Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

eyeball · March 3, 2009

The problem isn't the Charter, or rather, the words in it. The problem is how those words have been stretched and "read in" and interpreted by various left-wing judges with political agendas.
"Why, no, constable, we can't allow you to wear a microphone and record your dope buys for evidence. That would violate people's charter rights!"

Bullshit.

What about all the various right-wing politicians with their political agendas?

"Why, yes, constable, we'd love to help you bypass all the checks and balances that protect people's charter rights".

ToadBrother · March 3, 2009

The problem isn't the Charter, or rather, the words in it. The problem is how those words have been stretched and "read in" and interpreted by various left-wing judges with political agendas.
"Why, no, constable, we can't allow you to wear a microphone and record your dope buys for evidence. That would violate people's charter rights!"

Bullshit.

I haven't heard of such things being illegal. One does, of course, have to have warrants for a good many investigative activities, and that's not a bad thing. The whole point of habeas corpus and all those other "inconvenient" rights is that, in the past, the government has often shown itself extremely untrustworthy. I have little desire to see our liberties eroded, as is happening in the UK right now, out of some misplaced sense that I'll get a little more safety out of it (to heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin).

Gangsters are bad guys, and I wish cops all the best in getting them, but the coin with which we buy their capture should not be our liberties.

DrGreenthumb · March 3, 2009

I haven't heard of such things being illegal. One does, of course, have to have warrants for a good many investigative activities, and that's not a bad thing. The whole point of habeas corpus and all those other "inconvenient" rights is that, in the past, the government has often shown itself extremely untrustworthy. I have little desire to see our liberties eroded, as is happening in the UK right now, out of some misplaced sense that I'll get a little more safety out of it (to heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin).
Gangsters are bad guys, and I wish cops all the best in getting them, but the coin with which we buy their capture should not be our liberties.

End the drugwar and you would not only see the gang's ability to make money instantly crippled, you would also see a far greater trust of the police by the population. When cops are only after thieves and murderers and not you friends, co-workers or your children for the baggie of weed in their pocket, people won't worry so much about the cops spying on them. Drugs are used by people from across all demographics, and nobody wants their life destroyed because some Ned Flanders wants to make sure nobody is doing anything they don't approve of.

As long as we continue to leave production and sale of popular products to the criminals, we will continue to see gangs fight over all the money. People who make their living in the prohibition industry will try to convince you that this is not the case, but they can't say anything clearly with their heads buried so deep in the trough.

They know that it is their policies that feed the gangs, and yet they continue to push for even more of it. They are responsible for the deaths prohibition causes, no better than the murderers that are pulling the triggers at the street level.

DrGreenthumb · March 3, 2009

The problem isn't the Charter, or rather, the words in it. The problem is how those words have been stretched and "read in" and interpreted by various left-wing judges with political agendas.
"Why, no, constable, we can't allow you to wear a microphone and record your dope buys for evidence. That would violate people's charter rights!"

Bullshit.

Real crimes don't need rats and secret microphones, and sting operations to be uncovered. Real crimes have real victims who report to the police that they have been wronged. Officer my car has been stolen. Officer that man robbed my store. Officer that man assaulted that women.

I just can't imagine someone phoning the police and saying "officer help me, that man just sold me a fat bag of weed after I asked him if I could buy some!" "i feel so wronged by that man for giving me exactly what I wanted to buy.

The thing is that in most drug deals, there is nobody complaining to the police. The seller only gives up his product if the buyer will pay him what he wants for it, and the buyer will only buy the product if he or she is happy with the price/quality. If the buyer is unhappy they will not give the seller any more business. I thought Conservatives were supposed to understand how the free market works? The only reason the cops need to sneak around like little bitches to make drug busts is because none of the people involved in the buying or selling of drugs feel they have been victimized by each other and don't want any "help" from the cops.

guyser · March 3, 2009

Doc, you do your cause infinitly more harm than good. You are prone to hyprebole, theatrics, name calling and the such.

You have most of the info on the hows and whys of this, but your message is lost because frankly people see you as a loony tune. No one wants to spend the time pickin g out the real nuggets of your position , they skim over them because they see your rants and silly statements.

You want examples...?

