C-FAR #306. December, 1996
Majority Rule Takes Some More Hits
Lord Acton had it right: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." What is it about electing someone to public office? Once
he gets there, too often he imagines he is God, with some divine right
to rule in defiance of the will of the Majority. And even some of the "good
guys" are bad. Ontario Premier Mike Harris has promised legislation
in the new year to allow referenda in Ontario. Good. An excellent populist
and democratic move. Now, the bad news: Harris and his Municipal Affairs
Minister Al Leach have let it be known in no uncertain terms that they
will ignore the results of any referendum on plans to consolidate Toronto
area municipalities into one big megacity. They have even threatened provincial
legislation to prevent such a referendum. This, despite the fact that some
83 per cent of residents of Metro Toronto, according to radio ads sponsored
by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), favour being consulted
through a referendum before the legislation is passed. Now, the Metro politicians
backing the referendum are not entirely disinterested. They are trying
to save their jobs and political hides. People involved in the debate over
an $8,000 Metro grant to the terrorist ARA (Anti-Racist Action) will recall
how some of the same Metro councillors sneared and hissed when a speaker
proposed a national referendum on immigration.
Meanwhile, in Q uebec Parti Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard has adopted
an imperial style. He and his advisors were stunned, November 23, when
nearly a quarter (23.3 per cent) of the delegates to a PQ Convention in
Quebec City opposed his leadership. An arrogant Bouchard "was adamant
that he would not change course, insisting that the party must adapt to
his political views and not the other way around. ... He urged the PQ to
stop criticizing the government and demonstrate more cohesion, discipline
and unity instead of engaging in public battles over principles. 'The party
must close ranks behind the government, the programme and its leaders,'
Mr. Bouchard said in his closing remarks." (Globe and Mail, November
25, 1996) So, check your brains and principles at the door, and quack loyally
for your betters. "However, popular support for the PQ leader could
be short-lived in the wake of the arrogance and authoritarianism he showed
toward his party during the past weekend's convention, revealing his iron-fisted
approach at suppressing dissent. ... In the corridors of the convention,
the party elite at the start of the meeting dispatched officials to track
down dissenters and listen in on their conversatiions. ... Mr. Bouchard's
insistence on a more disciplined and united party indicates that a purge
may be in the offing." (Globe and Mail, November 25, 1996)
Allan Rock's Gun Confiscation --
The Noose Tightens
Canadians
have increasingly lost their rights and freedoms, regardless of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and under Justice Minister Allan Rock, an Orwellian
nightmare becomes reality. The current anti-gun hysteria resulted from
past propaganda put out by leading control advocates; such as, Professor
Martin Friedland of the University of Toronto Law Faculty and Wendy Cukier
of the Coalition for Gun Control. In the case of Cukier, the sensationalist
half-truths are obvious. Says she: "Marc Lepine, with a legally owned
military assault weapon, shot 27 people in Montreal." By U.S. military
definition, this was not an assault weapon; consequently, it was not used
by armies in North America. (The Canadian Firearms Debate, published by
the Canadian Handgun Association, 1994), p.149) Also, she asserts, "Guns
are used by about 10 per cent of the population." (p.150) In fact,
recent figures indicate that 20 per cent of Canadians use guns. (p.7) She
further alleges: "Handguns are not used for hunting and target shooting."
(p.153) On the contrary, most gun club members use handguns for target
shooting.
Under such propagandistic influence, Rock and Chretien have enacted
draconian gun control laws aimed at the seven million Canadian gun owners.
(p.7) Criminals, of course, being criminals won't feel the need to register,
carefully store, report, or hand in their arsenals. In 1992, there were
an estimated 500 firearms homicides, compared to 3,462 deaths in motor
vehicle accidents. This means that you are six times more likely to die
in a car accident than from a gun. Your chance of being shot is a remote
1 in 111,000 (p.29). Now the victimized lawful gun owners see the Criminal
Code aimed at them rather than at criminals, all of which justifiably brings
the law into disrepute and contempt. Rock himself excels in Orwellian doublespeak
for gun controls. For instance, in 1994, he said that gun registration
will not entail confiscation and will not cost gun owners anything. (Registration
Will Mean Confiscation, published by the Canadian Handgun Association,
1994, p.2) The facts are that guns are now being arbitrarily seized under
the new laws. One Toronto businessman of well-known rightwing views, had
a $60,000 collection seized because of a domestic tiff. The Toronto Sun
(December 11, 1996) warns: "Guns owners could be branded spouse-beaters
under new firearms rules without being charged or convicted, justice officials
said yesterday. Current legal gun owners with no criminal record could
have their right to own firearms revoked if police or firearms officers
judge them to have a history of domestic violence. 'Benefit of the doubt
will be given to public safety,' said William Bartlett, legal counsel for
the government's National Firearms Centre." It's too bad benefit of
the doubt isn't given to public safety in permitting large numbers of illegals
and foreign criminals to remain on Canadian soil. The totalitarian bent
of Bartlett cancels the citizen's right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law, before his liberties are curtailed. "Under
the recently tabled regulations for the national licensing and registration
system, which is scheduled to be phased in January 1, 1998, owner licences
will be issued only after a security check which will include interviews
with current or recently separated spouses and common law partners. ...
