First the police use taxpayer money to defend an abusive cop who beat up his own partner, then they break the law repeatedly by refusing to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit and thumbing their nose at the law.

But that’s perfectly fine — Rob Ford has clearly shown us that those with more power and responsibility can do whatever the fuck they want with complete impunity, so we all need to just shut the hell up and take whatever they’re dishing out. Clearly, nothing bad could ever come out of it, so why do the “lefties” keep raising a stink about such things?

Good news — Bill C-30, the warrantless wiretapping “you’re either with us or you’re with the child pornographers“, is dead in the water.

The bad news — the Harper government has renamed it Bill C-55, made it secret until it’s been introduced to Parliament — because, after all, why do the peons need to know when their rights are being trampled on? — and have Bill C-12 (a.k.a. PIPEDA) waiting in the ranks just in case.

So what does Tyrant-in-Waiting Harper have in store for us with C-55? Let’s have a look at some of the highlights:

2. Section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace;

Translation:

We can hire someone under the auspices of “public peace” to spy on you; we’re no longer limiting this to just cops.

Next:

184.4 A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

Meaning:

Any “police officer” (see previous section), can spy on you if they believe you’re going to break the law. How do you know they believe it? Why, you just have to take their word for it. Oh, and it’s not just limited to the internet; they can spy on you through your phone, by placing a bug in your place (or some other similar means), intercepting your mail, grabbing post-it notes stuck to your computer, etc. Also, if the “police” “believe” you’re likely to be the victim of a crime, they can spy on you as well. Basically, you’re going to be spied on. Period.

Then:

(1) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness shall, as soon as possible after the end of each year, prepare a report relating to
(a) authorizations for which that Minister and agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by thatMinister for the purposes of section 185 applied and to the interceptions made under those authorizations in the immediately preceding year;
(b) authorizations given under section 188 for which peace officers to be named in the report who were specially designated by that Minister for the purposes of that section applied and to the interceptions made under
those authorizations in the immediately preceding year; and
(c) interceptions made under section 184.4 in the immediately preceding year if the interceptions
relate to an offence for which proceedings may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada.

Translation:

The Minister of Public Safety is going to prepare a yearly report on who’s spying on you. Unfortunately, there’s no mention that this report needs to be made public, and furthermore, unless the spying results in charges, there’s no need to include any details in there (i.e. if you’re being spied on for no purpose, there’s no reason anyone needs to know about it). This is further spelled out in additional sections; only where charges have been laid does anything need to be reported on.

Granted that the bill isn’t a completed document yet, and it rests on the existing Criminal Code so my analysis isn’t exactly thorough (and to be honest, I would love for someone to prove me wrong), but I can’t help but question if any of the clauses above (which pretty much comprise the entire current version), do what the bill’s preamble claim that they do:

(a) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4;
(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception;
and
(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

As usual, I invite you to read the whole thing yourself and, if possible, have a gander at the sections of the Criminal Code that it’s attempting to change. And while you’re at it, I would challenge you to ask who, exactly, all of these laws are intended to benefit. It’s unlikely that Joe Commonman could list 1% of all the laws he’s being subjected to, yet is expected to abide by, and simultaneously isn’t allowed to claim ignorance of in the courts (unless, of course, you’re Rob Ford).

Common Law it most certainly is not.

I know that this is completely out off the “Toronto”, “City”, “Life” categories, but as you may probably know from reading this blog, social justice and abuse of police powers weigh pretty heavy on my heart.

So it was with dismay and disbelief that I watched US news networks last night vilify and outright lie about Christopher Dorner during his final hours in San Bernardino County, Los Angeles.

The fact of the matter is that Dorner was one of the last few good cops left, a guy who believed in justice and law, a guy who saw the ranks of his fellow law-enforcers filled with racists, liars, and the kinds of criminal scum that not only should be behind bars for a very long time, but should also never be allowed to carry guns and badges and be allowed to call themselves “justice”.

