was accidental, it was underground, it was above ground and they drilled the boreholes to bring it under control and it goes on. I’m glad in this case, no one was harmed or killed but with the lack of information, who knows what will happen next time.
I hope with this, Alberta Health Services, The City of Calgary and the Tsuu T’ina Nation work together to find an amicable solution so a cross jurisdictional problem doesn’t stop anyone from helping anyone else again. That seems like such a silly excuse. Of all things for my tax money not to be used for, why a disaster that affected the health of myself, my husband, and my neighbours?
In the first five minutes, Alderman Colley-Urquhart explained her position on the media attack of her first meeting. As Alderman, it is not her in her purview to invite Chief Big Plume to anything as he is the band leader. That would be the responsibility of the mayor to do so and once she said it, it made a lot of sense. Personally, I never thought it was her responsibility to invite him as she made it clear to us that she wanted the perspective of the residents in her ward before she moved forward. Having him there would have been a detriment to what we were trying to accomplish that first night.
The panel that addressed us was a five member panel from Alberta Health Services and Environmental Monitoring. I’m not going to go into a lot of detail because I didn’t record it, so most of this is from memory. Each person explained what they did and who they spoke to. They did explain in great detail how air quality was measured (I found out from their map that one of the monitors was very close to my home). They also explained why it took so long for the process to start.
The doctors that were there explained that as information came to them, they called schools and media to tell them what they needed to know about the situation. They also told us each of the departments wrote reports on their responsibilities. These reports are being studied and compiled so that they can come up with a better response if something like this were to happen again. This is reactionary, but like everyone else, AHS needs to learn as well. I’m hoping an incident such as this doesn’t happen again but being this is the third incident from the reserve that people remember, we all worry.
For environmental monitoring, Alberta right now only has one very specialized vehicle and it was in Edmonton. From the time it was determined there was this massive fire to “we need to know what people are breathing in” it took 3 hours to get the vehicle down here. It's a little scary but I'm glad to know. We also learned that the Tsuu T’ina used 3 separate volunteer fire departments to help put the fire out and never did call the Calgary Fire Department.
One of the doctors did explain that the schools were told to close their fresh air intake. A gentleman in the crowd brought up that for homes this isn’t an option as gas furnaces require the fresh air intakes to run. That’s when I learned (like many others) that furnaces have two intakes; a fresh air intake and a combustion air intake and we should have closed the fresh air intakes to our homes as well. Again, stuff I would have liked to know but never found and was never told until long after the fact.
Some of the questions that the panel could not answer were:
- When did the fire actually start? (though based on our estimation, it was probably at about 11:00 pm)
- Why was the Calgary Fire Department not ultimately called to the landfill fire?
- What does the Tsuu T'ina Nation intend to do about the landfill?
- How is it possible or legal for the Tsuu T'ina Nation to run an unlicensed landfill?
To me, the panel was there to address their participation in “the incident” as they called it. They were not there to address their participation in other incidents or tell us “should have beens.” I believe they described what they did very effectively. Not only that, they described to my satisfaction the next steps to be taken. Obviously, it's not helping us out for the this fire but I would like to have had this information at the time.
I really did feel alone and helpless. I heard a couple of times (from my husband as well) that they didn't hear about the air advisory until it was all over. The only reason I knew about it is because I looked for it. To me, that means Alberta Health Services didn't let the media know how truly important this was. If AHS needs to stand out on the street and yell it at the neighbourhood, then do so! It did affect asthma sufferers and from what I've understood, some people are still suffering some ill effects. At least one person had to stay in a hotel and it was a very real possibility for my husband.
I did a quick estimate of the number of people that were affected by this fire and I know that this number is low. I believe it to be roughly 100,000 people yet I feel we were not taken very seriously. I understand now that a few different services were involved in making sure we were safe but we weren't told. I had to search hard for the smallest amount of information and I am good at finding almost anything on the internet.
