Violating Rights in the Name of Safety?

Human-rights-violations

We all have rights.   Many of those rights are violated today under the guise of “for your safety” or for “public safety”.      Like the era of Hitler when he came into power, pro police and pro authority supporters encourage this.    They praise police when they very obviously have broken the law or violated someone’s individual human rights.
Today I read a very vague article in my local newspaper, that lead me to believe the person mentioned in it had her rights violated.   Which of course prompted a heated debate as I seemed to be the only one who recognized this.

Here is the article:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6470583-drunk-woman-spits-in-police-officer-s-face-at-hamilton-hospital/

Now, after reading the article it does not say why she was in the hospital or why she was angry.     So we can only speculate.    I am someone who presumes innocence until proven guilty, so I will presume she is innocent of any crime.

Which leaves only a few reasons for her to act this way.  The most logical and basic is that she was forced there against her will, got angry and spit on the cop.   Who then proceeded to charge her for getting a little wet.

The comment section heated on social media when I mentioned that her rights had most likely been violated by the cops, the medical professions and possibly the paramedics if they used them.

This caused a stir.   People stood up and commented that the cops was assaulted, but really were they?

If you are taken against your will to someplace you didn’t want to go, just because you were drunk, isn’t that kidnapping?   I would think so.  In fact the Legal definition of kidnapping is:

Kidnapping

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

This is what they did. That is again assuming that she didn’t want to go and didn’t commit any crimes while drunk.

Many would say that it was for her safety and that makes it right.     Actually no it doesn’t.  The only person who can make that decision is the person in question.    The only time that doesn’t apply is when they are unable to due to mental illness or they are unconscious.

In the 90s, I lived in BC and at that time there was a serious heroin problem.  100% pure heroin was being sold on the streets and anyone who would inject themselves with it would overdose and die within 3o minutes.   This was such a major problem that they had paramedics driving ambulances in the alleys and looking for unconscious drug addicts.

When they found a conscious drug user, they would offer help, and if they person said no they legally could not do anything.    If that happened they would wait until that person lost consciousness and then act.

When I asked the  authorities about that, they said that by law they cannot force a medical treatment against someone’s will unless they were unable to make that decision themselves.   That is to me the right thing to do.

Now back to the woman in the article, if she was drunk and they transported her to the hospital and she refused medical treatment, then forcing her to have it would have made the medical staff at fault.  And the police trying to “deescalate” the situation would not have made it any better.     No means no.     And since the police in this age are not known to be gentle or nice , we can only assume their idea of deescalate was to use force on her to hold her down.   To which the only thing the woman could do to defend herself would be to spit on the cop.

Some paramedics piped up and stated they deal with drunk people all the time who don’t want help and have to “deal” with the violence all the time.  Same with some nurses at the hospitals.     Here is my message you to and to any of these people who think they are helping someone.   “NO MEANS NO.”  Drunk or sober, you do not have the right to force a medical treatment, force someone to go somewhere, without their consent or against their will.   NEVER!   If they attack you in anyway it is within their right to defend themselves because regardless of your intent, you are violating their rights and attacking them”.

Can people understand this?    If a drunk driver is held accountable for their actions of getting in the vehicle and driving while drunk then they have the ability to say no to unwanted help.    If you violate this and take them to a hospital and try to perform a medical procedure, any medical procedure then you are at fault and not the drunk person.

Pass this on and share this.   The more people that get educated on rights, then maybe we can fix this from happening to others.

 

 

Advertisements

What happened to our homes are our castles?

Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK
Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK

What happens when your home is no longer your castle?  What does it feel like when you, get told that you have no rights on who enters your home or when?

I found out today that in Canada, we do not have any rights to our property.  At least the government believes we don’t.    In the interest of safety, they have created laws that empower their  agents to think they can tell us that they can, without any warrant, to enter our homes.

Now the reason may sound reasonable to some, but the reason does not matter to me.  It is the rights they trample over.

Today during a neighborhood association meeting, we had a representative from the fire department.   She was quite nice and I had a great respect for that branch.   Until today that is.     She had been there to represent the local fire department and with a smile, informed us that the Carbon Monoxide detectors had almost been installed in all the homes in my area, except for a few.   She then proceeded to inform us that in those homes that they were unable to gain access to, they would ticket the homeowners and basically enter the home, without a warrant to install these Carbon Monoxide detectors/inspect the home.

Of course being who I am, this raised huge red flags to me.   Our homes are supposed to be our sanctuaries and no one, should be allowed to enter except in emergency or with a warrant if suspected of a crime.

