Skip to content

The rise of fascism – one paper cut at a time…

November 13, 2012

Somehow I missed this little piece of creeping fascism – but last April the Toronto Police acquired the power to stop anyone on the street and demand identification.

Not surprisingly, six months later, the Toronto Star reports (today) that the police have been stopping Black youth more than 3 times as often as they are stopping anyone else.

Toronto has joined New York and London in this “safety first” crusade that somehow equates the random stopping of citizens on the street with lowering crime rates (which are already at historic lows).

How the hell is this random spot checking going to make Toronto safer?

And why would we give the police such arbitrary power?

The program has been a colossal failure in New York and London and civil liberty groups everywhere are screaming law suits and racial profiling.

I know I continue to play a broken record on this, but this is yet another example of how we are losing our democratic freedoms one paper cut at a time. Death by a thousand paper cuts.

The federal government is about to pass legislation giving them the power to spy on any and all of our communications (web, social networking, telephone) – without cause or warrant; cameras increasingly follow our every move; we can now only protest at “government approved” protests (and at pre-approved protest (fenced off) areas); we cannot wear any form of face covering when we do; public transit systems are being re-wired to listen in on our conversations; and the police can stop us for no reason and demand identification and just generally pester us with intimidation.

I saw last week that in some American ridings the Republicans were trying to “guilt” people into voting by sending people phone messages telling them who of their neighbours stood up to their constitutional obligations and voted (they accessed voting lists from early voter turn-outs), and then asked you why you haven’t yet voted. Apparently it raises voter turn-out by 8%.

I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before all blogs will have to be government “approved”, websites will be blocked from our viewing (already done in China, and Middle East), and we will be asked to spy and report on our neighbours.

It’s only a matter of time.–known-to-police-no-need-for-review-of-toronto-police-contacts-with-racialized-youth-act-now-says-watchdog-group


One Comment leave one →
  1. Rwolf permalink
    November 19, 2012 10:27 am

    Canada Resurrects Vampire—bill C-30 That Will Suck Internet Freedom Dry

    Can Canadians Hold Out Against Their Government’s Forceful Efforts to Wiretap Their Lives? The Obama Government also wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions any phone call record, email or Internet activity.

    U.S. Expanding Cross-border Police Integration With Canada & Asset Forfeiture Sharing.

    Concurrent with Obama’s proposed law legalizing and expanding cross-border police integration in North America, Canadians earlier this year discovered introduced (Commons Bill C-30) touted to protect children on the Internet—would also give any Canadian police officer—without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers’ information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians’ private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share Canadian and Americans assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that resulted from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian and American Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.

    Compare: The Obama Government wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Police can take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture that require only a civil preponderance of evidence.The U.S. “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be allowed; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible criminal or civil violations.

    History Repeats: A corrupt or despot U.S. Government/Agency can too easily use no-warrant—(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his police state (no warrant) passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting members of German parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation’s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.

    Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow U.S. Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason: many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

    Annually U.S. Government seizes Billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police are turning their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property.

    Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: