PROTECTING RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
by Reginald Angus Argue
Benjamin Franklin had once said, "They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
Our modern Western society has lost many of its cherished democratic rights and freedoms. Now, we awake to a new time where a situation that was similar to the burning of the German parliament buildings in the 1930s that had destroyed democracy in Germany, has now been permitted to take place within our own society. Yet, before many of the people in North America were able to pull from past history lessons and apply them to our time, modern day oppressive laws, which were allegedly meant to protect North Americans under the guise of national security were enforced upon the populace. Instantaneously, people of North America were turned into a modern day East Germans, while democratic Constitutions were largely ignored.
In the former East Germany, citizens represented mere cogs in the Communist machine. In order to make this possible, the Eastern German government and its Warsaw Pact allies had installed landmines, barbwire, fences, guard dogs and guards with automatic weapons, all around the East Germany’s border. During those days, the government of this land stated that it was meant to protect the East German people. Instead, these activities made the citizens of this nation prisoners of their own country.
How This Applies to Canada
Taking a quick glance at just a few laws and a bill in Canada, one has to question, who does this all benefit? Does this benefit the far right ideologues in some parts of Western Canada, who have ties to religious groups out of TEXAS and other parts of the USA. Such far right ideology rests on the proposition that "democratic governments represent the ultimate deification of man, which is the very essence of humanism and totally alien to God’s words" (Quote taken from article Bentley, Alberta, Hellfire, Neo-Nazis and Stockwell).
Do these laws protect the people, as the old East German government had stated about its citizens many years ago? Many East German citizens, who were shot at, as they were attempting to flee their nation’s oppression, regularly answered this last question, with a willingness to sacrifice or jeopardize their own lives just to live in a free society. It can be argued that these laws do not benefit the people who matter the most in a democracy, and that is the masses.
The New Systems, Old Ways
Firstly, C-35 (landmines of modern day East Germany) is law, which in itself turns a blind eye to modern day State sanction reconnaissance of terrorist’s targets within Canada and the United States. The basic purpose of C-35 is to provide safe haven, for other nations' government officials who have knowingly committed atrocities or acts of terror not only against their own people, but also against other people. Under C-35, these officials whether they be visiting or living in Canada could be protected by the Canadian government. If any Canadian citizens were to protest against these factions, such individuals involved in this protest could be arrested under this law. What has happened to the rights of the people to be able to expect safety and protection by their government? What has happen to the rights of the people being able to legally gather and peacefully express their views on the issues?
Secondly C-24, which is listed under an anti-organized crime bill, passed into law in December of 2001 is symbolic of the barbwire of modern day East Germany. This bill was allegedly brought into law to help the police in Canada fight against organized crime. However, under this law, the State affords itself greater power and minimizes its accountablity. This quote, taken from the Canadian Justice Department, raises alarming concerns: "Establish an accountability process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain acts that would otherwise be considered illegal during the course of a criminal investigation." Under C-24, both the political and legal realms, including law enforcement are given greater powers at the expense of civil liberties. Citizens have less leverage for filing grievances and having them addressed fairly and without prejudice.
Thirdly, C-18 (which symbolizes the fences of modern day East Germany) is only a bill and has yet to be passed into law. With C-18 only passing two readings in the federal Parliament buildings in Canada, at this point in time. Once this Bill does come into law, people who were not born in Canada and are now living in this nation should begin to become concerned. Persons born outside of Canada could have their citizenships revoked and be faced with deportation under national security concerns. There would be less emphasis on due process and sufficient evidence to use against suspects.
For a moment, imagine that once C-18 is law, anyone who is viewed as a threat to national security using subjective standards would be subjected to disconcerting treatment that may not even be constitutional. Without public counsel, such persons would likely not be able to adequaltely defend themselves. Once these people are deported, there may be a section of this proposed bill that would bar other family members, who are still in Canada from ever being able to visit their deported family members ever again. What has happened to the right to due process of the law, where one is allowed to appeal any wrongful decision that may have been made against that person?
Fourthly, let us examine how C-36 (symbolic of guard dogs of modern day East Germany) has been able to tear the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apart. Under this law, it grants the police or government agencies the right to deny any citizen access to any personnel information that had been gathered against them or others. Also, under this law, it grants a few government officials the right to freely carry out a campaign of terror, as a person’s bank account may be frozen, their mail may be opened, their own home may have listening devices planted without prior knowledge being given to that person, and their computer or computers may be seized, all in the name of national security.
Yet, all of these past points are nothing compared to the true sinister agenda of C-36 and that is preventative arrest. This is an "arrest if one is suspected of planning to carry out a crime, based on unspecified evidenceÑup to 72 hours without access to a lawyer)." (Quote taken from http://www.wage-peace.org/popups/sitin_c36.html) Under C-36, a person may be let free then re-arrested as they were leaving the dentition center or police station. At which time the accused person may be held for an additional 72 hours, without access to his or her lawyer. Also, under this law if the accused are charged under C-36 they "do not have the right to remain silent." This raises a number of disturbing concerns with how the State and its federal agencies can exercise greater powers and be held to less accountablity.
Fifthly, is the Gun control law in Canada, which is symbolic of guards with automatic weapons of modern day East Germany. Despite numerous flaws within this new system, the federal government still adheres to it. The reason for this has to be what is laid out in this law. Under this law, the police are allowed to enter into your house without a search warrant, all on a report that you had non-registered guns in your home. At which time, if the police were to find anything else that is illegal, law enforcement would be able to use this alleged evidence against you in court.
The law and freedom
Under all of these laws and the one proposed bill, people are able to see the five points of the old East Germany, with all the pieces almost in place. Yet, what would be the purpose of passing these laws? For if you look at the report given by the Canadian Auditor General in April of 2004 there were reported to be "18,000 known or suspected world terrorists" in Canada. This report also posited that "4,500 people with known criminal ties were working in security areas in Canadian airports." In addition, another report argued that "Virtually all of the most notorious international terrorist organizations are known to maintain a network presence in Canada." All of this raises the question: what is the purpose of these oppressive laws?
As one can see, these laws are not being used against an already recognized known world terrorists’ presence in Canada. Instead, these laws can be and in some cases the spirit of such laws has been used against reporters, writers, artists and other outspoken people, who have question the rights of a select few to inflict their point of view over the people. Refer to the example of the Ottawa Citizen reporter, who had her office, and home torn apart by the RCMP, because she refused to give up her sources on a story that she had written. In addition, an old classic novel like To Kill a Mocking Bird has been censored and banned in parts of Canada. This novel was a prime example of how injustices could be carried out against the innocent. As a few were able to past quick judgment on person based on the color of his skin, without first hearing the whole story. As the court case in this novel was played out, the lawyer had proven his client innocent. However, because of a more intolerant era, this gentleman was still found guilty. Then later, he was shot in the back and killed in an alleged attempt to escape. This novel should have never been banned. This should serve as a important lesson to show people the abuses of power that can occur once such an atmosphere is allowed to thrive.
How long will it take before persons commence to express their opinions and stand up with their voices, all in an effort to regain their rights and freedoms back? These rights and freedoms are afforded to them in the Charter. However, they are only real insofar as we protect them and utilize them. If we just sit back and do nothing, it will not be that long much longer before these modern East German laws will imprison all of us in a system where our liberties and freedoms would be minimized or even eradicated.
I conclude with a famous poem by Reverend Martin Niemoeller who wrote:
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionists.
Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.
All Content Inclusive, Copyright © Reginald Angus Argue
