Are we becoming a 'Police State'?

[Nemo888]

Your inability to honestly deal with the problem shows exactly why the state should not have unlimited power.

Do you not see any possible future scenario where the citizens of Canada may have to organize against a corrupted state?

 

[CombatDoc]

Do you by any chance subscribe to any of the above organizations?

This comment would appear to be similar to an anti-Godwin's law.  Any concerns about limits on the state's power to surveil the populace makes one a potential terrorist sympathizer. 

Very similar to the facile argument Vic Toews used to attempt to extend Bill C-30's  internet surveillance powers i.e. you're either "with us or with the child pornographers."

 

[George Wallace]

Your inability to honestly deal with the problem shows exactly why the state should not have unlimited power.

Ummm?  Your paranoia really doesn't qualify you for your analysis of my condition.  Just a point; the state does not have unlimited power.  It is bound by numerous Laws, Policies and Regulations  which often restrict its efficient prosecution of its power.  We have no such thing as one sees in James Bond movies, "a Licence to Kill", in our reality.  This in fact gives the "bad guys" an advantage over us.  Yet, you seem to think they should gain more of an advantage.  Your logic in the protection of our freedoms and liberties escapes me.

Should I refer to your sig line and the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

[Nemo888]

We didn't just survive we thrived under those restrictions. Why are these new sweeping powers needed perpetually?

 

[Navy_Pete]

To go back to the original topic, I don't really see anything wrong with the ads themselves.  It's not impartial, but you can look at it as a 'third party check' to the general bs streaming from the political machines.  Public servants serve the people, not the politicians.  Should they not raise it up if they have concerns?

In general, the PC major campaign 'plans' are generally smoke and mirrors anyway, so they should have giant gaping holes punched through them.  They are running with the american myth of 'job creators' and pandering to the lowest common denominator that thinks public servants fill no useful role.  I would have thought the privatization of Ontario Hydro and the crap with private gas would have shown people that the public is the first one to be screwed (417 Hy, etc etc).

 

[Tibbson]

I don't think we are at a police state (yet) but there have been several instances were police agencies (including the OPP) seem to act like a law unto themselves (Caledonia, High River, Ontario CFO and his attempt at a backdoor registry, several instances were OPP ignored court orders re:native protesters).  It's also interesting that the Police Service Act for Ontario specifically prohibits "municipal police officers" from engaging in political activity, but not OPP.  However at least on a certain level, it is recognized that police should not be engaging in political activities.

Given the fact that in areas where there is no established municipal force (Aliston and Angus Ontario for example) the OPP are contracted by the municipality does that not make them essentially municipal police on the front lines?  The town of Aliston has to pay the OPP for service in their community after all.  Highway patrol and special units would not be in my mind. 

At the same time, RCMP comtracted by the provinces and cities within those provinces would be considered provincial or municiple police based upon their assignments. 

I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way but I can see where the argument could be made and as such I don't think its appropriate for them to get political as an organization.

 

[Tibbson]

I stated the three new powers that were unnecessary since internment during WWII.  We did not need them during Korea or the cold war. Removing the limits on power and then saying that no transparency is needed is  not wise.

I think the moderators need to do some maintenance on the site.  It seems we somehow got crosslinked with Alex Jones' online forum.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think the moderators need to do some maintenance on the site.  It seems we somehow got crosslinked with Alex Jones' online forum.

What's wrong?  Is your confirmation bias being threatened?  Not willing to consider an alternate view?  Need to resort to anonymous ad hominem attacks as soon as someone doesn't agree with you, or the mainstream of this site?

 

[FJAG]

Given the fact that in areas where there is no established municipal force (Aliston and Angus Ontario for example) the OPP are contracted by the municipality does that not make them essentially municipal police on the front lines? 

Not so much. I'm just  :stirpot: here a little and am no expert on Ontario law by any stretch of the imagination but here's my take.

The OPP, I believe, are public servants in Ontario hired and subject to the Ontario Public Service Act (2006) (see here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06p35_e.htm#BK95) - Municipal Police officers per se are not provincial public servants and therefore in general are subject to the Police Services Act as far as political activity goes.

The OPP on the other hand, like all other public servants of Ontario, ought to be subject to Part V of the Public Services Act which severely limits political activities.

On the other hand, the OPPA is an association and not an individual police officer. Like any collective bargaining unit it engages in small "p" political activities on behalf of its members when it believes their interests are threatened. (the officer in the ad or the individuals providing police equipment for the ad may perhaps be liable for a breach of the act)

Unfortunately it looks as if the OPPA may have taken a step onto a slippery slope that will undermine its appearance of impartiality. People will question if they are properly investigating the Gas Plant and Ornge issues if they seem to be favouring the Liberals (even though they are saying being anti Hudak does not mean they endorse the Liberals or the NDP - that's pretty fine Orwell doublespeak).

It says a lot about the OPPA that the "first" time that they take a political stance in their history it's to protect their wallets instead of society.

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

It says a lot about the OPPA that the "first" time that they take a political stance in their history it's to protect their wallets instead of society.

:cheers:

  :nod:

 

[The_Falcon]

Not so much. I'm just  :stirpot: here a little and am no expert on Ontario law by any stretch of the imagination but here's my take.

The OPP, I believe, are public servants in Ontario hired and subject to the Ontario Public Service Act (2006) (see here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06p35_e.htm#BK95) - Municipal Police officers per se are not provincial public servants and therefore in general are subject to the Police Services Act as far as political activity goes.

The OPP on the other hand, like all other public servants of Ontario, ought to be subject to Part V of the Public Services Act which severely limits political activities.

On the other hand, the OPPA is an association and not an individual police officer. Like any collective bargaining unit it engages in small "p" political activities on behalf of its members when it believes their interests are threatened. (the officer in the ad or the individuals providing police equipment for the ad may perhaps be liable for a breach of the act)

Unfortunately it looks as if the OPPA may have taken a step onto a slippery slope that will undermine its appearance of impartiality. People will question if they are properly investigating the Gas Plant and Ornge issues if they seem to be favouring the Liberals (even though they are saying being anti Hudak does not mean they endorse the Liberals or the NDP - that's pretty fine Orwell doublespeak).

It says a lot about the OPPA that the "first" time that they take a political stance in their history it's to protect their wallets instead of society.

:cheers:

The Police Services Act doesn't ignore the OPP though, infact there are several clauses specifically mentioning them, including their responsibility to provide municipal policing should a municipality be unable to do so itself.  http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p15_e.htm#BK22. 

 

[Robert0288]

"The laws allowing the minister of emergency preparedness or the AG's of the provinces to use the CSE and army domestically"

You couldn't be more wrong about this. 

For example just to use the military, every single available resource, at the local, municipal, and provincial level have to be exhausted.  After that the provincial EMO has to formally state that they putting in an RFA (Request for assistance)  That letter gets sent to the Minister of Public Safety, who then sends it to the Minister of National Defense, who has to sign off on it.  Any response is then run by the province.  However the military can do some support locally through a Provision of Service.  This would include things like cots, beds, food etc...
Emergency Management Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.56/

And CSEC isn't even responsible to the Minister of Public Safety.  CSIS however is, and is governed by the CSIS act. (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23/)

 

[Lightguns]

Army?

:facepalm:


WAIT!  Where have I heard that before?  "Soldiers in the streets.  Soldiers with guns."    anic:    :

Not to agree with Nemo but the CSSA has been making a pretty big deal about the other door kickers and gun grabbers at High River, our own soldiers as shown in videos and photos.  Using the line that the Army employed it`s soldiers illegally in that capacity with no mandate from the AG to do so, they have tried to make traction on the issue.  Fortunately, for the Canadian Army, the Canadian press does not care about gun owner rights.

For the paranoid there is fodder for the police state theory, there are certainly issues with law enforcement that are not isolated but there is no organized attempt. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

To go back to the original topic, I don't really see anything wrong with the ads themselves.  It's not impartial, but you can look at it as a 'third party check' to the general bs streaming from the political machines.  Public servants serve the people, not the politicians.  Should they not raise it up if they have concerns?

In general, the PC major campaign 'plans' are generally smoke and mirrors anyway, so they should have giant gaping holes punched through them.  They are running with the american myth of 'job creators' and pandering to the lowest common denominator that thinks public servants fill no useful role.  I would have thought the privatization of Ontario Hydro and the crap with private gas would have shown people that the public is the first one to be screwed (417 Hy, etc etc).

As are the 'non' platforms of the other two major parties. No one has a lock on this. It's the way politics in Canada works now.

You can't use that paintbrush without getting an equal amount of coverage on the rest.

 

[Lightguns]

As are the 'non' platforms of the other two major parties. No one has a lock on this. It's the way politics in Canada works now.

You can't use that paintbrush without getting an equal amount of coverage on the rest.

We have had 60 years of ever increasing revenues and 40 years of liberal socialism to spend those revenues on.  In that time 2 generations of politicans have grown up with the practice of taking a dollar out of our wallets and giving us 50 cents worth of the services they claim we need in return.  It is the game they have learned and the only game they have.  Even as we move to second world status, they continue to ever grow government services at the expense of individual choices.  We are doomed unless a new political messiah comes along and fixes it with a radical approach and continuous majorities for 20 years.  But quite frankly, it is the situation that the voters want (the 40% that vote anyway).

 

[The_Falcon]

Well the legislation may have had loop holes, but the direction from the OPP Commissioner to his Officers is pretty blunt.  No more political activity.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140605-165132.html

TORONTO -- OPP Commissioner Vince Hawkes says footage used in an Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA) attack ad against Tory Leader Tim Hudak was improper and not permissible.

The commissioner said he outlined his concerns personally Thursday to Jim Christie, president of the OPPA. He also issued a directive about the issue to 8,000 OPP officers.

"I did meet with Jim Christie and discussed the memo I sent internally -- (regarding) members involved in political activity -- and that he does not have permission to use OPP images for any political agenda," Hawkes said. "The OPP footage used was from another joint project that was authorized for that purpose only."

The OPPA has released a video -- one critical of Hudak -- which includes images of a uniformed OPP officer.

Christie described the meeting as productive and added the commissioner was "professional" in reminding staff of what the rules are.

He also said there was never any intention for the OPPA to use OPP equipment or employees in a partisan manner.

As QMI Agency's Christina Blizzard highlighted this week, the OPPA posted two 15-second video spots opposing Hudak in the June 12 election.

Hawkes said Wednesday that they were inappropriate. In a letter to "all members" on "Ontario Public Services Employees, Rights and Restrictions during the Election Period," Hawkes outlined the things officers are not allowed to do.

"There has been a considerable amount of attention given recently to the Ontario Provincial Police and the rules and responsibilities of the members," he wrote. "I remind all OPP members, uniformed or civilian, we are restricted from engaging in political activity."

He provided a list to the members saying they can't do "anything in support of or in opposition to a federal or provincial party" or "candidate" or "engage in political activity in the workplace" or "while in uniform."

He also cited that "uniformed members should be cognizant of regulated restrictions on political activity under the Police Services Act." Hawkes' closing line in the letter said "your adherence to the Public Service of Ontario Act, the Police Services Act, and OPP order is appreciated, as is your continued professionalism as members of the Ontario Provincial Police."

 

[CombatDoc]

Well the legislation may have had loop holes, but the direction from the OPP Commissioner to his Officers is pretty blunt.  No more political activity.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140605-165132.html

Horse, meet open barn door. /sarcasm off

 

[Shrek1985]

I'm sure that the OPPA, have enough legal separation to allow them to legally do whatever they want politically. A very useful bit of legal deception, I am sure.

Not unlike the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs, a liberal mouth piece eagre to speak out in favour of the gun control most officers are against, at every opportunity, but more closely tied to police services.

 

[The_Falcon]

I'm sure that the OPPA, have enough legal separation to allow them to legally do whatever they want politically. A very useful bit of legal deception, I am sure.

Not quite. They are all members of the OPP, their boss, the Commissioner has given them an order, they legally have to comply with that order.

 

[George Wallace]

The OPP Commissionaire has come down on his union.  There are still the Nurses, Teachers, etc. all spreading disinformation in attack ads.  Just today, another very prominent union, that has a lot more influence on the public, has come out with direction to its members.  Unifor Local 87-M, historically known as the Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild, has broken its traditional silence during elections by asking members not to vote Progressive Conservative.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1369533/media-union-breaks-silence-on-election



Has democracy ceased to exist in this country, that Unions can dictate to their membership and influence the general public to vote in a particular manner?  Subtle intimidation?