Hogtown reall is full of 'pigs'
Ice Age
TORONTO — Martial law ruled Toronto during the G20 summit after Ontario
secretly gave police wartime powers, resulting in a mass violation of
civil rights unprecedented in Canada, the provincial watchdog said in a
scathingreport Tuesday.
The deliberate misinformation surrounding a revamped Second World War
regulation led people to wrongly believe police had the power to demand
identification and detain anyone coming within five metres of the G20
security fence.
>snip<
Scary stuff. Goes beyond the War Measures Act of 1970 because,
"Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau went to Parliament to hold a
debate before enacting the War Measures Act in the early 1970s, but
Ontario went out of its way to keep the new law on police powers quiet,
said Marin."
Ah well, us sheeple will shrug it off. We only elect/defeat
governments on economic issues and ignore it when our freedoms are
trampled on.
--
Ice!
James Warren
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1216050.html
>
> TORONTO — Martial law ruled Toronto during the G20 summit after Ontario secretly gave police wartime powers, resulting
> in a mass violation of civil rights unprecedented in Canada, the provincial watchdog said in a scathingreport Tuesday.
>
> The deliberate misinformation surrounding a revamped Second World War regulation led people to wrongly believe police
> had the power to demand identification and detain anyone coming within five metres of the G20 security fence.
Can we really say that we have rights if they can be set aside willy nilly?
>
> >snip<
>
> Scary stuff. Goes beyond the War Measures Act of 1970 because, "Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau went to Parliament
> to hold a debate before enacting the War Measures Act in the early 1970s, but Ontario went out of its way to keep the
> new law on police powers quiet, said Marin."
>
> Ah well, us sheeple will shrug it off. We only elect/defeat governments on economic issues and ignore it when our
> freedoms are trampled on.
>
--
jw
Carter
> On 12/8/2010 8:26 AM, Ice Age wrote:
>> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1216050.html
>>
>> TORONTO — Martial law ruled Toronto during the G20 summit after
>> Ontario secretly gave police wartime powers, resulting
>> in a mass violation of civil rights unprecedented in Canada,
>> the provincial watchdog said in a scathingreport Tuesday.
>>
>> The deliberate misinformation surrounding a revamped Second
>> World War regulation led people to wrongly believe police
>> had the power to demand identification and detain anyone coming
>> within five metres of the G20 security fence.
>
> Can we really say that we have rights if they can be set aside
> willy nilly?
They can't be.
Carter
James Warren
Apparently they were.
--
jw
Mike Spencer
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we really say that we have rights if they can be set aside willy
> nilly?
Just a little backgrounder here...
Canadians may of ten be heard to say that the US Constitution confers
rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while the
Canadian Constitution confers rights to "peace, order and good
government". I've been told this by an accomplished, PhD-holding
academic. And that's wrong.
The referenced phrase appears in the US Declaration of Independence.
That document doesn't not confer rights, it recognizes them:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed....
When the US Constitution was written, some 13 years later, many of the
elite and wealthy in the new nation had had altogether too much of
liberty secured to the people. [1] The public debate (in print, now
referred to collectively as "The Federalist Papers") defended and the
ensuing Constitution enshrined, the primacy of property rights over
what the colonial revolutionaries meant by "liberty".
If you're an atheist [3], you should be able to infer from the notion
that the uniqueness of the human brain and the human condition a
natural endowment with the same naturally emerging right that the
American revolutionaries attributed to "the Creator".
The point here is that we have individual rights, intrinsic to being
what we are. They can be violated by others but not removed, either
by violence or by legislation. The Canadian constitutional assertion
of "peace, order and good government" in principle secures the natural
rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Ontario
government and Toronto police violated those rights but by no means
expunged them. Perhaps the people of Ontario should read a little
further in the US declaration of Independence:
[We hold] That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And now back to your regularly scheduled whatever-it-was....
[1] E.g. [Daniel] Shay's rebellion, q.g. [2]
[2] q.g. Quod Google. Updated version of q.v., quod vide
[3] a-theist, etymologically, without god.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
James Warren
As usual, an interesting commentary and clarification.
I should choose my words as carefully as you do. :)
This is what I should have said:
Can we really say that we have rights if they can be *violated* willy nilly?
If our rights can be violated without consequences to the violators
or reparations to those violated, then, de facto, those rights don't exist
or, at least, can't be relied upon to always be respected.
--
jw
Carter
Carter
James Warren
You are right. Rights were violated.
--
jw
Carter
Carter
James Warren
Insufficient reason is willy nilly.
--
jw
Carter
real threats against visiting world leaders. A unique level of
security was required. There is no doubt that the Ontario
government erred in it's choice of legislation in an attempt to
provide that level of security but it wasn't a 'willy nilly'
decision, it was a mistake which has been admitted. It was not a
random decision.
Carter