A lot of questions came up here that did come up at the previous meeting. Some general complaining happened as well but that's to be expected at anything like this. I didn't mind that so much. That way I knew I wasn't the only one feeling helpless. What I didn’t appreciate was the one woman who spoke up, sitting in front of me. She said she was hearing a lot of racism towards the Tsuu T’ina Nation. Apparently we were at different meetings. I had to disagree with her. I myself am aboriginal (I’m not from the Tsuu T’ina Nation) and if I felt any racist comments were being made, I would have been the first to speak up. She wanted those at the meeting to show respect and compassion for those on the reserve. Just as I was about to speak up, another woman sitting just to my left said very loudly “Do you want us all to leave then!” and that pretty much summed it up for me. I had nothing to add to that. I loved it! We were there to discuss how this fire and any potential future disaster would affect us and what the city could do and this woman was taking offence on behalf of someone else. Not only that, she didn't even take the time to see if there were other aboriginals in the room. That just annoys me, that does!
What I knew that morning was I woke up at 4am with my house full of smoke. When I discovered it wasn’t my house or my neighbours house that wasn’t on fire, it took hours to find anything on what it was. I had to search the internet hard to find one small paragraph at 9:30 am that told me there was a fire on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. I didn't find reference of the air advisory until 5pm that evening and I was one of the lucky ones to know that much. After a while, I knew the Calgary Fire Department wasn't going out to help. Other than that, I didn’t know much. I saw a lot of conflicting reports on what was going on. It was a controlled burn, it was accidental, it was underground, it was above ground and they drilled the boreholes to bring it under control and it goes on. I’m glad in this case, no one was harmed or killed but with the lack of information, who knows what will happen next time.
I hope with this, Alberta Health Services, The City of Calgary and the Tsuu T’ina Nation work together to find an amicable solution so a cross jurisdictional problem doesn’t stop anyone from helping anyone else again. That seems like such a silly excuse. Of all things for my tax money not to be used for, why a disaster that affected the health of myself, my husband, and my neighbours?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
When My Mind Plays With Me
Early this morning, I'm sitting at home, listening to music, editing some of my new photos, when I hear a big thump in the basement. What happens when a girl is home alone, she starts to think about monsters. At first I was just going to willy nilly go downstairs and see what fell then something occurred to me... my firearms are stored downstairs and now the monsters are armed.
Yes, I have my cat minions and they are quite capable. My cats are Anubis, 9kg and all muscle, Phaedrus, 8kg strong and sarcastic (yes, cats can be sarcastic), and Bettie Paige, 2 kg and feisty! I'm just not sure what they can do against monsters armed with my husband's AR15 and a 12 gauge shot gun or two.
Now it took four seconds for my mind to come up with this scenario. The monsters quietly tunnelled up under my house straight into the locked room so they don't need the first set of keys. This is an amazing feat as my basement, like most others is concrete. Being monsters, they get into the safe (that was the thump you see.) They now have my guns. I'm not sure why they need them but they have them. Unfortunately, I heard the thump of the safe cracking so I interrupt their escape armed only with cat minions. Of course this is where all my problems would begin!
See why firearms laws need to change! If I had a place to store firearms upstairs or could store them a touch differently OR was even allowed to defend myself against basement tunnelling gun stealing monsters with firearms, this wouldn't be a problem. Well, it still might be as the really cool guns would still be downstairs but at least I would have a fighting chance. Next there could be spiders, I mean really big ones, like the one in my sink in Tofino that made me scream so loud that my neighbour thought I was being murdered and did in fact come to my rescue. It had facial expressions and I'm pretty sure if I went at it with a baseball bat it would have taken it from me but I digress.
In all seriousness, gun storage safety is always a top priority in any household and self defence with or without a firearm should be taught, especially to women. I was by no means in danger today but there is always that “what if” in the back of my mind. Being that I'm in Canada, I have some of that female self-defence-kick 'em-and-runaway training. I have a very protective husband so I've never had to use it. He's got this amazing advantage over most people, he just stands there and looks menacingly big! We don't get bothered much, anywhere, ever. It's just too bad I didn't have him here this morning to go face the tunnelling thieving monsters in my basement.
 |
| Me and my cat minions |
Yes, I have my cat minions and they are quite capable. My cats are Anubis, 9kg and all muscle, Phaedrus, 8kg strong and sarcastic (yes, cats can be sarcastic), and Bettie Paige, 2 kg and feisty! I'm just not sure what they can do against monsters armed with my husband's AR15 and a 12 gauge shot gun or two.
Now it took four seconds for my mind to come up with this scenario. The monsters quietly tunnelled up under my house straight into the locked room so they don't need the first set of keys. This is an amazing feat as my basement, like most others is concrete. Being monsters, they get into the safe (that was the thump you see.) They now have my guns. I'm not sure why they need them but they have them. Unfortunately, I heard the thump of the safe cracking so I interrupt their escape armed only with cat minions. Of course this is where all my problems would begin!
 |
| The Leader of the Tunnel Monsters |
See why firearms laws need to change! If I had a place to store firearms upstairs or could store them a touch differently OR was even allowed to defend myself against basement tunnelling gun stealing monsters with firearms, this wouldn't be a problem. Well, it still might be as the really cool guns would still be downstairs but at least I would have a fighting chance. Next there could be spiders, I mean really big ones, like the one in my sink in Tofino that made me scream so loud that my neighbour thought I was being murdered and did in fact come to my rescue. It had facial expressions and I'm pretty sure if I went at it with a baseball bat it would have taken it from me but I digress.
In all seriousness, gun storage safety is always a top priority in any household and self defence with or without a firearm should be taught, especially to women. I was by no means in danger today but there is always that “what if” in the back of my mind. Being that I'm in Canada, I have some of that female self-defence-kick 'em-and-runaway training. I have a very protective husband so I've never had to use it. He's got this amazing advantage over most people, he just stands there and looks menacingly big! We don't get bothered much, anywhere, ever. It's just too bad I didn't have him here this morning to go face the tunnelling thieving monsters in my basement.
 |
| Me and My Husband |
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Privacy is not Secrecy
Over the last few months, I've been paying attention to the scrapping of the long gun registry. The one common argument that keeps coming up to keep the long gun registry is violence against women and it's really beginning to annoy me. I have never been victimized by a family member and my husband is good to me, but listening to these victims advocates groups, I'm either lying or it's only a matter of time. Why, when debating the long gun registry, is it only female victims that seem to matter?
My husband and I both have possession and acquisition licenses but I only got mine last year. That means for the years prior, he had some mystical power over me because only he had a firearms license. The guns were still in our house and personally I never feared them - but until I listened to the senate hearing debates, I should have. Someone should have told me.
Victims advocates groups seem to work from the idea that everyone (men) are going to break the law. They are going to hurt women, they will control and abuse us and we need to be afraid. I have never feared my dad or my husband.
These victims advocates groups also work from the idea that the more personal data they have on people before a crime is committed the better. Why is that? If someone is law abiding, why do police need access to any of their personal data? It's bad enough that to get a firearm's license, I have to provide some really private information to the police, but after that, what else do the police need? They get my vital stats, medical information, two personal referrals, it's a little crazy. I understand it's for safety but they also do a background check of their own on me. I have an easier time getting into and out of countries.
I have every respect for anyone who has been victimized. They need help, they need due process, they need protection, however, that shouldn't mean victims rights overrules the rights and privacy of law abiding Canadians. As far as I know, Canada is still called a democracy.
I do believe that criminals need to pay the price for what they have done. Criminal laws need to be directed at them. General laws should not be written to punish the law abiding, but that is what's happening. I can understand that once a crime is committed, that person has forfeited their right to privacy. But if a person has not committed a crime, I believe privacy is very important. Having to forcibly supply personal data to the police is tantamount to warrantless searches. I question again, why is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even there?
Help victims, punish criminals, protect the law abiding and as long as the government can keep that in mind we'll all be happier. Victims rights are important, the rights of the law abiding are just as important and privacy does not mean secrecy.
My husband and I both have possession and acquisition licenses but I only got mine last year. That means for the years prior, he had some mystical power over me because only he had a firearms license. The guns were still in our house and personally I never feared them - but until I listened to the senate hearing debates, I should have. Someone should have told me.
Victims advocates groups seem to work from the idea that everyone (men) are going to break the law. They are going to hurt women, they will control and abuse us and we need to be afraid. I have never feared my dad or my husband.
These victims advocates groups also work from the idea that the more personal data they have on people before a crime is committed the better. Why is that? If someone is law abiding, why do police need access to any of their personal data? It's bad enough that to get a firearm's license, I have to provide some really private information to the police, but after that, what else do the police need? They get my vital stats, medical information, two personal referrals, it's a little crazy. I understand it's for safety but they also do a background check of their own on me. I have an easier time getting into and out of countries.
I have every respect for anyone who has been victimized. They need help, they need due process, they need protection, however, that shouldn't mean victims rights overrules the rights and privacy of law abiding Canadians. As far as I know, Canada is still called a democracy.
I do believe that criminals need to pay the price for what they have done. Criminal laws need to be directed at them. General laws should not be written to punish the law abiding, but that is what's happening. I can understand that once a crime is committed, that person has forfeited their right to privacy. But if a person has not committed a crime, I believe privacy is very important. Having to forcibly supply personal data to the police is tantamount to warrantless searches. I question again, why is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even there?
Help victims, punish criminals, protect the law abiding and as long as the government can keep that in mind we'll all be happier. Victims rights are important, the rights of the law abiding are just as important and privacy does not mean secrecy.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Stop Warrantless Searches
When did this idea of warrantless searches in Canada become okay? When did they start? How can we make them stop? How can we make sure every Canadian know this is happening and that they can be the next victim of a warrantless search of some kind? I have not personally been a victim of a warrantless search, nor do I wish to be. What concerns me is, it seems only to be a matter of time.
It's been known for a long time that licensed law abiding gun owners were not subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have very little recourse but have been fighting this all along. Finally, a step in the right direction has happened with the scrapping of the long gun registry, although laws regarding licensed gun owners still need to change. The firearms act as a whole must be changed so that licensed gun owners once again fall within the Charter. Below is a site I found that explains how the Firearms Act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html
At any given time, for almost any reason, a licensed gun owner must submit to a search of their home if an authority deems it necessary. “Necessary” can be a neighbour saw the gun owner in their car with a black case, maybe even a gun case and makes a call to authorities. During that call, the neighbour says they feel unsafe. Authorities are allowed to enter the home according to the firearms act and there isn’t a thing that gun owners can do about it. Odds are fairly high the case was empty anyway, but it doesn’t matter. The best that’s happening is, parts of the act are being tested in court because of violation of gun owners rights.
Now, it appears it's not just licensed gun owners that fall outside the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. The imagination of a small child is cause for a warrantless search of a home, presumption of guilt until proven innocent, a family separated, and children interviewed without parental supervision. The picture the child drew is now gone so whether it ever existed is now based on the word and imagination of the teacher that saw it and listened to the child’s little story in the first place.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/01/government-has-no-place-at-family-table
Why is this okay? Where was the danger, or perception of danger? How is “my daddy shoots bad guys and monsters” a danger to any child and why were the parents not spoken to about it before it ever escalated to this level? Occam’s Razor would indicate that TV or video games would be the answer. How did this go from a white board drawing of a four year old to “the parents MUST be allowing the children to play with a real gun?” Common sense would dictate that with so many levels of authority, the teacher, the principal, the police AND child services, SOMEONE would consider another explanation would be more feasible. Instead they went straight to violating the parents rights, traumatizing the children, and overstepping their authority. The best part is, they would do it again. Maybe if they had to go to court and stand before a judge to secure a warrant for the search and separation of the children from the parents, this situation wouldn’t have been so blown out of proportion.
The SPCA can go onto private property under the auspice of investigating animal safety. The problem here is, the people doing the investigation may not have experience with the animals they are investigating up close. They then make a judgement and decide on fines based on visual assessments of the situation - as various Amish farms found out in Ontario. Again, these are warrantless searches, no one went to court, due process not sought. Those not directly affected by this allow it to happen. Charges are then laid such as “Animal in Distress” when the animals are perfectly healthy. I believe animals do need to be protected from cruelty but the people doing the investigations shouldn’t be permitted on private property without purpose. Yes, stop puppy mills, no, don’t interfere with a farm with perfectly healthy animals because it doesn’t meet with your idealistic view of what a healthy animal looks like. Again, if these people need to stand before a judge for a warrant and state that they believe there are animals in distress on a specific farm, actual proof may have to be provided for charges to be valid. But pesky things like due process get in the way of moral self importance, I suppose.
