TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Bottom line is that the police should not have the right to take your shit under suspicion alone. Without pressing charges or even giving you a good reason as to why. With this kind of power they could do it out of spite alone. People think this only applies to small things like money and growing lights.

If someone gives an anonymous tip saying there's a lot of people going in and out of your home and then cops come around and the place smells like weed, They can take your home away from you under suspicion that your selling drugs. That's literally the power that is being given to these people and its all supported by the courts.

Just because of the story in the article demonstrating this power, people are focusing on the fact that he maybe actually was selling drugs, but that's besides the point. We as a free democratic society should not even have to be arguing about a ridiculous shift in power like this on this forum. This is bullshit and it's not like it will stop at this one law. They will keep piling shit on and soon anyone walking outside past 10 pm will be suspected of being a drug dealing pimp that is planning a terrorist scheme to blow up the c.n. tower. Under suspicion alone.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13371

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie being an ass

Wow.



I'll remember to order in a beat-down next time you step out of line.

quote:

Originally posted by Wurm Wow. I'll remember to order in a beat-down next time you step out of line.

I sure got my share of beatings for being an ass on TA and off, believe me!


Sure the guy has rights, but what did he gain from all that? I don't think it was worth it.

Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Again, for those who think we arent headed toward fascism, have a read.

Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Again, for those who think we arent headed toward fascism, have a read.

FYI

Fascism is a right wing capitalist ideology.

Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by miketg23 FYI Fascism is a right wing capitalist ideology.

No.

In fact, free-market capitalism is completely incompatible with any type of dictatorship, left or right.

Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No. In fact, free-market capitalism is completely incompatible with any type of dictatorship, left or right.

Never do I mention free-market capitalism.

Fascism is merger between "the corporation" and government in order to create a dictatorship where the government, meaning "the corporation" has complete control. This becomes a STATE capitalism.

Left wing socialism is to communism as Lessez faire capitalism is to fascism.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by miketg23 Fascism is merger between "the corporation" and government in order to create a dictatorship where the government, meaning "the corporation" has complete control. This becomes a STATE capitalism.

Capitalism IS free-market capitalism. There's no other kind. Capitalism is based on competition, and if there is only one corporation, capitalism can't exist.

You must be using some crazy Kos-esque definition of capitalism. Fascism can be either a right- or left-wing dictatorship, but in particular one where speech and industry are tightly controlled. It may bear some superficial resemblance to a monolithic corporation, but then again, so does communism.

hmm i never learned this shit in school.

quote:

hate speech laws

the fuck is hate speech?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conv

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Capitalism IS free-market capitalism. There's no other kind. Capitalism is based on competition, and if there is only one corporation, capitalism can't exist. You must be using some crazy Kos-esque definition of capitalism. Fascism can be either a right- or left-wing dictatorship, but in particular one where speech and industry are tightly controlled. It may bear some superficial resemblance to a monolithic corporation, but then again, so does communism.

I'm not describing capitalism as we know it, and nor am I anti capitalist. I believe in the free market.
Fascism is never a left wing dictatorship, that would make it Communism. It's State Capitalist dictatorship. There is not one corporation, but rather "The Corporation" runs the government which would act somewhat like a board of directors would for a private company. An environment that completely favors business and the corporations, without consideration of the people or the workers, is created.

Much like Communism this is maintained through a police state. In theory, the two are on opposite ends of the political scale, but in practice, quite similar.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conv

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty the fuck is hate speech?

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_i...qr/page1-en.asp

To be fair, actual cases of "hate speech" are few and far between. What's a lot more common are civil lawsuits for "defamation of character" and the like. There are legitimate reasons to file a slander or libel case, but like so many other vague laws, there are always people willing to abuse it in order to bully their critics and enemies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conv

quote:

Originally posted by miketg23 [Fascism is] State Capitalist dictatorship. There is not one corporation, but rather "The Corporation" runs the government which would act somewhat like a board of directors would for a private company. An environment that completely favors business and the corporations, without consideration of the people or the workers, is created.

Where exactly did you hear this definition? How would it apply to, for example, Nazi Germany?