How Dorner went about bringing attention to the criminality he witnessed was misguided and, as he himself realized, ultimately doomed. He knew that the media would demonize him, focusing on his actions and completely ignoring or even misrepresenting the reasons behind them. The fact that he killed police officers is and was presented as valid justification for his assassination but his own recollections of police brutality and murder perpetrated on civilians (resulting with him being fired from the force instead), are hardly mentioned, if at all, except by “fringe lunatics” like me who believe people, regardless of their position in life, should be held to account for their actions. That means a fair and open trial in front of a non-corrupted judge, and ending with incarceration if found guilty.

To make matters worse, I was listening to police scanners live as his cabin was being raided and comparing it to what TV news was reporting, and the amount of misinformation and just outright lies was stunning to witness first-hand. There were reports coming over the dispatch, for example, of police putting a “burner(s)” in place, setting it / them off, shouting “Burn this motherfucker!”, calling for the fire department, and then raiding the cabin. The news, on the other hand, was speculating about why Dorner was setting his cabin on fire (or they’re probably smoke or “flash-bang” grenades set of by the loving police who only want to take him alive if at all possible), and debating why he would be shooting off ammunition (as he was being burned alive).

(Incidentally, I assisted Max Blumenthal, one of the few non-official sources, and one of the few to question the official story, to reconnect to the police scanner feeds when they were taken offline):

Did big media not know what was going on? How was it that some schmuck in Toronto knew exactly what was happening, and they didn’t? Is it possible that they’re so completely incompetent that they couldn’t tune into the publicly available police scanners (RadioReference.com, if you’re interested), to monitor the situation, or is it more likely that they were busy spinning and manipulating the story while it was happening? After all, it’s one thing to simply not report on what’s happening (as the police were demanding of everyone, including Twitter and Facebook users), but it’s something else entirely to spout off plain old lies and misinformation, backed up with so many “experts” waiting on hand to bring validity to it all.

I’m genuinely sorry for Mr. Dorner, his family, and the people who’s lives he took (assuming one buys official reports, all of which are currently unproven accusations). None of it would’ve happened if the police he was surrounded by weren’t such rotten criminals, if the media and the agencies responsible for keeping them in check weren’t in direct collusion, and if justice, truth, and the law prevailed. Will anyone bother to look into the upper echelons that Dorner directly accused of the highest corruption, or will their criminality be buried even deeper? It’s tragic that Mr. Dorner felt he had to resort to such drastic actions just to be heard, and more tragic still that even now the demonization of those who would stand up for the truth would be carried out so viciously. And before you remind me that none of Dorner’s allegations have ever been proven, I’ll remind you that Dorner was also never tried in a court of law before the cops decided it’d be more expedient just to kill him on the spot, and that big media haven’t raised on iota of criticism.

I guess George Orwell was right … in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

If you consider yourself a “revolutionary” by this standard, you’ll probably also be interested to hear the police dispatch from San Bernardino County. I took the liberty of recording a number of channels live, as it was happening. Contrast what you hear against what the “news” are busy pumping out even today.

Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to arrange the audio files so they’re somewhat scattered, but here is what actually happened last night, along with Dorner’s own words in what big media love to term his “manifesto” (because, don’t you know, all the crazies have one):

http://www.torontocitylife.com/downloads/Christopher_Dorner.zip

Not long ago I was accused of being brainwashed because I follow politics. I tried to get more information about my alleged brainwashing from my interlocutor and was bluntly told that I never used to follow politics, so why now?

This person also reads (or at least used to read), TCL, so really would’ve been fairly familiar with how long I’d been following politics; and when I look back through my old posts I realize it’s been for a lot longer than I’d been “brainwashed” for. In fact, the only real thing that’s changed is that I’ve become critical, begun to dig a lot deeper, and think about things a lot more thoroughly.

In other words, I’m “brainwashed” because I now think and express myself a lot more freely.

Uh-huh.