http://www.torontosun.com/videos/featured/featured-tor/1213592864001/bureaucrats-bust-the-amish/1485861708001
In British Columbia, warrantless searches happen based on power consumption in the home. If personal power consumption is too high, police officers and BC Hydro employees show up and demand entrance to the residence within 48 hours of initial notice. This happens because the home that uses “too much” energy is a possible marijuana grow operation, and for no other reason. The fact that it could be an old drafty home, or it’s large, or it runs a legal business notwithstanding. When I lived in BC, I had an outdoor hot tub, and let me tell you, that was not cheap to run. That could account for high power usage in a lot of cases, one would think. Again, if it were an actual grow op, go get a warrant. But it must be more fun and interesting for authorities to embarrass people by arbitrarily accusing them of being drug dealers.
Now, there is this thing called the Lawful Access bill. I know it's gone to committee but it's scary. When it was first presented to the public, it was presented as “you’re either for Bill C-30, or you’re with the child pornographers.” It is quite the statement, very black and white. It is really too bad the world doesn’t work like that. This bill, if brought into law is another one of those ways the government will be able to access our information and lives without a warrant. It is being put forth with the argument “well, other countries are doing it.” Why does that give my government the right to invade my privacy without due process? I have NO problem protecting children, and want them protected. Will this bill in fact protect children the same way the gun registry didn't prevent gun crimes though? So far, there has been nothing said about why this bill is needed except that it’s needed. It’s like saying I’m right because I’m right.
Like most, my family has been heavily affected by the past. My dad escaped from East Germany as a young man and moved to Canada for it's freedoms; my mom was in a Residential School. Yay me, I got it from both sides! It seemed for a time Canada was getting better. Residential Schools have been eliminated and as an escape from a dictatorship, what better place was there to go?
Now however, Canada is seeming like a scary place to live. The government is trying to raise our children, tell us what morals to live by, and convince us that contravening the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right thing to do, it’s for the good of all Canadians you know. I’ve seen people say “that law is fine, what do I have to hide.” Privacy is not secrecy and the desire for due process is not wrong. Why are the current government officials creating law and methods to circumvent due process, and why are so many Canadians okay with it?
To me, only those who do not wish to think for themselves would want the destruction of freedom. I, on the other hand, wish to maintain my privacy, wish to maintain my rights and freedoms, and wish to live in a democracy. I don’t like how Canada is changing. I don’t like that I’m afraid to have a child because a mis-speak could land myself or my husband in jail. I don’t like that warrantless searches have become okay among so many people. Why do we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It certainly looks good on paper.
This all looks so familiar, I’m sure this has happened somewhere before. If it has, if history has taught has anything, why are we letting it happen again?
It's been known for a long time that licensed law abiding gun owners were not subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have very little recourse but have been fighting this all along. Finally, a step in the right direction has happened with the scrapping of the long gun registry, although laws regarding licensed gun owners still need to change. The firearms act as a whole must be changed so that licensed gun owners once again fall within the Charter. Below is a site I found that explains how the Firearms Act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0080.html
At any given time, for almost any reason, a licensed gun owner must submit to a search of their home if an authority deems it necessary. “Necessary” can be a neighbour saw the gun owner in their car with a black case, maybe even a gun case and makes a call to authorities. During that call, the neighbour says they feel unsafe. Authorities are allowed to enter the home according to the firearms act and there isn’t a thing that gun owners can do about it. Odds are fairly high the case was empty anyway, but it doesn’t matter. The best that’s happening is, parts of the act are being tested in court because of violation of gun owners rights.