I'll certainly grant that most if not all fascist governments have been right-wing, but it rarely has anything to do with corporations, or lack of consideration of the workers. Fascism is primarily characterized by limitations on speech and on industry. You've named one theoretically-possible implementation, but a fascist government doesn't need to engage in any form of commerce in order to be considered fascist (and without commerce, it's certainly not a corporation).

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Investigate is ok. Seize without cause or proof and without charge is plain wrong.

and in the event that investigation proved without a thread of doubt that a illegal behaviour existed what then?

in this case the cops investigated via smell and they proved to be right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conv

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_i...qr/page1-en.asp

could you dumb it down a notch for me, please??

Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No. In fact, free-market capitalism is completely incompatible with any type of dictatorship, left or right.

Free-market capitalism is an ideology like communism, and there was never, nor will there ever be a country which is purely communist or purele free-market capitalist. There are always elements of dictatorship/fascism in every type of governance, from communism to capitalism in varying concentrations (really depending on how the person(s) in charge govern).

Apart from that, reading the other article, it states the police can seize your items only if they can prove to a judge that the items were obtained through illegal means by ways of probabilities.

So for an example if there is $30k in your car and the car smells like marijuana; if they find marijuana growing equipment in the car they take the cash since it's most probable that you sold drugs. But if for an example you're coming back from Las Vegas then it's more likely you won it at Texas Hold 'Em.

So it's not as bad as it was posted above, but it's still rediculous and shouldn't be there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conv

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty could you dumb it down a notch for me, please??

If you say or write something "hateful" related to race/sex/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever on the phone or internet, you can be busted for it (in theory).

In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum.

In reality, you'd have to be running a pretty serious propaganda campaign for anybody to care.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police can seize your property without charges being laid or con

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If you say or write something "hateful" related to race/sex/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever on the phone or internet, you can be busted for it (in theory). In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum. In reality, you'd have to be running a pretty serious propaganda campaign for anybody to care.

thats ridiculous

not ridiculous.

I think it's fair to say that there is a qualitative difference between a random on the street spitting in someone's face for some silly reason ("disrespect") and someone seeing a guy holding his bf's hand and muttering "fucking ******" and spitting in their face.

if you look up the convictions under hate crime and hate speech legislation, you'll likely see that it's reserved for extreme cases (running a white supremacy website, public gay bashing, etc).

the intent behind hate laws is to provide additional sanctions where the motive goes beyond the normal intent of the crime (e.g. assault vs. assault because someone is a member of a minority).

good example was the lesbian moms who were based outside a school by the father of another kid. I forget the details, but he tore into one/both of them. amazingly enough, I don't believe that he was charged under hate crime legislation (so that shows you how extreme the case may have to be for successful prosecution)

This doesn't have anything to do with the hate crime legislation, but now that you bring it up, that's ridiculous too. A crime is a crime. There should not be any difference in the eyes of the law between beating somebody up because he's black or beating him up because he was hitting on your sister. Aside from the fact that these things are both acts of "hate", it's rarely possible to determine the true motive with absolute certainty; the way these laws actually end up being implemented in practice are simply harsher sentences for crimes committed against any visible minority, regardless of actual motive, and that in itself is a form of racism.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT not ridiculous. I think it's fair to say that there is a qualitative difference between a random on the street spitting in someone's face for some silly reason ("disrespect") and someone seeing a guy holding his bf's hand and muttering "fucking ******" and spitting in their face. if you look up the convictions under hate crime and hate speech legislation, you'll likely see that it's reserved for extreme cases (running a white supremacy website, public gay bashing, etc). the intent behind hate laws is to provide additional sanctions where the motive goes beyond the normal intent of the crime (e.g. assault vs. assault because someone is a member of a minority). good example was the lesbian moms who were based outside a school by the father of another kid. I forget the details, but he tore into one/both of them. amazingly enough, I don't believe that he was charged under hate crime legislation (so that shows you how extreme the case may have to be for successful prosecution)

i was talking about posting on forums, not real life.i forgot to delete everything except

quote:

In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The point is that (a) the cop has to actually be able to see evidence of illegal activity, not just suspect it, and (b) you either have to consent to the search, or they need to have probable cause.

