blackbird

Canada needs to increase its spending on the Canadian Forces fast and properly to build up some strength. Russia, China, N. Korea, and Iran are serious threats. Russia is a serious threat to Europe right now and is increasing its military strength quickly. This is a threat to Canada. A threat to one ally is a threat to all. The west is facing a possible WW3 and needs to do everything to reduce that threat. The way to do that is to become very strong to discourage any hostile attacks. " ‘We have an enormous geopolitical challenge on our hands,’ he said. ‘And that is first of all Russia, which is reconstituting itself at a pace and a speed unparalleled in recent history. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Pic: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images ‘They are now producing three times as much ammunition in three months as the whole of NATO is doing in a year.’ Mr Rutte stated that ‘this is unsustainable’ but added: ‘The Russians are working together with the North Koreans, with the Chinese and Iranians, the mullahs, in fighting this unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. ‘So here, the Indo-Pacific and your Atlantic are getting more and more interconnected. We know that China has its eye on Taiwan.’ Nato chief warns World War III will start with ‘simultaneous invasions’

Endless lies.

We also see how money talks in the prison system where the very rich can receive special treatment and live in luxury while in prison in some place including in the U.S. in some cases. The world is not a fair place and people are often not treated humanely by the rich and powerful. We see how some on here downplay this issue with their ludicrous and lying comments to try to cover up the truth.

That's now how the U.N. operates and you know that. You know the U.S. is a superpower and dominates the U.N. with money and power. The U.N. is scared stiff the U.S. will cut off funding, which they can do. You deceitfully whine about me supporting illegal migrants but in fact I support due process and humanitarian treatment of everyone. By your comments you supported sending the hundreds of undocumented migrants to the torture - death prison CECOT which is illegal under the U.N. refugee convention and by any humanitarian standard. So on one hand you and Useless criticize me for supporting "illegal migrants" when I am just defending them from inhumane and illegal treatment by deportation to places that put them in serious danger of torture and death, like El Salvador or Sudan and LIbya. On the other hand it is the Trump admin that is breaking international U.N. refugee conventions. Yet you say nothing about that law-breaking, That is hyprocrisy of the worst kind. We also see how money talks in the prison system where the very rich can receive special treatment and live in luxury while in prison in some place including in the U.S. in some cases. The world is not a fair place and people are often not treated humanely by the rich and powerful.

I was really surprised to see this video of how the rich live in prisons. It is quite amazing how there is a world of difference between how the poor live in prisons and how the rich live in them. Money really talks. How Billionaires Live In Prison | Watch

"The administration continues to wield the Trump administration’s Title 42 policy to block and expel asylum seekers to life-threatening dangers in violation of U.S. refugee law and Articles 3, 31 and 33 of the Convention, failing to restart asylum processing at ports of entry over six months after taking office. Human Rights First has tracked over 3,276 kidnappings and attacks against asylum seekers and migrants expelled or stranded at the border since the Biden administration took office. Rather than restoring asylum processing in compliance with U.S. and international law, President Biden and other administration officials continue to make public statements that undermine asylum and discourage refugees from exercising their legal right to seek protection in the United States." Assessment: U.S. Compliance with the Refugee Convention at its 70th Anniversary - Human Rights First That report was from 2021. Things are much worse for refugees now under the Trump admin. Trump admin plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants. "The Time article says, “The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. ‘People need to be deported,’ says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ‘No one should be off the table,’ use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million undocumented immigrants. Let’s look at them more closely. More than 60 percent of the 10 million undocumented immigrants, or some six million people, have lived in the United States for at least a decade. That’s a long time. We are talking about immigrants who, apart from their immigration status, live normal, decent lives and who have families and jobs in the United States and who, for 10 years, have been contributing to America through their work and taxes. Roughly 50 percent are Mexicans, many with close family or social and cultural ties to America. Some four million of them are parents of children born in the United States. These are the cold, hard facts about them. Do all such immigrants merit wholesale deportations?" Trump’s Plan To Deport 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants Impossible

I am not wasting any more time with you and your false accusations. I didn't lie about anything.

It is pointless to argue over it endlessly. You state your position and I state mine. Time to just agree to disagree and move on.