Now, it appears it's not just licensed gun owners that fall outside the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. The imagination of a small child is cause for a warrantless search of a home, presumption of guilt until proven innocent, a family separated, and children interviewed without parental supervision. The picture the child drew is now gone so whether it ever existed is now based on the word and imagination of the teacher that saw it and listened to the child’s little story in the first place.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/01/government-has-no-place-at-family-table
Why is this okay? Where was the danger, or perception of danger? How is “my daddy shoots bad guys and monsters” a danger to any child and why were the parents not spoken to about it before it ever escalated to this level? Occam’s Razor would indicate that TV or video games would be the answer. How did this go from a white board drawing of a four year old to “the parents MUST be allowing the children to play with a real gun?” Common sense would dictate that with so many levels of authority, the teacher, the principal, the police AND child services, SOMEONE would consider another explanation would be more feasible. Instead they went straight to violating the parents rights, traumatizing the children, and overstepping their authority. The best part is, they would do it again. Maybe if they had to go to court and stand before a judge to secure a warrant for the search and separation of the children from the parents, this situation wouldn’t have been so blown out of proportion.
The SPCA can go onto private property under the auspice of investigating animal safety. The problem here is, the people doing the investigation may not have experience with the animals they are investigating up close. They then make a judgement and decide on fines based on visual assessments of the situation - as various Amish farms found out in Ontario. Again, these are warrantless searches, no one went to court, due process not sought. Those not directly affected by this allow it to happen. Charges are then laid such as “Animal in Distress” when the animals are perfectly healthy. I believe animals do need to be protected from cruelty but the people doing the investigations shouldn’t be permitted on private property without purpose. Yes, stop puppy mills, no, don’t interfere with a farm with perfectly healthy animals because it doesn’t meet with your idealistic view of what a healthy animal looks like. Again, if these people need to stand before a judge for a warrant and state that they believe there are animals in distress on a specific farm, actual proof may have to be provided for charges to be valid. But pesky things like due process get in the way of moral self importance, I suppose.
http://www.torontosun.com/videos/featured/featured-tor/1213592864001/bureaucrats-bust-the-amish/1485861708001
In British Columbia, warrantless searches happen based on power consumption in the home. If personal power consumption is too high, police officers and BC Hydro employees show up and demand entrance to the residence within 48 hours of initial notice. This happens because the home that uses “too much” energy is a possible marijuana grow operation, and for no other reason. The fact that it could be an old drafty home, or it’s large, or it runs a legal business notwithstanding. When I lived in BC, I had an outdoor hot tub, and let me tell you, that was not cheap to run. That could account for high power usage in a lot of cases, one would think. Again, if it were an actual grow op, go get a warrant. But it must be more fun and interesting for authorities to embarrass people by arbitrarily accusing them of being drug dealers.
Now, there is this thing called the Lawful Access bill. I know it's gone to committee but it's scary. When it was first presented to the public, it was presented as “you’re either for Bill C-30, or you’re with the child pornographers.” It is quite the statement, very black and white. It is really too bad the world doesn’t work like that. This bill, if brought into law is another one of those ways the government will be able to access our information and lives without a warrant. It is being put forth with the argument “well, other countries are doing it.” Why does that give my government the right to invade my privacy without due process? I have NO problem protecting children, and want them protected. Will this bill in fact protect children the same way the gun registry didn't prevent gun crimes though? So far, there has been nothing said about why this bill is needed except that it’s needed. It’s like saying I’m right because I’m right.
Like most, my family has been heavily affected by the past. My dad escaped from East Germany as a young man and moved to Canada for it's freedoms; my mom was in a Residential School. Yay me, I got it from both sides! It seemed for a time Canada was getting better. Residential Schools have been eliminated and as an escape from a dictatorship, what better place was there to go?
Now however, Canada is seeming like a scary place to live. The government is trying to raise our children, tell us what morals to live by, and convince us that contravening the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right thing to do, it’s for the good of all Canadians you know. I’ve seen people say “that law is fine, what do I have to hide.” Privacy is not secrecy and the desire for due process is not wrong. Why are the current government officials creating law and methods to circumvent due process, and why are so many Canadians okay with it?
To me, only those who do not wish to think for themselves would want the destruction of freedom. I, on the other hand, wish to maintain my privacy, wish to maintain my rights and freedoms, and wish to live in a democracy. I don’t like how Canada is changing. I don’t like that I’m afraid to have a child because a mis-speak could land myself or my husband in jail. I don’t like that warrantless searches have become okay among so many people. Why do we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It certainly looks good on paper.
This all looks so familiar, I’m sure this has happened somewhere before. If it has, if history has taught has anything, why are we letting it happen again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)