I have regular discussions about politics with this person and am often confronted with their obstinate support of the Harper government. This, at least in part, is one of the reasons I’ve been so vocal (if the word can be applied to writing), about my criticisms of the numerous ways that he and his gang are trying to destroy freedom in Canada.

By “freedom” I’m not alluding to some vague notions of self-expression (though that is certainly true), I’m talking about simple physical freedoms like being able to walk down the street without fear of arbitrary arrest, or being free to express simple opinions and truths without having the government crack down on you, harass you, or spy on you secretly.

This same person, the one who accused me of being brainwashed, came from a repressive communist country where such things were a regular thing, so I assumed that this kind of thing wouldn’t sit well with them. Yet when faced with stark evidence like Bill C-38 or Bill C-11, and expecting at least a modicum of thought, some skepticism, maybe a willingness to dig a bit deeper, even if just to prove me wrong, I instead got derision.

The best retort they can muster is to call me dumb (and brainwashed), and to demand to know why such things concern me.

The real question is, why don’t they concern you?! (And I’m brainwashed)

It’s not tough to imagine, then, with people willing to live with their eyes and ears covered like this, that Harper continues on his merry way to making Canada a massive repressive regime within which citizens are expected to cower in fear and dare not speak ill of the government lest they be “disappeared” into some dark dungeon, indefinitely, with no trial, judge, or jury. The same citizens are actually fully supporting such moves, and they sure don’t want to hear how such things could possibly be bad (even if they’ve lived through such terrors themselves). Heck, why would you even need evidence at that point?

If you’re still paying attention, though, there is still some hope.

To start off with, it’s interesting to compare Harper’s latest bit of despotic maneuvering, Bill S-7, with America’s NDAA.

In the US, the NDAA (innocuously disguised as a recurring military funding bill), includes a variety of passages that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens (in fact, anyone at all), without trial, in military Gulags not unlike Guantanamo Bay. With Bill C-38, Harper has allowed the US to legally waltz across the border with complete impunity and “remove” people at any time they wish.

Not to be outdone, of course, the Harper government is introducing Bill S-7, the “Combating Terrorism Act” (the catch-all term for everything and anything designed to separate you from your rights and freedoms these days), which has many of the same features as the NDAA. Here are some highlights to expect should this thing make it through:

• People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
• The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
• As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
• Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
• A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
• Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
• Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
• These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.

It’s interesting to see how the October 23rd vote on this bill went down: unanimously voted in by both Conservatives and Liberals. I’m sure I’ve stated my belief more than once that they’re now essentially one and the same apparatus (McGuinty’s latest escapades also illustrate this quite well). Literally anyone outside of these two parties voted against it.

It’s also worthwhile to read the discussion at the second reading of the bill, even just to get a sense of the basically blasé, done-deal rhetoric that proponents could muster (when they could be bothered to speak on such trivial matters at all) — oh, and don’t forget 9/11!

To me it seems self-evident that anyone and everyone should be at least slightly concerned about such laws and, moreover, the types of government that would be continuously bringing them forward. The only way to avoid concern is to be completely oblivious to everything when presented with it, to deny reality when it’s staring you in the face, and to sing the praises of our glorious leader even as he’s setting up mega-prisons and the means to fill them with anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

But I guess I’m just brainwashed.

An oldie but still a goodie. Hard to believe that things have actually gotten worse since then, huh?

The terror is culpable:

At this point, the news of Rob Ford openly breaking yet another Ontario law has made headlines from coast to coast.

This time around, Ford was caught on camera, driving on the Gardiner Expressway reading some printouts.

This is hardly the first time that His Illustrious Rotundness has been caught brazenly endangering others on the road, but it’s the first time that photographic evidence proves it. Not only that, but Ford doesn’t deny doing this and, in his casually wishy-washy way, pretty much admits to doing it outright in the media. And so what, he claims…he’s busy!

But if that wasn’t infuriating enough, Toronto Police have declared that, instead of charging Ford with the serious offense that careless driving is, that photographic evidence of him breaking the law isn’t enough (especially without witnesses).