I never said I don't believe it. Of course I believe what the U.N. refugee conventions say and believe it applies to all countries even if the U.N. can't enforce it.

I have said I believe in due process and also I believe that nobody should be sent to a country that puts them at risk or breaks up a family. I believe in the sanctity of the family structure. I believe in humanitarianism which means protecting people from harm. It's that simple. The U.N. refugee conventions verifies that is the correct position to take.

Your argument is not with me. I am just telling you what the U.N. states. If you don't like it, ask the U.N. to change it. It's not my problem. We know Trump and his MAGA admin don't respect international law on this subject. quote Yes Yes, the U.N. refugee convention does override a country's laws. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish international standards for the protection of refugees, which take precedence over national laws. These conventions define the rights of refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that refugees cannot be returned to a country where they face persecution2. Additionally, the UNHCR works to ensure that these conventions are translated into national laws to protect refugees effectively1. unquote The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR

I've got news for you. quote Yes, U.N. conventions can overrule a country's law. The United Nations Charter establishes that the organization aims to maintain justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law. This means that when a U.N. convention is ratified by a country, it can override national laws that conflict with those conventions, as the U.N. system is designed to promote international law and resolve disputes peacefully3 United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations " United Nations Charter (full text) Preamble WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS. Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. Chapter I: Purposes and Principles Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll." ______________________ We know in reality, there are superpowers in the world such as Russia, China, and the U.S. which can veto decisions that the U.N. make. But they cannot hide from and refuse to follow the basic principles and conventions the U.N. has adopted without being seen as doing so. When member nations who agreed to the basic principles and respect for human rights turn around and ignore them, they are disrespecting the established international order and human rights.

Technically, they may be breaking a U.S. law. But that law nullified or over-ridden by the U.N. Refugee Convention. If one's life is in danger or his family's life, he has the right to do whatever is necessary to protect their lives. The Trump admin has been breaking International U.N. law and possibly committing crimes against humanity in sending undocumented migrants to the CECOT torture-death prison in El Salvador. What have you said against that being done? Isn't it hypocritical to accuse me of supporting illegal migrants while ignoring the U.N. Convention on Refugees? User is doing the same thing. He ignores the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Refugees and accuses me of lying. Sorry, the U.N. Convention supercedes any U.S. law about illegal migrants and makes it illegal to deport refugees arbitrarily. There are reports that the Trump admin is planning to send undocumented migrants to Sudan now. That also would be a war crime as it may lead to torture and death also and against the U.N. Convention protecting migrants. How do you square that circle? When a government acts against international law and against the safety of people, anyone has the moral right to point that out and defend the victims. Refugees have a right to protect themselves and their family's safety. That over-rides anything else and is supported by the U.N. Refugee Convention. quote It defines what a refugee is, what rights they have and what obligations states have to them when they arrive. According to the convention, a refugee is "someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion". With the development of international human rights law, the convention says it should now be applied "without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination". unquote What does the UN 1951 Refugee Convention say – and can you change it? | UK News | Sky News quote The U.N. Charter and the 1951 Refugee Convention affirm the human rights of refugees, which include: Definition of Refugees: The 1951 Convention provides a universal definition of a refugee and outlines their legal rights and protections1. Rights and Duties: Refugees have specific rights that their host country is responsible for guaranteeing, as outlined in the Refugee Convention and human rights treaties2. Core Principles: The Convention emphasizes principles such as non-discrimination, non-penalization, and non-refoulement, ensuring that refugees are treated fairly and with dignity3. Universal Human Rights: The U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirm that all individuals, including refugees, have the right to fundamental freedoms without discrimination4. Commitment to Rights: The New York Declaration reaffirms the commitment to protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants5. These principles collectively ensure that refugees are recognized as individuals entitled to human rights and protections. unquote The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR Very clearly this nullifies the U.S. Trump admin claims that these are illegal aliens who they can deport arbitrarily. It also nullifies your and Users' argument against defending undocumented migrants in general.