When cops are only after thieves and murderers and not you friends, co-workers or your children for the baggie of weed in their pocket, people won't worry so much about the cops spying on them.

Most cops ,pretty much all cops as far as I am aware (and I know a couple) dont spy on people, be it kids co-workers etc.

Yes they may bust someone for pot, but IME they use that as a last resort, or as a mere piling on charge to other criminal activity, hoping that in the end , one of those charges stick. I really dont have a problem with that. It is criminal no matter how you cut it.

When they cops have you and find a joint in ones pocket, they dont bother w thge bust because it is not worth the time to write it, nor to show at court. They have and would rather watch you break the doob and dump it in the sewer, much the same way they treat drinking out of residence.

Case in point, a client of mine, driving after a few beers. Spot check- drives thru w/o stopping and they have to chase him. Caught him and he blew 0.081. At most times the cops would not bother with the arrest since it is too close to the line. However, he also faced a " flee from police' charge AND the impaired. The cops told him he made a dumb move since they would not have bothered and he would only have a 24 suspension, no fine , no ticket , nada.

As long as we continue to leave production and sale of popular products to the criminals, we will continue to see gangs fight over all the money. People who make their living in the prohibition industry will try to convince you that this is not the case, but they can't say anything clearly with their heads buried so deep in the trough.

I would think most people are unaware of how police can and do outfit themselves, and that is on the back of criminal activity. Be thankful this is canada, since many small towns in the US use the highways and personal homes of people , under the aegis of "forfeited' property to fund the police coffers. They do not have APC due to sitizen largesse.

Lets alos not forget that the politicos of this country have used the police as mere revenue generators. People dont , for the most part , put two and two together. Most police forces dont have planes for highway patrol, nor helicopters. Why? We are told they cannot afford it, but then the very next weekend we have the ubiquitous 'seatbelt/impaired driving/truck brake inspection' blitz whereby overtime is spent so the cops can man these checks, all in the name of citizen safety. Well, if that were the case, then the planes would make things infinitely safer, but they dont. and the reason they dont, is because the 'safety' blitz is a cash cow. It has nothing to do with safety, insofar as reducing overall safety of travellers/citizens, (they do remove some bad drivers)but has more, if not mostly, to do with padding coffers.

A report, that I truly wish I had right now, has said that Tasers , came into use to reduce officer injuries and time off of Officers. Except the report shows that all across Canada, injuries have not gone down one bit. Yet the rise in use of Tasers was through the roof.

They know that it is their policies that feed the gangs, and yet they continue to push for even more of it. They are responsible for the deaths prohibition causes, no better than the murderers that are pulling the triggers at the street level.

And that above is another that slays you before you even start. Their policies do not feed the gangs, they may simply ensure that gangs fill that void, but they do not feed them.

They may have some implications of the continuing in the drug and death business , but they have never nor will they be the ones pulling the trigger.

You are not the only one guilty, so dont feel singled out.

The problem is one that can only be dealt with in a well thought out, non-emotional , educative way.

capricorn · March 4, 2009

I'd rather see police be outfitted with cameras so they can be trusted.

Some police forces have in car cameras and microphones. TO has them. I think they are a good idea. From what I have read most cops don't object to them. Not only does surveillance equipment protect citizens in their interaction with police it also protect police officers from unfounded complaints of abuse.

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

Doc, you do your cause infinitly more harm than good. You are prone to hyprebole, theatrics, name calling and the such.
Most cops ,pretty much all cops as far as I am aware (and I know a couple) dont spy on people, be it kids co-workers etc.

Yes they may bust someone for pot, but IME they use that as a last resort, or as a mere piling on charge to other criminal activity, hoping that in the end , one of those charges stick. I really dont have a problem with that. It is criminal no matter how you cut it.

When they cops have you and find a joint in ones pocket, they dont bother w thge bust because it is not worth the time to write it, nor to show at court. They have and would rather watch you break the doob and dump it in the sewer, much the same way they treat drinking out of residence.

