A Canadian citizen is deemed guilty

[Wilber]

I don't think it's a good idea to teach them to unconditionally trust any authority figure, and that includes the police. just because someone is a police officer doesn't make him/her automatically trust-worthy. I think that trust should be a guarded trust.

Trust goes both ways.

The police aren't the only ones who are required to exercise good judgment when someones life is in jeopardy, it is a citizens responsibility as well. Anally standing on your rights just to make a point, is not exercising good judgment.

[Guest American Woman]

I think that's silly. My children are pre teens, if they ever need the police, they must trust them..same goes if the police need them.

Whether you think it's silly or not, it's the truth.

[Guest American Woman]

My kid's uncle is an RCMP officer and even he tells them not to trust cops.

Above all else I think trust should be earned.

I agree with you; and it sounds as if your kids' uncle is giving them some sound advice.

[punked]

What I find funny is how civil Libertarians split both the Conservatives and NDP down the middle, how about the Liberals? I never heard a Liberal talk about these issues.

[Wilber]

That's just it though, the police very likely will investigate these people and any other 'by-catch' their net sweeps up. They won't be able to help themselves. Like xul say, the attitude of innocent until proven guilty is really only something that judges need concern themselves with, not police.

If this business of peeping into people's houses becomes more commonplace, police and the state will only become more suspicious. I hate to think where we'll be after another 2 or 3 cycles of cracking down and getting tough on crime especially if more conservative judges are appointed to the supreme court. I sure don't expect the rules of Canadian law to stay the same for long.

[bjre]

Learn that in China did you? Maybe the Red Gaurd come pay Grand Mother a visit?

I was to young to be a Red Guard, I would be one if I older one or two years. My sister was a Red Guard, I never heard of anyone of her fellow Red Guard did anything not good to society, only what I know is they "learn from Lei Feng", which means help anyone that need to help, such as help senior people in the street to cross street, In Canada I will never do for fear of being sued if I try to help others to catch a thief. I become very cold since I came to Canada. I'd better stay as far away as possible whenever there is an event. There are too many dangerous laws I don't know.

[Guest American Woman]

Trust goes both ways.

The police aren't the only ones who are required to exercise good judgment when someones life is in jeopardy, it is a citizens responsibility as well. Anally standing on your rights just to make a point, is not exercising good judgment.

Whether it's "good judgment" or not is beside the point, as I clearly said 'whether you agree with their actions or not, their actions are invasive.' Do you disagree with that?

Furthermore, I don't think it's ever "anal" for someone to expect their "rights" to be respected. It's why they are called "rights." I'm sure the police could solve a lot of crimes a lot faster/easier/more efficiently if we, as citizens, had no rights. Do you disagree with that?

[eyeball]

I'd better stay as far away as possible whenever there is an event. There are too many dangerous laws I don't know.

I think its the reasons for having so many laws in the first place that you really need to distrust the most.

[bjre]

I think its the reasons for having so many laws in the first place that you really need to distrust the most.

I have no idea if the chicken came first or the egg.

[M.Dancer]

Whether you think it's silly or not, it's the truth.

What's the truth? That in your opinion we shouldn't trust the police or that the police going the extra mile and asking citizens to help find a young teenage girl is invasive?

No, niether are the Trvth. Invasive is when they come in without your permission, bust down your door andd scare your cat... when they ask politely for your permission, it's persuasive.

[Wilber]

Whether it's "good judgment" or not is beside the point, as I clearly said 'whether you agree with their actions or not, their actions are invasive.' Do you disagree with that?

Furthermore, I don't think it's ever "anal" for someone to expect their "rights" to be respected. It's why they are called "rights." I'm sure the police could solve a lot of crimes a lot faster/easier/more efficiently if we, as citizens, had no rights. Do you disagree with that?

What if it was your child that was missing, would you want people to co-operate with the police or put every legal obstruction available in their way? After all they would just be sticking up for their "rights". I've got some news for some of the folks here, just because you may have some interaction with the police, it doesn't necessarily make it all about you. Get over yourselves.

[eyeball]

I have no idea if the chicken came first or the egg.

Evolution came first so I'd have to say the egg.

[Wilber]

Evolution came first so I'd have to say the egg.

Or was reproducing by means of an egg, part of evolution?

[Guest American Woman]

Whether it's "good judgment" or not is beside the point, as I clearly said 'whether you agree with their actions or not, their actions are invasive.' Do you disagree with that?

Furthermore, I don't think it's ever "anal" for someone to expect their "rights" to be respected. It's why they are called "rights." I'm sure the police could solve a lot of crimes a lot faster/easier/more efficiently if we, as citizens, had no rights. Do you disagree with that?

What if it was your child that was missing, would you want people to co-operate with the police or put every legal obstruction available in their way? After all they would just be sticking up for their "rights". I've got some news for some of the folks here, just because you may have some interaction with the police, it doesn't necessarily make it all about you. Get over yourselves.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

And please try responding to what I've said. I've never said whether I agree with the police's actions or not; what I've said is: "whether you agree with it or not...." Furthermore, there's a reason the obstructions you refer to are "legal" obstructions. If it wasn't in the best interest of the citizens of our countries, why do you think these "rights" and "legal obstructions" would be in place?

