HISTORY |THE RIGHT TO KEEP |THE NANNY COMETH | SLICING THE SALAMI | | CRIME AND PUNISHMENT | OUR CONSTITUTIONAL INHERITANCE

 

Mr KILROI PRESENTS | LINKS AND REFERENCE | MORE CHERISHED RIGHTS | HOME

 

Slicing the Salami

Or Taking away your Rights one At a Time

 


 

The Salami

       

                Consider a salami as an analog of the quantity of rights we have. or a loaf of bread if you prefer. each time we slice a piece off of it. We have less than we did before. With each slice there is less and less until it is all consumed. The same could be said of ones rights, with each passing of a law a slice of our rights is consumed. Yes OUR RIGHTS, in truth the government has no rights, save but the ones WE grant them. The function of our government is to protect and insure our rights. Though there is a belief that this is the other way round, this view is predominant in Socialist thought.

     

 

       Sir William Blackstone wrote the fore most authority on the English  Common Law. His Commentaries set the standard of Juris Prudence for England, Canada and the United StatesImage His works are to voluminous to outline here. His works can be viewed. here

        The Common Law is an ancient code of laws that predate any Charter,Constitution, or Bill of Rights. These were laws that were first developed over time by the common people through consensus. Judges sought to up hold and affirm these in their decisions. By comparing like circumstances in other cases that have already been decided with the case before them. Another term used to describe the Common Law is Judge made law. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 both asserted and affirmed the existence of these Common Law Rights. Sir William in his works methodically codified the The Common Law as to allow a uniform application of it. Part of his work detailed Sir William Blackstone

 

 


 

The Incredible Shrinking Salami

 

The employing of  "salami tactics."

                We are at a point now that we hardly notice pieces of the Great Salami being sliced away. We have a growing flock of sheeple that are willing to let it be sliced away. If a Government were to come out tomorrow and declared that driving cars is now outlawed, I believe a large number of people would at first be dumb struck then angry. Take to the streets and protest? Perhaps.. that is everyone who relies upon their car for a living. That is an awful big chunk of the salami gone at one slice, everyone takes notice of it. But suppose the government said that due to the "threat" of global warming we want all cars that are 15 years or older to be removed. Well that affects a much smaller number of folks and a very tiny piece of the salami. The people not affected by this may nod in agreement because the reason given is a very good reason "Save the Planet". Some people may even say well my car is old and I need a new one anyway. But what if you can't afford a new or newer one? Two things have happened here 1. you have just had your property taken from you. 2 You have just been deprived of your right to live within your means. More is the pity,,WE have also deprived OURSELVES of these rights, by remaining silent.

                The above hypothetical example is how the salami shrinks. I like the term "Salami tactics" to refere to how a government errodes our rights.

 

Enter the HRC

 

        The Human Rights Commission. every Province has one, as does the Federal Government. This is a Hallmark of a "Nanny State". (Google results ) In Principle it is a very Noble Idea but in practice I have serious doubts and concerns. It is a branch of the Government "arms length" but none the less a branch of the Government. This is troublesome because its mandate can be altered with every shift in Government. Little tweaks here and there can change how the process works and can be used as a blunt instrument of Government. Most troubling is that it does not follow the precepts of fundamental justice. That being a presumption of innocence, rules of evidence and a trial by your equals. The commissions carry the weight of Law even though they are exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

        The accused in a Human Rights Tribunal is presumed guilty,(absolute liability) forced into the impossible position of proving a "negative". Further the accused is responsible for providing their own defence at their expense. In contrast the accuser is provided with representation and investigation at no expense to them. One person could in principle generate dozens of complaints and not have spent one thin dime out of their pocket.

 

        This is a Government organization designed to run rough shod over individuals and organizations in the private sector operating under a completely different set of rules than the Police and the Courts. The Commissioners are political appointees who need not possess any specific qualifications for the job other than being loyal party hacks. Consider now that these are the people who are the final "Arbiters" of what you may say or think. Now Contrast the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) is a private organization privately funded viz a viz donations. They over see the Governments and any publicly funded organization to ensure that they do not infringe the rights of individuals.

        Our system is more in keeping with the "Thought Police" of  George Orwell's "1984". I would be more comfortable with the Human Rights Commissions if they had to bring suit before a competent court, abide by the rules of evidence and fundamental Justice. But most of all not funded nor a part of the Government. Ezra Levant is a Lawyer and publisher in Alberta he now is before the H.R.C. of Alberta his crime was daring to publish the Mohamed Cartoons that caused a great deal of furor in the world. Era Levant 's web page.  Another hapless target of the B.C. HRC is McCleans Magazine. (Mark Steyn)  

   Freedom of Expression is Right. Unless you offend someone,  Then it is not so free. How are the HRCs of this Country able to operate notwithstanding the Charter?


 

Martial Law declared

 

        Nothing sends a chill down any ones spine more than that phrase. Martial Law means the Constitution and all its protection no longer apply and We do what We are told as a civilian or else. Every Tinfoil Hat owner warns about this and everyone dismisses him as a crank and always reasons that "This is Canada it will never happen here". Sadly they are absent minded or  ignorant of history.

        On Dec 5. 1970 the British Trade High Commissioner James Cross  and a Quebec MLA Cabinet Minister Pierre Laporte was kidnapped by the F.L.Q . 8 days later Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau did just that. He invoked the War Measures Act which is the Canadian equivalent of declaring Martial Law. The October Crisis. In the interviews on the CBC site is telling of how far a Government is willing to go. That was Trudeau's "Kinder Gentler Nation" in action. We still have the War Measures Act. It has been re-named The Emergencies Act  (The Emergencies Act)

 

We The Sheeple

(sheeple-noun the cross between people and sheep adv. attributing the meek mild inactive behavior of sheep to people . being lead or mislead, accepting the opinions of others with no critical thought or just going with the flow lack of individuality)

                The Government is not going to declare martial law anytime soon They don't need to. Why? Because we are going to hand all our rights over to them willingly. All in the name of "Public Safety"  "For The Greater Good of Society"  "For the Environment" or my favourite "If it saves just one life".

 

                What value do WE place on RIGHTS? Are WE content little sheeple?  As long as nothing the government does affects us personally, do WE just carry on? Without taking notice of what the new law has actually done to our rights.  " it doesn't affect me personally so why should I care?" Justifying an infringement of rights, merely because some ones property or pass times bothers you. Diminishes everyone's rights.

 

        Rights are not limits on Us the citizen, they are limits on the government    they are not granted privileges to be modified at whim. . Governments and their bureaucracies are not so concerned with rights as they are with gaining and maintaining their power. As Prof. Mauser has put it so aptly. "Governments have the moralty of cancer, they have no other purpose than to grow."

         I  term it "Salami tactics" which are employed sometimes unconsciously when addressing  public concerns with laws and regulation. Each may or will take a tiny slice away but none the less a slice. Over time the slices add up and the salami shrinks as do our RIGHTS.

 It is our salami be greedy with it.  In the end it is all we have to sustain us.

 

 

Canada has inherited a Westminster-style Parliamentary government.  In theory such a government is omnipotent.  Hence the old saying No mans property or liberty is safe so long as Parliament is in session. It is said that such a parliament can turn a man into a woman. 

 


 

 

HISTORY |THE RIGHT TO KEEP |THE NANNY COMETH | SLICING THE SALAMI | | CRIME AND PUNISHMENT | OUR CONSTITUTIONAL INHERITANCE

 

Mr KILROI PRESENTS | LINKS AND REFERENCE | MORE CHERISHED RIGHTS | HOME