Well I tend to get riled up when people who make their living off the avails of prohibition go around preaching how we need more of it for "public safety". pfffft Or make comments like "the only good druggie is a dead druggie"

Besides you have no friggin clue what I DO for the cause, all you know is that I argue with authoritarian bent Conservatives on this site. I do many things beyond this site, to help people who are harmed by prohibition. I'm sorry if talking to people everyday who are on chemo, or have MS, or HEP-C who are wasting away because they can't get cannabis, or going broke because they are forced to buy it in the black market makes me a little intolerant of the people that are hurting them with their hate-based ideology. Replace "druggie

' with nigger or jew in the comments they make and their arguments sound all too familiar.

Cops don't spy on people? Are you drunk? That is basically all cops do, especially NARCS. Ever hear of wire taps? putting people under surveillance? stakeout? FLIR cameras?

There are a few cops who may just make you dump the weed, but that is hardly their regular course of action. Especially if its a kid who doesn't know better they use the potential charge to try and scare the kid into ratting off his friends.

I work in a courthouse and 90% of the charges I see young people charged with and found guilty of are drug charges. 90% of those are pot charges. Almost all of those are for less than 3 grams of pot. Just the other day 2 people were convicted of pot charges in less than an hour. One guy was 19 and got caught with two rolled joints under the seat of his truck. He said that he has been pulled over and searched 26 times in the year since he was caught with 2 joints. He has had to miss work 14 times for court appearances over those 2 joints.

The other guy I've known for at least 20 years, was a classmate of my sisters. He was busted for half a joint that the cops found at the bottom of his hockey bag. He said he didn't even know it was there, figured his cousin must have left it in there when he gave him the bag.

Don't kid yourself, the cops charge people with small ammounts of pot possession every single day in this country and it has a serious negative effect on their lives that the cannabis NEVER had.

The cops don't want to lose the pot possession charge because they use it as a tool to harass people they don't like, and to try and squeeze information out of chickenshits who are willing to sell out their friends to get out of trouble. They also get huge budget increases every year to battle the "demon weed" and they don't want that gravy train to derail. Pot people are largely non-violent and co-operative, no wonder the cops like busting them instead of "real" criminals.

What the hell are you talking about , "it is criminal no matter how you cut it?" Unless you mean it is criminal to harass people who are harming nobody but arguably themselves then you must be out of your mind. Enjoying a God-given herb is not criminal just because some asshole in Ottawa says it is. There is nothing more inherently criminal about using pot than there is with having a beer or a cup of coffee.

I expect that kind of response from Wilber or Argus, but i expect more sense from you guyser

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

And that above is another that slays you before you even start. Their policies do not feed the gangs, they may simply ensure that gangs fill that void, but they do not feed them.
They may have some implications of the continuing in the drug and death business , but they have never nor will they be the ones pulling the trigger.

You are not the only one guilty, so dont feel singled out.

The problem is one that can only be dealt with in a well thought out, non-emotional , educative way.

What do you call handing over the entire very lucrative drug market over to the gangs , if not feeding them?

When cops kick in a families door, in a no-knock warrant and kill the pot groer or dealer inside I guess that's ok because he's a "druggie" and therefore not worth as much as a real human life right? ( I know you don't feel like this, but the hyperbole might get you to rethink some of your positions)

When the gangs fight it out in the streets with guns over the very lucrative market the prohibitionists have handed them, and an innocent person get killed in the crossfire, why shouldn't the people who created the situation that causes the gang to thrive share in the responsibility for that death?

The prohibition crowd are just as much to blame for this mess as the ones who take advantage of the unregulated market.

Again, nobody in history died over anything to do with cannabis until after it became a prohibited, and therefore very valuable, substance.

Argus · March 4, 2009

Real crimes don't need rats and secret microphones, and sting operations to be uncovered.

So like, the Mafia are not real criminals, right, nor the Hells Angels? They don't commit real crimes?

Argus · March 4, 2009

I haven't heard of such things being illegal.

It was made illegal by judges in Ontario some years back. The police still use bugs, but as a safety measure. The recordings are not accepted as evidence. Not sure if this is nationwide or not.

DrGreenthumb · March 4, 2009

So like, the Mafia are not real criminals, right, nor the Hells Angels? They don't commit real crimes?

Of course they commit real crimes, mostly over the lucrative drug market that people like you have so graciously placed in their laps.

eyeball · March 4, 2009

Some police forces have in car cameras and microphones. TO has them. I think they are a good idea. From what I have read most cops don't object to them. Not only does surveillance equipment protect citizens in their interaction with police it also protect police officers from unfounded complaints of abuse.