If you want examples of lies, there are two right there. I don't support people breaking the law. The lie is you saying I do and also you assuming she is guilty when it has not been proven. The accepted human right is innocent until proven guilty. If what she and her attorneys are saying is true, she is innocent. You also lie when you say I support illegal immigrants breaking the law. I support someone trying to save their own life and their family's lives and don't see refugees as "breaking the law" if they have life saving reasons for migrating. You don't allow for humanitarianism and instead constantly lie.

You consistently lie when you don't have any idea what happened. If you had read the article you would know she was dropped off on her way to work and was immediately approached by two masked men, who didn't identify themselves and forced her to the ground.

If you had read the article, you would have seen that her denial that she did anything wrong is quite credible. Your automatic condemnation of her shows you have no ability to reason or use common sense. Are you some kind of god that you can know what happened when you were not there? Sounds like it. Your comments are completely irrational and unreasonable, similar to Deluge who has no mental ability to reason or speak other than throw out foul language.

On the 8 AM CTV news they stated on printing on the screen that Canada's deficit would be 92 M this year. Apparently they can't understand the deficit is in the billions and is going up to 92 BILLION dollars this year because of increased defence spending. Anyone should know that 92 M is 92 million and is a very small amount and not the correct figure for Canada's deficit. A billion is a thousand times more than a million. It is a major difference. Apparently nobody double checks the information they broadcast on the printing on the screen.

Seems you didn't read the ridiculous statement Deluge made. Of course you follow his extreme hate ideology so what could we expect you to say. All he and you had to do was read a couple articles that I found easily on a search. But you don't because you are extremely biased against the truth.

What for? She denies she did anything wrong? Read the reports before making such a ridiculous statement.

Eby opposes another pipeline because the NDP ideology says oil bad. He's fighting climate change. Carney will do nothing because he also is a globalist fighting climate change, same as Trudeau and Guilbeault. Canada's energy industry will continue being hampered while the oil production in other countries charges ahead. Nothing new.

Another story on this gives this report: " A U.S. citizen is speaking out after she said she was wrongfully detained by immigration agents in downtown Los Angeles. On June 24, Andrea Velez, 32, was being dropped off at work by her family near 9th and Spring Streets. She had just stepped out of the car when suddenly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded her, forced her to the ground and placed her in handcuffs. “I was just going to work and everything happened so fast,” she recalled. “They didn’t identify themselves, so I was scared.” Her family was nearby when they witnessed Velez being tackled to the ground. Video from the frantic scene showed a large crowd of bystanders gathered at the site as officers took Velez and others away. According to the family’s attorney, when Velez’s mother and sister saw two masked men attempting to take her as she was walking, they immediately called the police. Andrea Velez, 32, a U.S. citizen and South L.A. native, was suddenly forced to the ground and detained by immigration agents while she was walking to work in downtown Los Angeles on June 24, 2025. (KTLA) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were seen detaining people in a downtown Los Angeles raid on June 24, 2025. (@uniondelbarrio) LAPD officers responded to the scene and, instead of helping Velez, her family claims they formed a human shield to prevent onlookers from recording and voicing their concerns over the activity. “I have a couple of bruises on my body,” Velez said. “One of [the agents] pushed me to the ground.” Witnesses claimed the agents never asked anyone for ID or proof of citizenship, nor did they present identification of their own. Video from bystanders showed an agent placing Velez into an unmarked SUV before she was driven away. For 24 hours, her family couldn’t contact or locate her until videos of the raid began to surface on social media. Her family’s attorney eventually tracked her down. With the help of her family, community advocates and lawyers, she was eventually released on Wednesday night. Velez, a South L.A. native, is a marketing designer and Cal Poly Pomona graduate. Her family said they are beyond stunned by the incident. ICE officials claimed Velez was arrested for assaulting an agent and had tried to prevent them from arresting the person they were actually targeting. Gregory Russell, Velez’s attorney, refutes those claims. “They’re alleging Ms. Velez assaulted an ICE officer,” Russell said. “Now imagine this — you’re just dropped off at work. You’re walking on the sidewalk and a 6-foot man in full armor and weapons, with his face shielded, starts charging at you. And that’s what she experienced. Now, who committed the assault here?” Velez said she had feared for her life when she was suddenly grabbed by the agents. She believes ICE was targeting other Latino and Hispanic people around her at the time, but she didn’t realize what was happening until she was questioned later on. “They were just telling me that I was being arrested for interfering or resisting arrest,” she said. “I don’t think I was. I was just resisting because I didn’t know where I was going to end up or who was taking me.” Velez said the ordeal has left her and her family frightened and shaken up. She said she was simply walking to work and had done nothing to warrant the violent treatment she endured. “I’m Latina, so I’m pretty sure I was racially profiled,” she said. KTLA has reached out to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for clarification on Velez’s case and whether she will be facing any charges and is awaiting a response." U.S. citizen detained by ICE agents in downtown Los Angeles speaks out So was she really obstructing an arrest as Deluge claims or did she just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on her way to work? Seems kind of strange that anyone would think a woman 4 ft 11 inches tall and by herself would wilfully step in and try to stop an arrest by a number of armed ICE officers.