As for your rant, not sure where that's coming from, but I'm not interested in going there .....

[punked]

What if it was your child that was missing, would you want people to co-operate with the police or put every legal obstruction available in their way? After all they would just be sticking up for their "rights". I've got some news for some of the folks here, just because you may have some interaction with the police, it doesn't necessarily make it all about you. Get over yourselves.

The reason why we have those rights is so they can not under any circumstance, unless the war act is activated, be violated. There is a reason for this it is stop the abuse of power. I got news for you the charter of rights and freedom is not something you can whip your butt with just becuase you "might" solve a crime. Here is another news flash this peeping done by police hasn't solved anything. That is another point there is nothing to prove this works at all.

You are using this missing child as political fodder to start an agenda of rights encroachment. You can't search 6000 houses 2 months after a kid is kidnapped and hope to find anyhthing. It is desperate because they have no ideas. You guys keep asking "don't you want everything to be done" well no I don't I don't want them to hire psychics I don't want them to give a Lie detector test to everyone in Canada. I want them to smart about solving this crime otherwise all that is going to happen is they are going to ram an innocent person in jail to not look stuipd or they are going to waste everyones time.

[Guest American Woman]

What's the truth? That in your opinion we shouldn't trust the police or that the police going the extra mile and asking citizens to help find a young teenage girl is invasive?

If you can't comprehend what I said, and clearly you can't, I'm afraid further explanations would be useless, so I won't waste my time.

Invasive is when they come in without your permission, bust down your door andd scare your cat... when they ask politely for your permission, it's persuasive.

in·va·sive (n-vsv)

adj.

Tending to intrude or encroach, as upon privacy.

Expecting people to let them in to "peek" around their house is most definitely 'intruding/encroaching upon one's privacy.'

Whether one agrees with the polices' actions or not, their actions are intrusive.

[Wilber]

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

And please try responding to what I've said. I've never said whether I agree with the police's actions or not; what I've said is: "whether you agree with it or not...." Furthermore, there's a reason the obstructions you refer to are "legal" obstructions. If it wasn't in the best interest of the citizens of our countries, why do you think these "rights" and "legal obstructions" would be in place?

As for your rant, not sure where that's coming from, but I'm not interested in going there .....

Well when it comes to not answering questions, a little self reflection might be in order. Another question for you. How do you view the police personally, as a threat to your freedom to live a life without fear or as a necessity for you to exercise that freedom? I am not saying rights should be taken away, just that citizens also have responsibilities when in comes to how they exercise those rights.

[punked]

Well when it comes to not answering questions, a little self reflection might be in order. Another question for you. How do you view the police personally, as a threat to your freedom to live a life without fear or as a necessity for you to exercise that freedom? I am not saying rights should be taken away, just that citizens also have responsibilities when in comes to how they exercise those rights.

Depends on the police officer, the way their whole operation is run and where I am doesn't. As a rule I am very polite to the police but I will exercise my rights as a Canadian Citizen if I feel it is the right time to do so. Citizens have the responsibility to exercise their rights when ever they see fit. I often think it can be a use it or lose it thing and those rights plenty of people fought for and I for am glade they were put on paper so people know them.

[Guest American Woman]

Well when it comes to not answering questions, a little self reflection might be in order.

I see you still haven't answered the questions I raised, and I'm guessing there's a reason you're avoiding doing so.

Another question for you. How do you view the police personally, as a threat to your freedom to live a life without fear or as a necessity for you to exercise that freedom?

Again, this has nothing to do with the issues I've raised. How I personally view the police has nothing to do with personal "rights" or "legal obstructions" or whether or not their entering homes to "peek around" is intrusive. And that's the issue. As I said previously, please try responding to what I've said.

I am not saying rights should be taken away, just that citizens also have responsibilities when in comes to how they exercise those rights.

So who gets to determine what the "responsible thing to do" is when giving up rights? You? Me? Eyeball?

But again, regardless of whether or not it's 'the responsible thing to do' to let the police in, knocking on one's door and expecting to be let in to look around is intrusive. It is, in its expectation, a violation of one's rights.

[xul]

Perhaps you should think a little less about your rights in such circumstances and little more about the missing kid and the people who are busting their asses trying to find it.

I think it is the politician's and lawmaker's responsibility to set some conditions in law to allow police conducting such deed. Maybe it only needs adding one term in laws allowing a judge to issue a collective warrant for a certain area not only one house in such circumstance.

As a man who lives in a developing country, I do feel for your story. Politicians, lawmakers, and of course the voters behind them, always talk about what kind of laws/policies is good and what kind of laws/policies is bad or evil. Stone-aged judges settled a lawsuit by setting a stick vertically in front of the accused then released it, when the stick falled to the accused's side, he was guilty. When I was a teenager, I wondered what on earth was the function of such activities? But by now I think I have understood it. The stone-aged tribe kinds/queens/judges did these at the time not because they were not as smart as nowaday judges, police and politicians, but because they didn't have the resorts the modern police have to discover the truth. I bet the one who designed the stick-judging system perfectly knew what he was doing. He only did that because he also knew that, since the tribe had grown far more bigger than a monkey herd, things might go more worse if there was not a 50%-correct judge system.

