To The Real King!!
July 3rd, 2000, 03:15 AM
Hi Everyone,
This is a very serious article about what our liberal government is planning. This is REALLY BAD NEWS!
-
Copyright © Montreal Gazette July 2, 2000
by George Jonas
Law vs. justice
-
Having one law for citizens and another
for the police is a recipe for a police state
-
Justice Minister Anne McLellan and Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay have proposed a law that would permit "reasonable and proportional acts" of lawbreaking by the police. Such acts would include just about every crime, short of murder, manslaughter and ---ual offences. The ostensible reason is that criminal gangs, somewhat like political terrorists, sometimes want new applicants to perform acts of initiation to prove they're bona fides - that is, to prove they aren't undercover police officers. This makes organizations harder to penetrate.
-
If the proposed legislation becomes law, officers will presumably deal drugs and commit robbery to better penetrate gangs. Sounds grand. It also sounds really useful, considering that it will take about a minute for gangs to figure out what undercover officers can't do, then demand, say, ---ual assault as an initiation.
-
It was only a matter of time, I suppose. This proposal has, in one form or another, surfaced many times before Officials have great fondness for being put above the law. Cops often complain they could be charged with making an illegal U-turn while chasing a kidnapper. In practice, the chances are remote. First, the authorities have a discretion whether to lay charges. Second, the police, like all citizens, have the common-law defense of necessity No court is likely to convict an officer who broke a speed limit to save a life.
-
Still, existing law puts officials in the uncomfortable position of having to use their heads once in a while. That's why many would prefer to have statutory permission to run red lights as it were, and drive on the wrong side of the road.
-
Politicians feel safe Introducing such legislation. The left won't be critical because it always approves of special powers going to the state. As for the right, it has a knee-jerk reaction to crime. It's unlikely to object to any measure aimed at criminal gangs.
-
The ultimate arrogance of statism is the belief that right and wrong are determined by government edict. This affliction is not new, nor is it peculiar to Jean Chretien's cabinet (though it seems to have a big dose of it). Twenty-odd years ago it was expressed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's famous shrug when Justice David MacDonald's report on the RCMP revealed that the Mounties had been burning down barns belonging to suspected Quebec separatists. Many Canadians were upset, but our P.E.T. remained undaunted. Between shrugs, he voiced opinion that if people were so concerned with the Mounties burning barns illegally, perhaps he'd make burning barns by the Mounties legal.
-
Trudeau wasn't alone in believing that this would settle the matter. Editorialists at the Toronto Star wrote that "if the police need to run a red light, speed, use false documents or plant bugs, then the right to do those things should be given to them by statute law.
-
To say that this missed the point is putting it mildly.
It's not wrong to burn barns because it's illegal; it's illegal to burn barns because it's wrong.
-
The fact that governments are competent to introduce legislation creates the illusion that governments determine matters of right and wrong. But arson or assault committed by a police officer is still arson or assault. Making a wrongful act right by legislation is beyond the state's competence. Only in James Bond movies can governments issue 007 licenses to kill.
-
Former East German police officers could point to statutes permitting or requiring them to shoot at people trying to cross the Berlin Wall. They were still jailed after unification, not because their acts were unlawful - they were not at all unlawful in East Germany's communist state but because their acts were wrong.
-
Unless a state is prepared to abandon the rule of law altogether, it can't have one law for citizens and another for the police. That road leads to a police state in this world, and (if you ask me) to perdition in the next.
-
It's not just arrogance or hubris that induces Ottawa's mandarins to think that they can have one law for their centurions and another for ordinary citizens. There's an even deeper error Many people fall into it, not only statist politicians.
-
The error is to think of the law as some magic tree that bears the fruit of justice. In fact, the opposite is true. It's the tree of justice that may, in good years, bear the fruit of the law.
-
George Jonas is a Toronto-based author and free lance journalist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of “allowing” the Police to break our laws is just one MORE example of this Liberal Government’s criminal path towards a “POLICE STATE” and its“rule by BRUTE FORCE“. The Canadian Public should think about this and decide if THIS is the type of government they want to live under and HOW to get rid of them in the Election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
Thanks,
To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/blacklrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org
This is a very serious article about what our liberal government is planning. This is REALLY BAD NEWS!