" That morning, just minutes before, her mother had dropped her off at work on 9th and Main, downtown L.A. And as she exited the vehicle, she walked three, four steps onto the sidewalk, and suddenly there was a swarm of vehicles surrounding her. So, as she’s kind of getting her bearings what’s going on, she sees vendors over to her right, and she assumes, “OK, this must be — maybe it’s a raid. I don’t know.” She sees men approaching them. But she looks to her left, and she sees an ICE agent about 10 feet away, running full speed at her, and becomes terrified. She’s 4’11”. This is a man who, in her estimation, is over six feet. He’s masked. And he does not stop. So she becomes — she gets scared, and her reaction is to cover and block herself to protect herself, and she’s thrown to the ground. The ICE agent continues on for about another 10, 15 seconds to get their target, and then returns and tells her she’s under arrest for what she describes as interfering. She gets put into a vehicle, a van, an unmarked van, and she’s in handcuffs. And while she’s waiting, she sees the officer, so she walks over to the officer and asks if he would help her. She doesn’t know who these men are. And that’s when you see the ICE agent pick her up and take her back to the unmarked van. AMY GOODMAN: Why was she picked up, Dominique? DOMINIQUE BOUBION: She — physically picked up, or why was she arrested? AMY GOODMAN: Arrested. DOMINIQUE BOUBION: So, what she is being charged with is assault on a peace officer. So, the version of the story that the federal agent is putting forth is that Andrea Velez purposefully walked into his path in order to protect whoever their target was, and knocked that ICE agent off balance and hit him in the head. It’s a complete fabrication, didn’t happen. And it, I believe, is more of a, number one, racial profiling. They were speaking to her in Spanish, even though she was demonstrating that she was — could speak fluent English and that she was a U.S. citizen. And I think it was a matter of “Let’s see if she is a U.S. citizen. And if she is, then we’ll slap on these charges.” It’s an issue of — it’s arrest now, ask questions later. AMY GOODMAN: So, straight-up racial profiling? DOMINIQUE BOUBION: A hundred percent. A hundred percent. Andrea Velez has — she’s a darker-skinned Latino. And 100%, I believe that this was racial profiling. AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. We’ll continue to follow this case, Dominique Boubion, one of the attorneys helping to represent Andrea Velez, a U.S. citizen arrested by ICE. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us. " “Arrest Now, Ask Questions Later”: Why Did L.A. ICE Agents Arrest and Jail U.S. Citizen Andrea Velez? | Democracy Now!

" Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have detailed the “severe mistreatment” and “torture” he experienced during his month-long detention inside a notorious El Salvador prison, in a renewed lawsuit challenging his wrongful removal from the United States. His attorneys say the 29-year-old Salvadoran immigrant was subject to “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture” at the facility, where lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration have admitted he was mistakenly sent in March before a weeks-long legal battle to keep him imprisoned there. Abrego Garcia was abruptly returned to the U.S. to face a federal criminal indictment accusing him of smuggling undocumented migrants across the country, allegations that were only raised after he was removed. He has pleaded not guilty. The new legal filing follows ongoing debates among attorneys, judges and the Department of Justice over whether Abrego Garcia should remain in jail before trial as lawyers for the government threaten to deport him as soon as he is released from custody. When he arrived in El Salvador on March 25, still in chains, two officials grabbed his arms and pushed him down the stairs from the airplane, according to the new complaint. He was “forcibly seated” on a bus and placed in a second set of chains and handcuffs, then “repeatedly struck by officers when he attempted to raise his head,” the filing states. Upon arrival at the Terrorism Confinement Center, officials told Abrego Garcia and other detainees, “Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn’t leave.” He was then “forced to strip, issued prison clothing, and subjected to physical abuse including being kicked in the legs with boots and struck on his head and arms to make him change clothes faster,” according to the filing. Prison workers shaved his head and “frog-marched” him into a cell, striking him “with wooden batons along the way,” lawyers wrote. By the following day, “Abrego Garcia had visible bruises and lumps all over his body,” they said. He shared a cell with 20 other Salvadorans, who were “forced to kneel” from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., “with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion,” according to the complaint. “During this time, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself,” the filing states. “The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation,” it claims. After one week at the facility, the prison director and other officials separated 12 Salvadoran men, with what they said were gang-related tattoos, from a group of 21 detainees. Abrego Garcia remained with eight others “who, like him, upon information and belief had no gang affiliations or tattoos.” It was at this time that prison officials “explicitly acknowledged” that Abrego Garcia’s tattoos were not gang-related and told him “your tattoos are fine,” according to the complaint. Prison officials repeatedly threatened to move him to cells where gang members would “tear” him apart, lawyers wrote. Abrego Garcia “repeatedly observed prisoners in nearby cells who he understood to be gang members violently harm each other with no intervention from guards or personnel,” the filing states. “Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards on personnel.” The 29-year-old Salvadoran father was abruptly returned to the United States to face criminal smuggling charges after a weeks-long legal battle. He has pleaded not guilty (EPA) After three weeks inside the prison, and after losing 31 pounds, Abrego Garcia and four other detainees were transferred to another part of the facility, “where they were photographed with mattresses and better food — photos that appeared to be staged to document improved conditions,” according to the complaint. Nearly one month after he was deported, Abrego Garcia was transferred to a prison that explicitly did not house known gang members. At Centro Industrial, “Abrego Garcia was frequently hidden from visitors, being told to remain in a separate room whenever outside visitors came to the facility,” according to the complaint. He was denied communication with his family and access to legal counsel throughout his detention, until he met with Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen on April 17. Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador when he was 16 years old and illegally entered the U.S. He was living and working in Maryland with his wife and child, both American citizens, and two children from a previous marriage. Federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return after government lawyers admitted in court documents that he was removed from the country due to a procedural error. A 2019 order from an immigration judge had blocked his removal to El Salvador over humanitarian concerns. The government spent weeks battling court orders while officials publicly said he would never step foot in the U.S. After spending three months inside those El Salvador jails, Abrego Garcia was returned to in June following a federal grand jury indictment accusing him of illegally transporting immigrants across the country." New legal filing details graphic ‘torture and abuse’ of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador prison I think it was known what kinds of things were going on in the CECOT prison; yet the admin went ahead and sent Abrego Garcia and several hundred others to that place anyway.