So the cops have, once again, unilaterally decided that they are the arbiters of what laws apply to who, refusing to lay charges without even asking for witnesses to come forward (presumably there’s at least one — the person who took the picture), and are openly lying to the public by claiming that photo evidence isn’t enough to prove that someone is breaking the law, despite the fact that it seems to be good enough for the cops to drag people in front of courts when it comes to reg light cameras, photo radar, and protests (unless, of course, it’s their own people).

Additionally, the cops say that the mayor’s offense isn’t charge-worthy unless “there’s a pattern of behaviour”, a pattern that has now been clearly established, while they simultaneously lay charges on others breaking exactly the same laws in exactly the same way in a blitz barely two weeks old in which they insist that “impaired, distracted, and aggressive driving will not be tolerated”.

Even the cops’ flimsy excuse that this is Toronto and not Ontario jurisdiction is complete bullshit with Toronto Police themselves recently launching another rake-in-the-cash distracted driving campaign in which they had no problems laying charges against no less than 10,000 people.

And then, just to add insult to injury, Ford’s police chief buddy insists that the solution is for Ford to get a chauffeur (no doubt on the taxpayers’ dime), who doubles as security because it’s the mayor that needs protection from us!

” Scumbags” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I was planning on going down to Caribana today but the heat and humidity were so oppressive, I thought better of it early on.

And that wasn’t the only thing that was oppressive:

Police, volunteers and private security guarded entrances to the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival, patting people down and searching bags before they entered.

A network of barricades and fences kept the public back from the dancers with glitter-dusted skin and colourful headdresses as they made their way down Toronto’s Lakeshore Blvd.

“There’s so much fences that I can’t hardly see anything,” said Ann James, a nurse from Bloomfield, CT., who was trying to find her way to the end of the parade route.

Pat downs? I thought there weren’t going to be any pat downs! And I thought they were supposed to be reserved only for the saps in the bleachers … you know, all the lowlife criminal scrum like families and the elderly that attend the parade.

And now that I think about it, I’m certain that I mentioned that this was going to turn out to basically be security theatre intended to intimidate the general public.

And now, having mentioning these things (and incidents involving police acting as simply armed thugs, not enforcers of the law), I’m sad to report that they happened last night and today exactly as I predicted.

In fact, Sarah and I decided to go out for some chicken wings in the evening and I don’t remember seeing such a ridiculous number of cops on the streets since the G20. There were cops from all over; Peel Region, Waterloo, Halton. And they were parading around in gaggles of anywhere from four to ten at intervals of — and I’m not exaggerating in any way — every single block around the city core. At times there were more cops than pedestrians.

And I can’t tell you the number of parking enforcement cops that simply strolled by cars parked in front of fire hydrants and blocking intersections, right in front of our wing place, no more than a meter away from us and clearly visible through a huge glass pane window. To put it another way, the police weren’t enforcing the law, they were out to make sure we all saw their presence.

You may, at this point, be wondering if the word “despotism” was accurate in the title of this post. After all, it’s a pretty weighty word with lots of nasty connotations. Well, how about we let Encyclopedia Britannica explain (and while you watch, keep the banking bailouts, growing disparity between rich and poor, government censorship and gagging, and the near dictatorial pronouncements and oppressive, repressive laws and practices coming from both down south and here from Harper’s Canada, in the back of your mind):

Remember yesterday when I was talking about the seeming unwillingness of the government to curb violence? I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice this, but the only conclusions that people are drawing are that Harper and his cadre are doing this either through sheer incompetence or some level of meat-headed obstinance that simply won’t allow them to do anything else.

Except what if there’s a third option? One in which this is a cold, calculating move designed to get us all under the yoke of a tyrannical government. I mean, you only have to look as far back as Bills C-11, C-10, or C-38 (the Omnibus Crime Bill) to see exactly where they want to take Canada, and it’s a very ugly direction indeed; Orwellian, even — and that is not an exaggeration by any means.