The trick to making it work is if everybody knows the cameras are there. Its when surveillance is conducted or interpreted in secret that the problems in evidentiary hygiene crop up. It'll always remain a msytery to me why the RCMP didn't destroy the video of Robert Dziekanski's death. It sounds like there's at least a few in their ranks who still have an ethical backbone. That's the best news.

The case of the video taping of Robert Dziekanski's death at the hands of police and the RCMP's should be creating the perfect storm conditions for making sweeping changes to the way police interact with the publc. The RCMP were apparently quite fearful of cameras recording their actions before this incident but I wonder if they feel differently now? I kind of doubt it myself, I think they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way towards accountability, just like their boss, the federal government.

Edited March 4, 2009 by eyeball

WestViking · March 4, 2009

Of course they commit real crimes, mostly over the lucrative drug market that people like you have so graciously placed in their laps.

Yeah, and the same rules apply to criminal gangs trafficking and smuggling automobiles, ATVs. boats, electronics and motorcycles all of which are legal. Then they traffick in guns and tobacco which are controlled and in humans which is highly illegal. Your argument does not hold water.

Wild Bill · March 4, 2009

Yeah, and the same rules apply to criminal gangs trafficking and smuggling automobiles, ATVs. boats, electronics and motorcycles all of which are legal. Then they traffick in guns and tobacco which are controlled and in humans which is highly illegal. Your argument does not hold water.

Circumstances alter cases. There is no broadbrush solution to every issue. Refusing to recognize the details of each situation on its own merits is what makes things like the pot laws such a mess.

I am sick and tired of paying taxes to watch some Deputy Dans bash square pegs into round holes, thinking that they could make it work if they were only given bigger hammers!

This is the sort of thing that breeds disrespect for our institutions.

Oleg Bach · March 4, 2009

Yeah, and the same rules apply to criminal gangs trafficking and smuggling automobiles, ATVs. boats, electronics and motorcycles all of which are legal. Then they traffick in guns and tobacco which are controlled and in humans which is highly illegal. Your argument does not hold water.

Seems that the status quo is more concerned about crime activity that is property related and profit related. If the crimminal effects their bottom line then he is a crimminal - If the crimmial addicts young people to hard drugs...and that addiction does not effect YOUR family then it is not a crimminal activety to be addressed. Much like if you go though the garbage on a Rosedale curb and take an old chair - they call the cops...because it is one less chair their company will sell....laws must be less colonial at British like ( all is about property law) - and geared more to human rights laws - laws to curb offence against the human body - whether a gun or a drug ---- There was no up roar in Toronto when blacks kill blacks..but there was an up roar from the establishment when one of their own are stricken...Our laws should be across the board for all - rich and poor. That's why we are loosing control because we don't care about our lessors or the protection of them.

eyeball · March 4, 2009

Circumstances alter cases. There is no broadbrush solution to every issue. Refusing to recognize the details of each situation on its own merits is what makes things like the pot laws such a mess.
I am sick and tired of paying taxes to watch some Deputy Dans bash square pegs into round holes, thinking that they could make it work if they were only given bigger hammers!

This is the sort of thing that breeds disrespect for our institutions.

I'm even having serious doubts about democracy Bill. Imagine that eh?

WestViking · March 5, 2009

Circumstances alter cases. There is no broadbrush solution to every issue. Refusing to recognize the details of each situation on its own merits is what makes things like the pot laws such a mess. I am sick and tired of paying taxes to watch some Deputy Dans bash square pegs into round holes, thinking that they could make it work if they were only given bigger hammers! This is the sort of thing that breeds disrespect for our institutions.