Unfortunately, what police officers are supposed to do and what they do in practice are not always the same. But this isn't news to anybody...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT good example was the lesbian moms who were based outside a school by the father of another kid. I forget the details, but he tore into one/both of them. amazingly enough, I don't believe that he was charged under hate crime legislation (so that shows you how extreme the case may have to be for successful prosecution)

he fucking punched her in the face and spat at her!

I remember that, unbelievable!

More along the topic of : Your Rights - Police - Search and Seizure

You should all become aware of bill C-6 which is a repackaged Bill C-52. If this bill is given royal assent we are all screwed. You can forget about your rights. This bill is so well thought out that inspectors will have super powers beyond anything we've ever seen.

>>NOTE: Sorry for the long post but I just couldn't edit it any further<<

Bill C-6 is being promoted as necessary to protect our families. However, under the existing law the State can already:
o ban or restrict any consumer product under threat of million dollar fines and two year jail sentences under the Hazardous Products Act;

o make immediate orders banning or restricting any consumer product if there is a significant risk to health or safety. In addition to fines and imprisonment for non-compliance, the State can apply to the Court for an injunction which brings police enforcement of the order, and

o prosecute for criminal negligence or homicide under the Criminal Code. In some cases this can result in penalties of life imprisonment.

The real change brought about by Bill C-6 is not that it protects consumers, as the current law already grants the State significant powers to protect safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards citizens currently enjoy.

Bill C-6 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.

Bill C-6 for the first time in Canadian history allows warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrong doing.

Bill C-6 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.

Bill C-6 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.

The search and seizure powers in Bill C-6 are probably unconstitutional for violating the right found in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Persons can be fined and have property forfeited to the State for administrative violations. Persons so charged have no right to have a Court determine their guilt or innocence. Guilt is determined by the Minister. There is no defence of due diligence or of honest but mistaken belief. There does not have to be a safety risk to be charged with an administrative offence. The Minister who determines your guilt or innocence can keep seized property if he/she finds you guilty.

All businesses manufacturing, selling or distributing consumer products are saddled with additional red tape and expense regardless of whether or not there is a safety concern.

Retailers and distributors of consumer products become liable for product labelling and instructions.

Some consumer products such as sporting goods may have to be removed from the market for violating the safety provisions of the Bill.

The Provinces are allowing the Federal Government to regulate in the Provincial area of property and civil rights.

The federal cabinet can incorporate documents from foreign governments or organizations as law by referring to them in regulations. This will remove Parliamentary scrutiny on issues that could fundamentally change the ground rules for the consumer product industry. If foods and Natural Health Products were added to the ambit of the Bill by amending Schedule 1, this would allow for the implementation of foreign standards such as CODEX by passing a regulation.

When Codex is in, this is how it will be:
Plants, natural herbs, vitamins, vegetation(Per Codex Harmonization: requires all to be genetically modified after Dec. 2009) and meat thereof >meat/poulty/fish< (per Codex: requires chemical alteration for our safety...Cattle to be Bovine Injected, which has been illegal for years)and other Consumer Products will be considered illegal and subject to confiscation, penalty and incarneration.

Oh and your Rights to Privacy. Forget that. The Genome Project is protected under Codex Alimentarius which may attach itself to Bill C-6. When Codex comes into effect world wide on December 31, 2009 that means that your privacy and security is gone too.

Hypothetical Scenario I:
Your growing a mint plant in your home for cooking...it is classified as an illegal substance per Codex. This gives an inspector the right to enter with no warrant. Seize your home, incarcerate you etc. etc.

Hypothetical Scenario II:
Most know insurance companies have been patenting human dna/gene codes (eg. Newfoundlanders human genome project) and let's say your company hires a U.S. based Insurance firm that insist on a private blood screening for coverage. If tests reveals your dna/human genome shows a flaw in your health a few years ahead from now, it can be used as the deciding factor if you are worth keeping as an employee. Let's not forget that a corporation is there for the interest of it's employees. If it's discovered than an employee may develop an ailment 6yrs from now, they would work hard to ensure that insurance covers them and that they have a stable job...No? BTW since Canada has no reciprocity with the U.S. or some other countries...and if our privacy is invaded we have no recourse because Bill C-6 protects Codex who protects the human genome patenting.

Now what do you think of this Bill C-6

Many people are opposed to it...including the Marijuana Party of Canada.

If your interested: Stop Bill C-6 the Petition Site

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.