According to the fire department however, they can and will enter people’s homes if the home owners refuse them entry when they come knocking for the carbon monoxide detectors.

The legal implications for this is huge.    The first implication is that you have no say on who enters the home if they are a government agent.   The police are supposed to get a warrant to enter someone’s home, but the fire department doesn’t if there is no apparent emergency?

If the fire department can be granted these powers, with no due process, then what else has the Canadian governments created?

Needless to say this made me instantly angry.   Here was a government representative, telling us homeowners that we had no say.   No authority.     Well needless to say that I promptly informed her that no law can decide who enters my home and If they tried I will fight them in court and defend my home from intrusion, because without a warrant, I consider anyone entering my home as a home invader.  Uniform or not.     She then tried to threaten me with getting a police officer to come in to “explain” the law to me.

This kind of heavy strong arm tactic is the same type that dictatorships use and if you don’t capitulate they throw you in jail or kill you.    No cop can enter your home without your permission or a warrant, or unless there is some emergency like a 911 call from inside the home, fire, or break in.

They cannot, ever enter without a warrant.   To do so, they would be violating your rights to privacy and your home.    Think of all those people who have been victims of a home invasion and imagine the home invaders being the government.    The feelings you would feel would be no different.    Many people who have experienced this from cops or any government agency have described their feelings after as the same as those who have had a home invasion by criminals.     No difference.

Now, someone at the meeting cited that police can enter with just cause, and the answer is a swift no they can’t.   They need to get a warrant to enter.  If they have “just cause” then they can bring that to a judge, while just cause is not usually enough to get an arrest warrant, it can be enough to justify a warrant to enter someone’s home, but to give any other agencies sweeping powers to enter your home with any due process is a violation of a person’s rights.

We need to stop letting these people get away with this.  We need to stop being so passive when it comes to government and law enforcement.

Maybe they are misunderstanding the law?   Maybe they have been told by their superiors they can do this and let the lawyers handle any blowback?   Who knows, but this is not what living in a free country means.

Dear World, Justin Trudeau doesn’t represent Canada.

Dear World Population,

First I would like to thank you for reading my open letter.   I know that you are busy, so I will try to keep this short.

Justin Trudeau does not represent Canada.     Yes I know, he is the PM of the crown corporation of Canada, and claims he is the representative.    However, I will state this.   He does not represent the values, nor the ideals of the majority of Canadians.

How can he be the PM then you ask?    Good question.   First, and foremost, the majority didn’t vote for him.   Believe it!

The problem with our voting system is our leaders are chosen years in advance.   The media manipulates their audience with back and forth promotions to make it seem like it is a fair and honest election.     As I have written in the past about elections  and the process I won’t get into here, except that our votes don’t matter and that we do not live in a democracy.    If we did the people’ who removed their votes would be counted.   In this country though, the people who don’t vote are left behind.     In reality only a very small percentage of the Canadian population actually voted in the last election and of them an even smaller number voted liberal.

You see in our country, we are forced to vote for a party, not an individual.   So if you like the candidates objectives in your riding and vote for them then the party gets the seats in parliament.   This means that the person who is head of that party gets to be PM of the country.      If you don’t like the leader of the party but feel the only there is one candidate who falls in with your values or ideas of how the country should be run but hate the leader of that party, you really only have 2 choices.  Vote anyway or not vote at all.    Last election, the major portion of the population didn’t vote.

Now I know what your thinking.   “Then vote and make a difference”.   It doesn’t matter.   After speaking with Elections Canada, they informed me that even if only 10 people in the whole country voted then then we would still have a PM and the government would still run.

That is NOT a democracy.

So again, Justin Trudeau does not represent Canadians or our values.    His mindset is of third wave feminism which is about elevating women, giving them things like money, jobs, opportunities simply based on their gender instead of actually earning those things.

Recently he called for all Canadian’s to “embrace feminism and not be scared of it”.     This caused an uproar in the comment section of every media source that printed an article about this.

Canadians’ do not like third wave feminism.    Canadians believe in real equality, not the brand of equality that takes from men who have earned their money, job etc, and giving to to women simply because they are women.        This brand of feminism goes against the original brand of feminism that was about women having the right to work along side men and earn the same money and the same promotions as men.    Not be handed those positions, without earning or working for it, simply based on the the anatomy.

The original feminists who fought back in the 60’s speak out against this current crop of so called feminism.

In this country we believe in fair treatment.   We believe if you work hard in your career, and put in the time, sweat and tears into your job then you deserve and should move up the ladder.    You don’t get handed the board of directors position simply because you have a degree in gender studies.