Maybe in the future, the technology will make police being able to find a missing kid or a criminal by satellites so there will not be any search needed and people in the furture may think how stupid, brutal and future-political-incorrect we are just as we think what our stone-aged ancestors were. But we do live in the present world not furture, why shouldn't we, and the politicians and law makers be pragmatic and make the laws more fitting the circumstance we faced?

[punked]

I think it is the politician's and lawmaker's responsibility to set some conditions in law to allow police conducting such deed. Maybe it only needs adding one term in laws allowing a judge to issue a collective warrant for a certain area not only one house in such circumstance.

As a man who lives in a developing country, I do feel for your story. Politicians, lawmakers, and of course the voters behind them, always talk about what kind of laws/policies is good and what kind of laws/policies is bad or evil. Stone-aged judges settled a lawsuit by setting a stick vertically in front of the accused then released it, when the stick falled to the accused's side, he was guilty. When I was a teenager, I wondered what on earth was the function of such activities? But by now I think I have understood it. The stone-aged tribe kinds/queens/judges did these at the time not because they were not as smart as nowaday judges, police and politicians, but because they didn't have the resorts the modern police have to discover the truth. I bet the one who designed the stick-judging system perfectly knew what he was doing. He only did that because he also knew that, since the tribe had grown far more bigger than a monkey herd, things might go more worse if there was not a 50%-correct judge system.

Maybe in the future, the technology will make police being able to find a missing kid or a criminal by satellites so there will not be any search needed and people in the furture may think how stupid, brutal and future-political-incorrect we are just as we think what our stone-aged ancestors were. But we do live in the present world not furture, why shouldn't we, and the politicians and law makers be pragmatic and make the laws more fitting the circumstance we faced?

Sorry Bud to change the Charter you have to open the Constitution so it would be almost impossible to change section 8 welcome to Canada. Innocent until proven guilty and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If you don't like it move to communist China.

[Smallc]

Remember that next time you start on the Senate Punked .

[Wilber]

I see you still haven't answered the questions I raised, and I'm guessing there's a reason you're avoiding doing so.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issues I've raised. How I personally view the police has nothing to do with personal "rights" or "legal obstructions" or whether or not their entering homes to "peek around" is intrusive. And that's the issue. As I said previously, please try responding to what I've said.

So who gets to determine what the "responsible thing to do" is when giving up rights? You? Me? Eyeball?

But again, regardless of whether or not it's 'the responsible thing to do' to let the police in, knocking on one's door and expecting to be let in to look around is intrusive. It is, in its expectation, a violation of one's rights.

I'm not avoiding anything.

As it has already been pointed out to you, it is a violation of nothing if they ask. I don't dispute a persons right to refuse, only their motives. You have a lot of rights, many of them allow you to do things that are downright stupid, irresponsible and can in fact represent a danger to others.

I'll ask you again, if it were your kid how would you feel about everyone in your neighbourhood exercising their "rights" on principle when it was making finding that kid more difficult?

[xul]

Sorry Bud to change the Charter you have to open the Constitution so it would be almost impossible to change section 8 welcome to Canada. Innocent until proven guilty and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

It seems like you interpret a constitution of a democratic country as some holy book's Law in a theocratic country, which is unchangeable because it was written by their gods, not man.

Any man-made things can be change by man. United States Constitution has been change 18 times with 27 amendments. Honestly I don't know Canadian legal system very well. Though I think things in Canada may be more difficult than America because some historical reason, but I believe if the overwhelming majority of Canadian wants a change, there will be a change.

Exactly I believe it is not entriely impossible to change those holy-book's laws. In 1600s, it seemed like impossible to make church to agree that the earth orbits the sun, but today nobody disagrees with it.

If you don't like it move to communist China.

I think you, again, has misunderstood the system of your country. Only the legal representative of Canada and Canadian people can demand me like that and you are not the representative, I'm sure of that.

[xul]

About rights, all sorts of rights like constitutional rights, political-correct rights, holy-books-fitting rights.... there is a joke of holy-books-fitting rights which shows how the rights-correctness is wrong:

After occupying a theocratic country, the president and other NATO leaders received 48 urgent phone calls everyday from the puppet PM they proped up.

President: What's going on?

puppet PM: Your soldiers are unhooding our women in the checkpoint they set in streets.

President: I know. They are just trying to identify whether the person is the same one in the identity card.

puppet PM: According our holy-book, a woman unhood herself in the street is a blasphemy and totally unacceptable.

President: But how on earth our soldiers could sort out terrorists from these hooded people?

puppet PM: I'll agree anything which is not forbidden by our holy books.

Harper: Don't worry. Some brilliant Canadian scientists have invented some high-tech spectacles being able to see through any clothes though it isn't capable seeing through a wall yet to satisfy RCMP's demand for avoiding any unchangeable legal restriction of unreasonable search to a house.

President: Then that settles it. Thanks heaven, buddies, now our soldiers are not only being able to see their face, but also being able to see their ass.......

Edited November 13, 2009 by xul