A new post at Angry in the Great White North considers what the notion of “property rights” means in Canada, and wonders why we bother prosecuting theft.
As the court ruled, ‘Thou shalt not steal’ has no legal force upon the sovereign body. But that power is jealously guarded.
When you or I take something, we’re freelancing. Stealing is a federal monopoly in this country.
If you want to be a thief, you need to be a member of the federal civil service.
I think we always knew, deep down, that this was true.
Wow, that is amazingly cynical and bitter. Do you really think that every member of the federal public service is a thief?
Not at all, and you’ll note that I didn’t say that. But thanks to the courts, we know that the federal government in empowered to steal. Well, it’s not really stealing, because you can’t have what you don’t own stolen from you.
And by the way, if sometimes I seem angry and cynical, it’s because that’s my schtick.
Cheers!
It’s not surprising that Liberal thieving is tolerated so well in a nation where everyone is busily filling their MP3 players with ‘free’ (stolen) music, playing bootleg games on their computers, and watching videos that they have downloaded off the Net.
Our problems in Canada go much deeper than the Liberal Party. I’m becoming very afraid that Liberal values ARE Canadian values (steal what you want whenever you want).
Angry, some people are confused over property ownership and property rights. Would property rights for example give us more freedom to protect our property. Other things like when people get injured on private property the owners are often sued. What exactly does property rights protect the owner from??
http://www.ruralrevolution.com/website
There is resistance.
When something is enumerated as a “right” it means that the government cannot deny it to you. If it tries, the onus is on the government to explain to the court why this extraordinary step must be allowed. If it falls short of the high bar set for rights, you win. The presumption is that when a right is involved, the citizen is correct.
We might own something, but in Canada, that ownership is a function a statutory law. It is merely a legislative construct, and as such, has no real existance except in the courts. It is not a right, so there is no real protection. We don’t have the right to own anything in Canada. What we own we do only because the government has allowed us to.
That permission can be withdrawn at any time, and there is no recourse for citizens who have their things taken by the government.
My bit about freelancing is humourous excess, but I did it to highlight the point.
Tories seem to tolerate Grewal’s tape fraud and immigration fraud just fine. Or how about Vic Toews election fraud conviction. Or how about James Rajotte’s assault in which he got a conditional discharge, a sentence decried by Cons. The hypocrisy is every where. Even in your back yard.
Al, you’ve brought up what is a sore point for me. Check out my piece on exactly this issue.
Before the 1982 Charter we did have property rights via the Deifenbaker Bill of rights…something that reflects the property rights article in UN bill of human rights which Canada drafted.
Trudeau specifically had property rights left out of the charter ( yes there is ample documented proof in Hansard) for one main reason….it was an incumberance to government expropriations of private assets or property….you can’t run a statist socialist government or a buearcratic kleptocracy and constantly be hung up in court by citizens making Charter/constitutional objections to arbitrary federal controls that/regulate/expropriate/encumber their private property.
The greatest place to see this change in effect is the deeded ownership rights to real property before and after 1982….what real estate owners have now is a small bundle or tertiary property rights ( tennent rights) where before they had unlimited access and utility rights as well as all alluvial rights (owner’s rights).
Where is the decay in property rights materializing today? Well, ask a rancher/farmer what much of the federal environment/wildlife laws do to his utilization rights on his property.
Or ask a gun collector how the feds can arbitrarily outlaw a previously legally bought-sold-owned firearm and confiscate it with no due process or compensation….actually there are seventy other federal statute laws that will conficate your property without compensation if they deem said property to be arbitrarily outlawed.
Or ask a constitutional lawyer how our payroll tax deduction program makes illegal 3rd party confiscatory demands on private property. (coerced theft)
Lastly, look at all government statutes where regulatory change default results in arbitrary confiscation of private property.
None of this was constitutionally or legally sound prior to 1982’s charter relegated individual property rights to a matter of regulated second rate, easily removed “priviledges”…and that is a reach as you must use the nebulous arguments opened by the vagueness of section 26 to argue that property rights even exist.
Angry and Redux:Thank you both for your answers.
Of course, so far as Grewal is concerned, there is no tape fraud or immigration fraud to tolerate. Just unsubstantiated assertions by people with every reason to lie. Like our pal Al.
LOOK!
It seems to me that a couple of pops on a tape DO NOT invalidate the CLEARLY AUDIBLE parts where Murphy and Dosonjh are making offers of Senate appointments etc in exchange for their abstension of their votes against the government or crossing the floor to join the Libranos.
In either case A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED!
Where is the accountibility on this and where is the media pursuit of these crimes.
NAda.
The MSM are branches of the left liberal ruling eilte.
Democracy is a joke in Kanada.
The four postings above this made my day, this Al guy is judge jury and hangman even though neither the RCMP or the Ethics Commissioner have said a word regarding the tapes, the media have played judge and jury also, and the jury is not even out yet. Al would not be welcomed by most as a “official spokeman” on the Jackson case, his mind set would seem to have him guilty before the jury has made their verdict. I can’t believer how these tapes are being pre judged by anybody, we do have innocent until “proven” guilty in this counrty and to state otherwise is only aiding and abetting the Libranos, which I think is this Al”s real mandate, another “plant” it seem to me.
Stephen ww 2 vet.