Since the 1960s we have been building a proportion of our society that has no respect for our institutions or laws. These wise guys and gals think speed limits are for losers, that 'the man' has no business telling them that they can't toke, that they should be able to wear their tattoos and body piercings anywhere, that only fools get married, that only idiots go to church, that casual sex is better than none, and that if it feels good do it. They tend to be brash, impolite, unmannerly, selfish, hedonistic and amoral. They tend to think that pregnancy is an accident and nuisance visited on them by some angry deity but want help if they get in an accident, get pregnant or, heaven forbid, get arrested and charged with a crime. These people think it is fine to phone or text or toke or drink while speeding and weaving in and out of traffic because they have important stuff to do. They are, thank God, an immature and irresponsible minority, but if you dig a little, they are the main proponents of legalizing pot. They don't care about society, peace, order or security or anything or anyone. All they want is for society to allow them a selfish entitlement to toke. They are the despotic, useless, whining, snivelling brats who infest our society and refuse to grow up and take personal responsibility.

The truly sad thing is the number of legislators described above.

guyser · March 5, 2009

Since the 1960s...

Not much fun at parties are you?

Tattoos, piercings, texting = bad people?

Edited March 5, 2009 by guyser

Wild Bill · March 5, 2009

Since the 1960s we have been building a proportion of our society that has no respect for our institutions or laws. These wise guys and gals think speed limits are for losers, that 'the man' has no business telling them that they can't toke, that they should be able to wear their tattoos and body piercings anywhere, that only fools get married, that only idiots go to church, that casual sex is better than none, and that if it feels good do it. They tend to be brash, impolite, unmannerly, selfish, hedonistic and amoral. They tend to think that pregnancy is an accident and nuisance visited on them by some angry deity but want help if they get in an accident, get pregnant or, heaven forbid, get arrested and charged with a crime. These people think it is fine to phone or text or toke or drink while speeding and weaving in and out of traffic because they have important stuff to do. They are, thank God, an immature and irresponsible minority, but if you dig a little, they are the main proponents of legalizing pot. They don't care about society, peace, order or security or anything or anyone. All they want is for society to allow them a selfish entitlement to toke. They are the despotic, useless, whining, snivelling brats who infest our society and refuse to grow up and take personal responsibility.
The truly sad thing is the number of legislators described above.

You are making an assumption, that institutions and laws always make sense and always should be respected. This just doesn't always bear true in the real world.

How do you feel about the gun registry?

To me, any authority figure has no right to an automatic assumption of intelligence. That has to be proven. Too many times we see examples where the law is an ass or lawyers can twist it to serve any end, often contradicting other decisions. While we do not live in a perfect world and we have to accept that sometimes the 'system' makes mistakes, if the mistakes start to become too large a number then we have a problem.

I would agree with you that there has been a growing segment of society that has no respect for institutions and laws. This is an unfortunate thing for Canada.

It's just that too often institutions and the judicial system ASK for such disrespect!

I understand that Karla Homolka is living quite free and comfortable these days. All perfectly legal, too.

eyeball · March 5, 2009

You are making an assumption, that institutions and laws always make sense and always should be respected. This just doesn't always bear true in the real world.

Its worse than you think Bill, some folks actually do put respct ahead of sense in regards to the law.

Wild Bill · March 5, 2009

Its worse than you think Bill, some folks actually do put respct ahead of sense in regards to the law.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, 'eyeball'! I think Canadians stopped having blind faith in laws and institutions about the time of Mulroney's downfall. We had so many examples worthy of cynicism, such as the new GST, scandals about priests and choirboys, the F-18 contract being awarded to a Montreal firm, the huge tax deduction given to the Bronfman businesses allegedly for being 'connected' and most of all the manipulative attempt to sell us on the Charlottetown Accords, where the politicians were saying one thing in French but something quite different in English.

We could write a book with such examples! Those times appear to have been our breaking point as a people. Before we naively believed that innocent men went free 99.9% of the time and that our taxes were in the overwhelming main efficiently used for government services. After too many examples of tax money funding fish processing plants far inland to earn brownie points for an inland MP and naval decision makers being based far in inland Quebec we became 'Americanized', in that we all seem to be from Missouri, demanding to be shown 'cuz we don't believe just because some 'suit' tells us so.

I've made the point before that some citizens seem to view institutions and laws as some sort of "Godfather" who can always be trusted to be fair, sensible and honest.

I could never be one of them but sometimes I envy their sweet, naive innocence.

eyeball · March 5, 2009

Those times appear to have been our breaking point as a people.

What about these times?

I could never be one of them but sometimes I envy their sweet, naive innocence.