And if you doubt that, today’s news offers an early glimpse into the plan made incarnate at this year’s Caribana (you know everyone still calls it that!) Here’s just a sample of what they deem is “normal” for private security (these aren’t even sworn police officers, and this is in a public place):

Security guards will be searching visitors’ bags for alcohol, drugs and weapons.

[Organizer Stephen] Weir said the people who usually purchase bleacher seats are seniors, families with young children and tourists. He doesn’t expect pat-downs will be part of the screening process.

Oh, he “doesn’t expect” pat downs will be used on children? That means that, yes, most certainly the troglodyte security goons will most definitely be grabbing at your kids’ genitals, a la US TSA gropings. And since these are mostly elderly and kids and families sitting in the bleachers, off course they need to be the subjects of a security crack-down. They are, after all, typical of the most despicable criminals out there. Makes sense, right?

People are unfairly linking us with an event in another part of the city that was really tragic, but we should be doing this.

Oh, it’s unfair. We don’t have a violent event, so of course we’ll be frisking people. And only the the law-abiding citizens who paid for their tickets; everyone else just walking around on the street won’t be subject to this. Makes sense, right?

If you’ve brought in food and non-alcoholic beverages, we don’t care. But if someone tries to bring in drugs or alcohol or projectiles and the worst-case scenario, a weapon, we have police standing by.

So what exactly is the point of security then? You know, it’s one thing to watch the crowd for sketchy people, but frisking people and rifling through their bags, especially when they’re families, elderly, and kids, has only one purpose, and it’s exactly the same purpose that the police at the G20 were put out in such force and ended up breaking the law in far larger numbers than even the demonstrators (who actually had larger numbers): fear and intimidation.

If you doubt this, read the official reports on the G20 (I’m sure I link to them from this blog somewhere). Does that help to answer why the police didn’t give a fuck when the vandals were wrecking Toronto? They weren’t there to serve and protect — it’s that simple.

They are not there to help you, they’re there to teach you to kow tow to authority, to demand that you allow flabby fucks to manhandle your kids, to scare you into obeying whatever commands they issue, even if they themselves have no more authority than the average citizen on the street. It’s important to repeat this last part, because in a public place like the Caribana parade, you have as many rights as any pudgy fuck with a pseudo-badge and a hard-on for fondling your wife’s breasts. And if you don’t like it, you can be sure that there will be hundreds of security cameras recording your every move, without your knowledge or permission, exactly as described in Orwell’s 1984.

Just today I saw two police cruisers in Allan Gardens and four bicycle cops for a total of eight uniforms busting an old man. One of the officers was doing a little jig while two others were laughing up a storm; the old guy just stood there looking down at the ground. Ridiculous? Of course not, it’s fear and intimidation; they’re doing their jobs!

You know, if the evidence fits then whatever the theory it supports must necessarily be true, and frankly all the crap that the mayor and the mainstream keep throwing at us makes no sense at all (see above).

Q.E.D.

Sadly, most people will just go along with our descent, much to the resounding joy of Harper and his underlings who see their hellish visions of a “modern” society coming to life, and these people will cower in fear and bow to “the authorities” (whoever they claim to be), whenever they’re told to.

This is just the very beginning.

As I predicted earlier this month, Bill C-30, a.k.a. Lawful Access, is starting to make the rounds again. In case you don’t remember, this is the bill that’s supposed to protect children from being exploited (and if you’re not with the bill, you’re with the pornographers), but is in fact a completely warrantless, lawless wiretapping bill that would give police unlimited and unchecked power to monitor all web conversations at any time they damn well please.

Read more here: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3137

Thanks to Judge Spiers for injecting some sanity and exonerating Byron Sonne from all charges. The courts, it seems, still provide a level of protection against police abuse. So to that end, good! However, despite being cleared of any wrongdoing, Byron has lost a year of his life, his wife, his house… again I ask what prevents the police from destroying an innocent man’s life like this in the future? What good is a flacid recognition of injustice after the fact?