To listen to our PM and see his efforts on behalf of feminism you would think we are all feminists, and we are definitely not.     It’s time to call out third wave feminism by all.  Time to call out the PM for pandering only to an ideal that puts men less than women instead of on equal footing.    It’s time to shout down this nonsense from all sources, and stop this before it really becomes harmful on our society.

Canada used to be peacekeepers, and the majority of us still believe we can be this again.
Canada used to be accepting of other cultures and groups.    We believe we can be this again.

Canada used to accept all religions and faiths and we believe we can be this again.

Don’t let Justin Trudeau’s  face fool you.    He is on a leash being controlled by third wave feminism, and he doesn’t speak for us.

And Justin, if you are reading this, understand this, you are a tool for the feminists.   You are not a feminist.   They will throw you under the bus the minute you are no longer a use to  them.    A man cannot be a feminist, that is like a black person supporting the slavery of black people.    Stop pandering to them and start representing Canada.  The real Canada.    Otherwise you may lose your job.

What is Canada? – Let’s end the Confusion

crown-jewels-london-england-places-1-screensaver

I apologize if I have covered this before but there seems to be many people out in Canada who still believe that Canada is one hundred percent independent from the UK, in particular, the Queen.     Many argue she is just a figure head with no power here.  I have heard the argument over and over.   It simply isn’t true, and I am baffled at why people think otherwise.

I have a theory that fifty percent of the population has been dumb down by drugs, media, and the chemicals in the water.   That is the only explanation of the mass upsurge in ignorance and idiocy in the general public.   I heard once that if you see a really dumb person, that half the population is dumber than that, and I am beginning to believe that theory.

However, let me get back on to the subject.   What is Canada?  Is it really independent?   The answer is no.  We are part of the commonwealth, and the Queen does have authority.  She however, shares her authority. This doesn’t mean she is a figurehead, it means she has chosen to give authority to others to act on her behalf.  That is an entirely different thing than not having any authority at all.

Let me put this into context.    The Crown Corporation (Government of Canada) was created by her ancestors, and yes it is a corporation.   It’s actually listed as a Corporation Sole for those willing to look that up.   The ruling monarch owns it.   Now, when you own a corporation and it is a corporation sole, and want to leave the day to day operations to leave you free to pursue other interests or oversee other corporations that you or your family started, you hire a CEO.   That person is given almost the same authority as the founder/owner of the company.  They can make the big decisions as the representative of the owner.   This doesn’t mean the owner doesn’t have any say.  They can at any time come in and tell that CEO what direction or even approve or disapprove of any rules the company makes for it’s people.

This is what is happening with Canada.  The queen has appointed a CEO who’s public title is Governor General.   The other reason the title is named this way is because the Queen has authority over some parts of the military and has full authority over the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).   If the governor general chooses, they can dispatch the Mounties anywhere to uphold any laws.

If you need proof of the governor general’s role, or title, all you have to do is read the Governor General Act (Canada) found here:   http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-9/page-1.html

Under line 2 of the act it states:

Corporation sole

 The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.

This means the office as well as the title is also a corporation sole, but it names him/her as the CEO of the government.

Anyone who has run a business, studied business, knows the basics and knows that a corporation sole is owned by one person.   That person in this case is always the queen.   They have that authority.

Now something that some have said to me is she has zero authority to sign any laws into effect.   Again  this is not true. It seems, like she doesn’t, because in or commoner ways, we don’t see her do this, and with many stupid people out there, if they don’t see the evidence with their own eyes then it isn’t true.

Here is the evidence:  Constitution Act of 1982

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#docCont

Section 41:

Amendment by unanimous consent

 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

  • (athe office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

  • (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

  • (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

  • (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

  • (e) an amendment to this Part.

This means the queen has to be part of the approval process to the Constitution act.  She can veto it, if she doesn’t want it.

There are other previous versions, during my research I found many that have been changed, since the foundation of the Dominion.    They have removed some chartered rights, such as the right not to have arbitrary search and seizure.  The current charter is a pale comparison to what was there before.

All these have been approved by the Queen or her representative.   When an act is created from scratch, it must go through several steps in order for it to be approved into existence.   The final approval comes from the Governor General.  He acting as the Queen’s agent signs that the new act into law.    He also approves any changes to existing acts.

So to summerize, the Queen is the head of Canada.  Canada being the Government, or rather to be more precise, the Crown Corporation of Canada.   A corporation sole.    She has the authority over some of the military, the RCMP.   The government sends her tithe money, and holds the lands in trust, managing them for her.

This is something many people have forgotten.    Please share and don’t forget.