Envy is the farthest thing from what I feel, I'm actually terrified of them.

If the ship goes down and we're struggling to keep our heads above the water these will be the one's trying to drag you down.

SSD · March 5, 2009

Since the 1960s we have been building a proportion of our society that has no respect for our institutions or laws. These wise guys and gals think speed limits are for losers, that 'the man' has no business telling them that they can't toke, that they should be able to wear their tattoos and body piercings anywhere, that only fools get married, that only idiots go to church, that casual sex is better than none, and that if it feels good do it. They tend to be brash, impolite, unmannerly, selfish, hedonistic and amoral. They tend to think that pregnancy is an accident and nuisance visited on them by some angry deity but want help if they get in an accident, get pregnant or, heaven forbid, get arrested and charged with a crime. These people think it is fine to phone or text or toke or drink while speeding and weaving in and out of traffic because they have important stuff to do. They are, thank God, an immature and irresponsible minority, but if you dig a little, they are the main proponents of legalizing pot. They don't care about society, peace, order or security or anything or anyone. All they want is for society to allow them a selfish entitlement to toke. They are the despotic, useless, whining, snivelling brats who infest our society and refuse to grow up and take personal responsibility.
The truly sad thing is the number of legislators described above.

WestViking, please. What does body piercings have to do with anything? I don't have tattoos, piercings, or illegitimate children and I support the legalization of ganja. Hey I thought conservatives today wanted less government and now you want Harper to protect us from ourselves? I say that if you think we should keep ganja illegal then you should also be on the forefront to criminalize alcohol.

Think about it. If I were to smoke marijuana in my own home by myself and relax after a day's work would I be harming anyone? You social conservatives are hypocrites and want to regulate the lives of individuals. You want to control what we wear, who we worship, what we believe. That is exactly the reason I could never support Harper or the Reformatories. The Liberals have always stood for independence of conscience, thought, belief, etc. You social issues have always restricted Canadians from shifting Canada fully right. Think about it, how long in the past 40 years have we had a Conservative majority? Only 8 and those were because the Liberals needed a new generation to come in (just like we see happening now).

I really want to know the harm in having pot sold in stores just like cigarettes and alcohol. It would definitely kill that aspect of crime. Imagine, if we could also tax the hell out of it. In one year, we'd have enough money to make surpluses even in hard times. The only problem would be the access to teenagers. I used to think that too but what stops these kids from drinking their parents' supply of alcohol and stealing their father's cigarettes. Marijuana is addicted but cigarettes are even more. I smoked ganja all the time in my twenties, even more than cigarettes. However, when my children were born and I was ready to give them up, I could only kick pot (and easily too). The cigarettes took ten years to get out of my psychological desires.

Edited March 5, 2009 by SSD

madmax · March 18, 2009

This has been an issue where Jack Layton has taken his party in a different direction. I can't recall if it was 2006, but I believe one of those campaign years was frought with Gang violence and Innocents being killed in his own riding.

I see that he is following up on his position in Western Canada.

Layton calls for stronger gang laws
IAN BAILEY

March 17, 2009

VANCOUVER -- Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday called for stronger federal action to counter gang wars in the Metro Vancouver region he said have prompted concern across Canada.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also been to this riding

New Democrats have signalled their support for anti-gang legislation tabled by the Tories that includes making any gang-related homicide a first-degree murder charge and creating a new charge for drive-by shootings.
But Mr. Layton - the second federal leader after Prime Minister Stephen Harper to visit the province since a wave of gang violence spilled over in recent weeks - said New Democrats are pressing for further action.

Mr. Layton suggested he would look at bolstering calls by the B.C. government for federal-justice changes that include better wiretap access to track Internet and BlackBerry communications and an end to two-for-one credits for time served.
The NDP Leader spent much of his appearance before reporters rhyming off, in detail, ideas, proposals and views expressed to him in a just-concluded meeting with Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu. The chief has been outspoken in laying out those ideas.

"I thought he made a lot of sense," Mr. Layton said of Chief Chu.

It's about time the government gets something passed.

eyeball · March 18, 2009

If you're trying to insinuate that Jack Layton also approves of everything else Harper proposes to do to fight gangs, like throwing people in jail for growing 1 pot plant, I'd like to see a source if you please.