One of Canada’s Laws…

52. Sabotage

(1) Every one who does a prohibited act for a purpose prejudicial to

 
 
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. 

 

 

(2) In this section, “prohibited act” means an act or omission that

(a) impairs the efficiency or impedes the working of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, machinery, apparatus or other thing; or

 
 

(b) causes property, by whomever it may be owned, to be lost, damaged or destroyed.

(4) No person does a prohibited act within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.

It’s such an interesting section with checks and balances. And just a tad vague enough that it’s interpretation can go either way.

I wonder if “communicating information” that is misleading or outright lies is protected under (4)?

I wonder if someone who is not a Canadian citizen and wanders in an out of Canada is exempt? I would hardly think so.

I guess someone would have to be charged in order to find out how the courts in Canada would decide.

A complaint filed with authorities or the gathering of sufficient evidence and presented to judge by a private citizen? Would get that ball rolling.

I wonder if those complaints, filed separately, would be handled as separate instances and individual charges or lumped into one instance if it was one alledged offender?

Repeated communications would make for a hell of a stack of charges if treated separately and if a person was found guilty of each charge? A judge in a bad mood could hand out sentences that could be ordered served consecutively.

One after the other. 10 years + 10 years + 10 years + 10 years, etc, etc, etc.

Our judges can be rather lienient, at their whim. There are proud Canadians in their ranks that could take a dim view to non-Canadians acting in such a manner in Canada.

Now, of course there is speculation on my part and a lawyer might advise that it’s unlikely to happen.

But times have changed. What once was unlikely, may become likely.

The law is on the books.

It doesn’t mean it won’t be used if someone comes and messes with Canada and it’s citizens.

Don't Tread On Me

 

 

(b) the safety or security of the naval, army or air forces of any state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada,

 

(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada, or

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A summary of bitterness…

Final Reflections

Elizabeth Mandelman | PostedAugust 16th, 2009 | North America

Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday morning I made the long drive back to Minneapolis from Waterloo.  Not even ten minutes into my drive, the morning news update was aired. 

 

The first story reported that a woman from the Kitchener area named Nadia Gehl had been shot in early February while at a bus stop close to her home.  Waterloo police finally apprehended three suspects last week-her husband and two of his friends.  The second story aired described a deadly shooting in Toronto.

 

Over the summer, the pro-gun community in Canada incessantly argued that gun violence in their country is so low that legislation to decrease and prevent it is not warranted.  This assertion, clearly, is easily challenged simply by listening to or watching the news.    

 

The correlation between gun control and domestic violence cannot be ignored, nor can the correlation between gun control and crime more generally. 

 

Domestic violence is a gendered issue, and unfortunately is always likely to be.  As a result, the use of firearms in domestic violence is also a gendered issue; this is why IANSA launched the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign this summer. 

 

Canada is one of four countries with harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws.  As such, Canada’s Firearms Act has been internationally recognized as good practice and is being used as a model for other countries looking to implement similar laws. 

 

It is not perfect.  Nobody is pretending it is.  There were cost overruns in its implementation, and some existing loopholes need to be closed.  That being said, its imperfections are very small, and eliminating any portion of the Firearms Act would result in a decline of public safety and increased accessibility of firearms to perpetrators of domestic violence and other dangerous individuals. 

 

While reflecting on the Firearms Act and my time in Canada, I feel the need to address the treatment I received from the pro-gun community this summer, specifically from members of CanadianGunNutz.com, described as Canada’s largest firearm trade and discussion forum.

 

According to the pro-gun community, I was in Canada trying to take away their rights.  The gunnutz community repeatedly accused me of attacking their personal freedoms, namely their freedom to carry firearms with them at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing.  If they want to carry their gun with them to run errands or even just to buy a pack of a smokes, this should be their prerogative, is what they argued.

 

 

They told me I should be ashamed of myself based on my ‘sickening’ attempt of emotional appeal when linking gun control and domestic violence.  Newsflash, Gunnutz: Domestic violence is emotional.  It is horrifying and it is unfair.  Pretending the issue does not exist does nothing to help make it go away.

 

 

Not only did the pro-gun community constantly try attacking the legitimacy of my work and research, but they also attacked me personally; I have never experienced such degrading language or inappropriate behavior by people who claim to be adults. 

What was most laughable about the treatment I received was the fact that the entire time the pro-gun community was trying to discredit my work, they were also trying to get me removed from the country.  Paranoia and fear runs rampant among the gunnutz, and as such they try to ‘stomp out’ (their words, not mine) any opinion that differs from their own.

 

Among other tactics, the pro-gun community tried to get me removed from Canada by searching for me as a registered lobbyist, looking into ways of getting my Visa revoked (I did not need one, which none of them were able to figure out), starting a letter writing campaign to the dean of my school based on my ‘lack of academic integrity’, and beginning the process of filing paperwork with the Ontario Human Rights Commission claiming that I was an American terrorist in their country attacking their rights. 

 

They even posted the link to my Facebook page on their forum and suggested that everyone try to befriend me.  Making futile attempts to get me kicked out of Canada is one thing, but seeking me out on Facebook is disturbing and scary (especially when the screen name of the person posting the link is Nightmare).  I was forced to take down the picture I had of me a friend laughing, because some individuals began making lewd and suggestive comments about it.

 

I was warned before arriving that the treatment I would receive would be aggressive and mean, but I honestly did not expect it to be as bad as it was.  Gunnutz.com and the pro-gun community are doing themselves no favors by attacking rather than debating those whose opinions vary from their own. 

