What right have you lost.

[eyeball]

I don’t see it like that……with the several cited examples, we have several police officers charged with breaking the law during policing actions comprised of tens, hundreds and thousands of other police officers, as such, I can differentiate the actions of the majority of the officers and those that broke the law…….

With additional measures brought forth, I would fully expect a minority of officers to continue to break current or future laws as it happens presently and in turn, those officers to also face legal repercussions……hardly the makings of a fascist police state, but a realization that police are not infallible and that some individual members will break laws, be it by mistake or malfeasance.

These new measures appear to legalize what it was that police reduced on their own at the TO G-20. Whatever laws the next minority of overly gung-ho police break bend or otherwise mutilate will be legalized in the next C-51 and so on and so on.

I'm pretty sure the general root concern most Canadians feel lurking at the back of their minds is how such a step-wise process could in fact be a perfect way to make a fascist police state. Throw in some really ugly galvanizing events and I bet we'll be there faster than you can say George Orwell.

[Derek 2.0]

You're framing the questions improperly. This isn't about the individuals involved, or choices that individuals make. Nor is it about generalizing personal choices to all police.

This is about a system that allows such things to happen. That allows illegal wiretapes, mail opening and so on.

Ahh but it is a matter of personal perspective…….I don’t consider opened packages by the CBSA as an infringement of my rights to privacy, likewise the RCMP receiving information on individuals, from our International partners, involved in international terrorism.

Yeah, no. It's part of the system. It's not call fascism, but peace, ORDER, and good government.

What is part of the system?

[Derek 2.0]

Hmm....a citation for how many never get charged for things they do?

Curious how that would work.

Of course it is, but unless they are charged nothing happens and they get let off routinely.

I suppose I could subpeona the Prov for all 5000+ MVR's of cops in Toronto and show the handful of tickets .

But seeing the stats internally one can easily deduce something is amiss, and that is an easy 'amiss' to conclude.

If you know any cops, any at all, then you know they dont get popped for drinking and driving like any mere mortal does.

So your assertion that many of the police get away with crimes is not supported by any firm data……..I’m shocked!!

[guyser]

Ahh but it is a matter of personal perspective…

No it isnt.

….I don’t consider opened packages by the CBSA as an infringement of my rights to privacy

Thats because it isnt.

Your rights (some of them) are suspended at borders into and out of the country.,

Edited February 13, 2015 by Guyser2

[guyser]

So your assertion that many of the police get away with crimes is not supported by any firm data……..I’m shocked!!

No no, I asked how many sites you want.

Then I talked about the local cops.

Keep up will ya.

If ya wanna laugh, go look at your question asking for a cite of how many dont get charged. While I am at it, can I look for a cite that god doesnt exist?

[Derek 2.0]

No it isnt.

Why? If I feel my rights are being violated (or not) is that not an opinion? Of course legal validation is then required to confirm (or deny) my personal opinion......

[Derek 2.0]

No no, I asked how many sites you want.

Then I talked about the local cops.

Keep up will ya.

If ya wanna laugh, go look at your question asking for a cite of how many dont get charged. While I am at it, can I look for a cite that god doesnt exist?

The problem with baseless and blanket statements........they sound good until you have to prove them

[guyser]

Why? If I feel my rights are being violated (or not) is that not an opinion?

You can feel violated, sure.

You CANNOT feel your rights are violated in the scenario you posted.

Of course legal validation is then required to confirm (or deny) my personal opinion......

NOt the way it works I am afraid.

[guyser]

The problem with baseless and blanket statements........they sound good until you have to prove them

That may well be true, but your statement that Police are held to the same as the rest of us was the intitial blanket statement , said in light of numerous published papers, videos,news reports to the contrary.

[Derek 2.0]

You can feel violated, sure.

You CANNOT feel your rights are violated in the scenario you posted.

Why?

NOt the way it works I am afraid.

By all means, explain the recourse for a person who feels their rights were violated by others...

[Derek 2.0]

That may well be true, but your statement that Police are held to the same as the rest of us was the intitial blanket statement , said in light of numerous published papers, videos,news reports to the contrary.

What published papers, videos and news reports? Do these contain data demonstrating police get away with breaking the law more often than the general public as you claimed?

[guyser]

Why?

Because the rights you are feeling are enumerated in legal code. The Charter.

You could I suppose say " I feel AS IF my rights have been violated " But not that they were, because thats a legal issue.

[guyser]

Do these contain data demonstrating police get away with breaking the law more often than the general public as you claimed?

Who claimed that?

[cybercoma]

What published papers, videos and news reports? Do these contain data demonstrating police get away with breaking the law more often than the general public as you claimed?

Why do the police have to break the law more often for it to be a problem? That's a silly supposition.

[guyser]

Why do the police have to break the law more often for it to be a problem? That's a silly supposition.

Not to mention how does one get info on something thaty isnt kept.

Is there a file that says Officer Studenko drove drunk today, but no charges cuz he is one of us?

We know for sure the thin blue line exists, what we dont know is just how bad it is, and it is bad.

Every single Cop at the G20 who took their badge # off should have been suspended without pay and more.

Yet, video/photo proof exists that shows dozens if not more did so.

And with that, they violated a direct order from Chief Blair. I also get why Blair could not do much, he/d have a mutiny on his hands, but some oversight in that regard could have made that decision and then fry em all

But nope, more of the same.