"Jamie Sarkonak: Trudeau judge abuses Charter to free man busted with a loaded Glock In Edmonton last month, a judge laid the groundwork to acquit a man who, while sporting clear hallmarks of drug dealing, was caught by police packing a loaded Glock. If you’re ever wondering why crime is on the rise in Canada, you can look straight to decisions like these by our courts. This recent example comes to us from 30-year-old Haider Aftab Khan, who was recently acquitted of a pile of gun and drug charges. On June 11, he succeeded in convincing Justice Derek Jugnauth, a former criminal defence lawyer appointed by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, to exclude the gun and drug evidence from his trial. This collapsed the Crown’s case. Khan had been pulled over in a Ford Explorer in the early hours of April 24, 2022. The vehicle had a license plate covering, an illegal addition that caught the attention of a pair of police on patrol. The officers ran the plate number and found the SUV was registered to a Calgary owner who was “subject to ‘a large paragraph’ of court ordered conditions related to weapons and violence.” They pulled Khan over, and both approached the car. One officer approached the car asked Khan for his license, insurance and registration; Khan couldn’t find his license, however, and provided an expired insurance slip; frantic, he searched his car, then his phone. The officer followed Khan’s hands with his flashlight (this was around 1 a.m.) — and saw a blue pill bottle without a lid that “looked like it had the paper scratched off” under the radio dash. Inside the bottle, the officer testified, were two baggies: one with pills, another with white powder. At that point, Khan was arrested for drug possession. He was then patted down by the other officer, who found a Glock 9mm handgun loaded with four bullets. Officers then searched the SUV, finding 40 oxycodone tablets and a gram of cocaine in the pill bottle — the label that was worn, illegible in some places, but not torn — along with a box of 30 45-calibre rounds from the centre console. Khan was charged with improper storage of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon without authorization, and possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition (which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years). He was also slapped with two counts of drug possession. When his day in court came along, Khan gave a different version of events — which the court didn’t buy. The SUV, he testified, was his cousin’s, and he had driven it to Edmonton to be worked on by a preferred mechanic; he’d been followed by three cruisers, not one; he had his phone recording during the traffic stop; he was dragged from his car, punched several times by the arresting officer, and then punched again several times by three other officers while handcuffed in the back of the cruiser; he’d sustained cuts to his face. The pill bottle, Khan testified, wasn’t sitting under the radio in the front of the car — in fact, he claimed to have never seen it before. The judge called BS: Khan’s story was “implausible” and “internally inconsistent.” No phone video was filed as evidence in his defence, the beat-down story didn’t make sense and no medical evidence supported the brutality allegations. But on Khan’s side was the Charter — and Justice Jugnauth’s liberal reading of it. To justify an arrest, an officer must have reasonable grounds to do so, supported by sufficient evidence that causes them to believe an offence has been committed. The basis for Khan’s arrest was the pill bottle, which the officer believed had been tampered with. And, fair enough. Canadian police seize bottles with scratched labels in busts all the time. In Sooke, B.C., in Grande Prairie, Alta., in Barrie, Ont., London, Ont., in Corner Brook, N.L. — to name a few cases. But it turned out the label in this case wasn’t scratched (though it was weathered), and its lidless quality with plastic sticking out the top wasn’t enough to satisfy the judge, who also thought the arresting officer didn’t have the training or experience to identify a suspicious bottle. The cocaine baggie, in the judge’s view, was the only item that, if spotted, would have warranted a lawful arrest — but he didn’t believe that the officer could have seen it inside the bottle from his angle. No reasonable grounds were secured, which meant that all evidence stemming from the arrest — the gun, the drugs — was obtained illegally. This wasn’t necessarily fatal to the case: judges have the option of allowing evidence borne from a Charter violation into trial if society’s interest in the prosecution is great enough. Heck, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that unlawfully beating a non-compliant intoxicated driver to the point of breaking his ribs and puncturing a lung isn’t enough to get evidence tossed out. However, Jugnauth found the police misconduct to be “serious,” and the breach of Khan’s rights to be on the extreme end of the state-intrusion spectrum. These factors were so heavy, in the judge’s view, they outweighed the concealed loaded handgun that posed an objective danger to society — and, in particular, the officers, had the traffic stop gone another way. “Unlawfully carrying a loaded handgun on one’s person is an extremely serious offence that strikes at the heart of the community’s sense of security…. “In my view, society’s interest in bringing Mr. Khan to trial on the merits of this case strongly favours admitting the evidence. However, the strength of that pull is ameliorated to a degree by the importance of the public’s interest in knowing that citizens’ fundamental rights have meaning and the rule of law governs.” And so, Jugnauth neutered the Crown’s case and acquitted Khan. The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service has not yet decided whether to appeal. It’s not a major case, nor a bloody one, but it’s a decent demonstration of just how hard it is to manage public safety in Canada: even if a person is caught with a loaded gun strapped to the chest with illegal drugs semi-visible below the dash, that’s no guarantee they’ll be held to account for it. We don’t need more gun bans targeting lawful owners — we need better judges. National Post unquote Jamie Sarkonak: Trudeau judge abuses Charter to free man busted with a loaded Glock PM Carney and the Liberals still have done nothing to stop this kind of thing that puts Canadians and the police in danger. When are they going to wake up and listen to the provincial governments, police departments and people of Canada that are being endangered?

Negotiations are only beginning. You can't get everything you want. Welcome to the real world.