 

While their constant attacks were frustrating this summer, their tactics of aggression and bullying did not work on me, and have not worked on Parliament.  The Firearms Act was passed into law for good reason, and Parliament continues to recognize its benefits by upholding the legislation in its entirety.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Blast from the past…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_59585388

Should Antigun Liberals Use Armed Bodyguards?

Insight on the News,  

Feb 14, 2000  by Carmine Sarracino

 

    It’s what the rich and powerful do. According to an article in my morning paper of Jan. 14, television personality Ben Stein, star of Win Ben Stein’s Money, was robbed at gunpoint recently and now has decided to hire a part-time bodyguard. The surprise is that he did not, as is the case with most celebrities, already have one. Like celebrities, politicians as well — even the most shrill antigun governors and senators — have their taxpayer-provided state-trooper bodyguards. It would be interesting to ask someone such as Bill Bradley, for example, to lead the way in the gun-control movement, which he champions, by disarming his bodyguards. “But,” the objection would come, “I am a public figure and vulnerable to violent attack.” And, would come my counter-objection, “we private citizens are not?”

    In my years of thinking and reading about the issue of armed self-defense (years of shooting recreationally and competitively as well), I have come to realize that many people who would abolish the Second Amendment fall into two broad categories. Some simply are afraid of guns — far beyond the healthy respect and rules of safety that guns require. These are “gunophobes” in the same way that we have, say, “arachniphobes” who irrationally fear spiders. (And who, I am sure, would be happy to ban the creepy critters if they could.) Others find in the gun issue an easy way to claim the moral high ground. Since guns obviously are evil, they who oppose guns must be just as obviously on the side of the angels. The litmus test for inclusion into one or both of these categories is this: the relentless and irrational insistence upon defining guns in terms of their worst uses and ignoring altogether their best uses.

    The best use of a firearm is the most common. According to a recent study by a University of Chicago law professor, firearms are used more than I million times each year in the United States to thwart crime and, in the overwhelming majority of cases the firearm is not even fired, but simply displayed, or its use is threatened. For example, a homeowner pumps a round into the chamber of his 12-gauge shotgun, an unmistakable sound which sends an intruder diving out the door. In a dimly lighted parking garage a woman fleeing a stalker pulls a revolver from her purse, turning the tables and sending him fleeing into the night. In those kinds of circumstances, which happen thousands of times a day in the United States, who would brand the firearm in question “evil”?

    Guns often are used badly but, for the most part, guns mainly are used well. Those who carelessly let guns fall into the hands of children use guns badly. Those who use guns to rob, rape and murder use guns badly. But we don’t write laws to punish the sensible majority because of the stupid few or to defend us from the law-abiding.

    Reportedly, Stein has said that he is not angry at the men who robbed him; rather, he is grateful that they did not kill or beat him. Those who eschew guns also presumably are willing to trust in the kindness of criminals. So be it. I am not trying to put a gun into every hand. It is the other side, rather, that is trying to take the gun I would use in self-defense and home defense out of my hand. I do not, you see, have Stein’s sense of gratitude toward thugs. Nor do I have his money.

    Carmine Sarracino teaches English and American literature at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

    COPYRIGHT 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
    COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

    Posted in General | Leave a comment

    Blast from the past…

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323727,00.html

    Founder of Anti-Gun Group Pleads No Contest to Weapons Charges

    Friday, January 18, 2008

    LOS ANGELES —  A former gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges.

    Hector “Big Weasel” Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon.

    Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.

    She was given until Tuesday to surrender for sentencing and would likely be sentenced to four years in prison, prosecutors said.

    Marroquin attorney Patrick Smith did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Thursday. No phone listing was available for Arrellano.

    Marroquin was arrested in June at his Downey home following a nine-month investigation into weapons sales by the 18th Street gang, to which he once belonged.

    Arrellano was arrested at a Cudahy home as a result of the same investigation

    Marroquin founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence. The group received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son, Hector “Little Weasel” Marroquin.

    The son is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest in June 2007 to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.

    Posted in General | Leave a comment

    When does a cop stop being a cop?

    Theoretically on the completion of their last day of duty.

    Yet the “thing” inside that made them cops remains.

    Nothing changed. They are not subjected to some “magic gee-whiz gizmo” that sucks every last bit of “cop” from them before they walk out onto “civvy” street as a “civvy”.

    So that’s it. Yer done. Thanks for showing up. Your contribution is done.

    Is it?

    During the day we can walk past a plainclothes cop and not even know it. Unmarked cruisers are around as well as other unmarked vehicles.

    But we as private citizens know they are there. Somewhere. It doesn’t enter or occupy the bulk of our thoughts during the day.

    Criminals tend to be aware of or cognizant of that though. It is in a criminals “best self-interest” to be aware. It is in many garden-variety thugs mind when they are looking to commit their next crime.

    The possibility of a cop being around is factored into their activities. Sometimes it even can make them decide to NOT commit the crime.

    A deterrent.

    So why not allow a cop to have an Authorization to Carry once retired? They were trusted on the job. Nothing about them has changed as a person. 

    An armed individual of “good character”. Trained in the Use of Force. Knowledgeable in the laws surrounding the use of force. Refresher training to re-inforce that knowledge.

    Sounds like good candidates to a “passive crime control” program to me.

    Just going about their day.

    Passive deterrent.

    Unseen.

    Posted in Firearms Owning, Carrying and Responsibility | Leave a comment