-
Copyright © Montreal Gazette July 2, 2000
by George Jonas
Law vs. justice
-
Having one law for citizens and another
for the police is a recipe for a police state
-
Justice Minister Anne McLellan and Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay have proposed a law that would permit "reasonable and proportional acts" of lawbreaking by the police. Such acts would include just about every crime, short of murder, manslaughter and ---ual offences. The ostensible reason is that criminal gangs, somewhat like political terrorists, sometimes want new applicants to perform acts of initiation to prove they're bona fides - that is, to prove they aren't undercover police officers. This makes organizations harder to penetrate.
-
If the proposed legislation becomes law, officers will presumably deal drugs and commit robbery to better penetrate gangs. Sounds grand. It also sounds really useful, considering that it will take about a minute for gangs to figure out what undercover officers can't do, then demand, say, ---ual assault as an initiation.
-
It was only a matter of time, I suppose. This proposal has, in one form or another, surfaced many times before Officials have great fondness for being put above the law. Cops often complain they could be charged with making an illegal U-turn while chasing a kidnapper. In practice, the chances are remote. First, the authorities have a discretion whether to lay charges. Second, the police, like all citizens, have the common-law defense of necessity No court is likely to convict an officer who broke a speed limit to save a life.
-
Still, existing law puts officials in the uncomfortable position of having to use their heads once in a while. That's why many would prefer to have statutory permission to run red lights as it were, and drive on the wrong side of the road.
-
Politicians feel safe Introducing such legislation. The left won't be critical because it always approves of special powers going to the state. As for the right, it has a knee-jerk reaction to crime. It's unlikely to object to any measure aimed at criminal gangs.
-
The ultimate arrogance of statism is the belief that right and wrong are determined by government edict. This affliction is not new, nor is it peculiar to Jean Chretien's cabinet (though it seems to have a big dose of it). Twenty-odd years ago it was expressed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's famous shrug when Justice David MacDonald's report on the RCMP revealed that the Mounties had been burning down barns belonging to suspected Quebec separatists. Many Canadians were upset, but our P.E.T. remained undaunted. Between shrugs, he voiced opinion that if people were so concerned with the Mounties burning barns illegally, perhaps he'd make burning barns by the Mounties legal.
-
Trudeau wasn't alone in believing that this would settle the matter. Editorialists at the Toronto Star wrote that "if the police need to run a red light, speed, use false documents or plant bugs, then the right to do those things should be given to them by statute law.
-
To say that this missed the point is putting it mildly.
It's not wrong to burn barns because it's illegal; it's illegal to burn barns because it's wrong.
-
The fact that governments are competent to introduce legislation creates the illusion that governments determine matters of right and wrong. But arson or assault committed by a police officer is still arson or assault. Making a wrongful act right by legislation is beyond the state's competence. Only in James Bond movies can governments issue 007 licenses to kill.
-
Former East German police officers could point to statutes permitting or requiring them to shoot at people trying to cross the Berlin Wall. They were still jailed after unification, not because their acts were unlawful - they were not at all unlawful in East Germany's communist state but because their acts were wrong.
-
Unless a state is prepared to abandon the rule of law altogether, it can't have one law for citizens and another for the police. That road leads to a police state in this world, and (if you ask me) to perdition in the next.
-
It's not just arrogance or hubris that induces Ottawa's mandarins to think that they can have one law for their centurions and another for ordinary citizens. There's an even deeper error Many people fall into it, not only statist politicians.
-
The error is to think of the law as some magic tree that bears the fruit of justice. In fact, the opposite is true. It's the tree of justice that may, in good years, bear the fruit of the law.
-
George Jonas is a Toronto-based author and free lance journalist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of “allowing” the Police to break our laws is just one MORE example of this Liberal Government’s criminal path towards a “POLICE STATE” and its“rule by BRUTE FORCE“. The Canadian Public should think about this and decide if THIS is the type of government they want to live under and HOW to get rid of them in the Election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"
Thanks,
To The REAL King!!
-----------------------
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/blacklrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org