And there are lots of good cops, but waaaaaaay too many idiot cops out there. So hey cops, want respect? Out the pricks now.

[Big Guy]

Some "experts" believe that this bill is not a good idea:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/former-csis-officer-warns-new-federal-anti-terror-bill-will-lead-to-lawsuits-embarrassment/

But why listen to the experts?

[Derek 2.0]

Some "experts" believe that this bill is not a good idea:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/former-csis-officer-warns-new-federal-anti-terror-bill-will-lead-to-lawsuits-embarrassment/

But why listen to the experts?

Expert opinion or sour grapes? Your cited "expert" left CSIS in 1988 after he (and fellow officers) bore the brunt of intelligence failures associated with the Air India bombing……up to and the inclusion of destroying evidence to avoid having to testify in court.

[Derek 2.0]

Why do the police have to break the law more often for it to be a problem? That's a silly supposition.

Not a supposition at all, but a request for proof on a statement by another member..........a silly supposition would be if I said most Muslims are terrorists sans supporting evidence.......

[jacee]

lawyers-win-exemptions-from-money-laundering-law/

While I don't defend money laundering - for terrorism or organized crime - I can't support warrantless search and seizure either.

The federal Attorney-General had urged the court not to treat lawyers as above the laws

passed by Parliament, but the Supreme Court found much to dislike in a money-laundering law that allowed government agents to search lawyers offices and seize documents without a warrant. The court said it would have turned lawyers into unwitting agents of the state, unable even to inform their clients when their confidential records were at risk of being viewed by a government agency set up to fight money laundering (methods of disguising illegal sources of income).

...

The ruling exempts lawyers from the money-laundering law, and reinforces a previous decision that the relationship of confidentiality known as solicitor-client privilege is a near-absolute. And it goes further, by establishing for the first time, by a 5-2 vote, that a lawyers duty of commitment to the clients cause is a principle of fundamental justice which means it is enduring and central. It will thus be nearly impossible for the government to interfere in that relationship by using the threat of criminal prosecution.

Edited February 14, 2015 by jacee

[Keepitsimple]

lawyers-win-exemptions-from-money-laundering-law/

While I don't defend money laundering - for terrorism or organized crime - I can't support warrantless search and seizure either.

The federal Attorney-General had urged the court not to treat lawyers as above the laws

passed by Parliament, but the Supreme Court found much to dislike in a money-laundering law that allowed government agents to search lawyers offices and seize documents without a warrant. The court said it would have turned lawyers into unwitting agents of the state, unable even to inform their clients when their confidential records were at risk of being viewed by a government agency set up to fight money laundering (methods of disguising illegal sources of income).

...

The ruling exempts lawyers from the money-laundering law, and reinforces a previous decision that the relationship of confidentiality known as solicitor-client privilege is a near-absolute. And it goes further, by establishing for the first time, by a 5-2 vote, that a lawyers duty of commitment to the clients cause is a principle of fundamental justice which means it is enduring and central. It will thus be nearly impossible for the government to interfere in that relationship by using the threat of criminal prosecution.

You're completely aware of course that this relates back to 2000 and legislation that was introduced by Mr. Chretien's Liberal government, right?

Edited February 14, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

So I take it you don't subscribe to the doe-see-doe incremental makings-of-a-police-state theory, it's all the fault of one wing - one lone rogue party in concert with itself?

[Big Guy]

To Derek 2.0 - I am very surprised that you have used the old "if you can't criticize the message then try to discredit the messenger" ploy. That is the first time I have seen you use that. I thought that you do not stoop to those kinds of arguments.

Do you really believe that someone who has worked in CSIS, who understands its strengths and weaknesses, would lie just to get some kind of revenge against somebody? Of all the speculation from different posters here, there is finally some "expert" (somebody who really knows the ins and outs) and you not only do not address his points but dismiss his opinion as "sour grapes"?

I hope that this is a "one-of-a-kind" response from you. That is a tactic associated with some less credible other posters on this board.

[Michael Hardner]

What is part of the system?

Police forces organizing anti-democratic operations, with little public accounting and no public understanding of how this happened. This was an action by the organizations.

You haven't yet answered the question of whether you're ok with it, so I'll assume you are. And again, my point is that we don't appear to be able to strike a balance between security/democratic rights. We have both sometimes, and other times we have neither. And, like you, most are ok with that.

[jacee]

You're completely aware of course that this relates back to 2000 and legislation that was introduced by Mr. Chretien's Liberal government, right?

And you mistakenly assume that matters to me.

Edited February 14, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Expert opinion or sour grapes? Your cited "expert" left CSIS in 1988 after he (and fellow officers) bore the brunt of intelligence failures associated with the Air India bombingup to and the inclusion of destroying evidence to avoid having to testify in court.

Read the rest of the article, Derek:

On Thursday, law professors Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, released a hair-raising 37-page analysis of C-51.

CSIS will be able to get warrants at secret hearings to violate Canadians rights, which risks creating a secret jurisprudence on when CSIS can act beyond the law.

CSIS will have open-ended authorization whose proper and reasonable application will depend on perfect government judgment.

They worry that Canadians cant have confidence CSIS wont be used to target political enemies of the government.

.

Edited February 14, 2015 by jacee