Bartlett conceded there is a danger of false information being provided
for vindictive reaosns, but argued that polcice are used to judging and
verifying information."
In the future, hefty fees will be charged for registration, thus paving
the way for future seizures at the whim of the government. Sadly, the existence
of three per cent serious mental illness in the general population (author's
estimate) has not kept guns out of the hands of maniacs like Marc Lepine,
and, therefore, the remaining 99 per cent of responsible gunowners are
scapegoated. After a similar massacre in Dunblane, Scotland, the British
government announced intentions to confiscate nearly all handguns, on the
theory that it is easier to punish thousands of innocent gun owners than
to weed out one nutcase who misuses a gun. Surely, the onus is on the government
to lock up such maniacs because they don't need a gun to kill. Indeed,
in Canada, two thirds of all homicides in 1991 were not caused by a firearm.
(The Canadian Firearms Debate, p.30)
Previous gun control measures have proved unpopular. Registration of
long guns was abandoned in 1941 when gun owners ignored it. The government
of Pierre Trudeau, in 1977, and the Conservatives, in 1993, were defeated
after gun control bills were passed. In 1992, only 12 per cent of "politically
incorrect" firearms were submitted for registration. (Registration
Will Mean Confsication, p.10) Rock's current controls are retroactive and
deprive owners of their lawful property without proper compensation. With
orders-in-council, the bureaucrats can ban any gun on flimsy pretext without
Parliamentary debate. They are constantly expanding their list and owners
have no way of knowing whether their gun in legal. Most owners live in
rural areas, where they do not have access to large libraries. Now, some
poor farmer out shooting gophers in his cabbage patch is at the mercy of
any zealous cop who goes by. Any bureaucrat designated as a "Firearms
Inspector" can, after due notice, search your dwelling and confiscate
your guns for any one of a number of pettifogging infractions; for example,
the ammunition wasn't separately stored; you didn't keep proper records'
there wasn't a trigger lock on each gun; or you had just overlooked something.
The penalties for not co-operating with the bureaucrats or for a minor
infraction are truly horrendous. Your right to remain silent under the
Charter of Rights is ignored. Not only does a conviction result in a criminal
record, but all guns, ammunition, and accessories can be confiscated, at
the time you are charged. These draconian provisions for seizure reveal
the real purpose of Bill C-68: the stripping of Canadian gunowners of their
weapons. The Police do not have to return your guns, if you are found innocent.
If guilty, you face hefty fines and possible imprisonment, with lifetime
bans on owning firearms and/or explosives. So much for Charter protection
against cruel and unusual punishment, when you have harmed nobody. All
this in a country which, for the most part, is still a vast wilderness,
where hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on guns for food, protection
and recreation. No wonder that Aboriginal leaders have told Rock that their
people are not going to comply with this tyrannical legislation.
Possibly fearful of gunowners' anger, Rock now proposes a new high-risk
offenders law that would allow courts to place electronic bracelets on
persons deemed to be a threat to public safety, even those never charged
or who have been acquitted. Then, the police can monitor the movements
of such a person, who might be a threat to someone like Rock. "The
legislation, introduced in September, would allow the crown to ask a judge
to require anyone it believes will commit a seriouis personal injury crime
to be electronically monitored. The individual -- who may never have committed
a crime in his life -- would wear a tamper-proof electronic bracelet which
authorities would monitor to ensure that he does not visit places he should
not be, such as schools or bars. ... 'It is true to say that on the Monday,
a person night be acquitted of acharge, ... but on the Wednesday or the
Thursday, the person might be the subject of an order (under the new bill)'"
Justice Minister Allan Rock admitted. (Toronto Star, December 4, 1996)
This proposal could be ideal for monitoring populist dissenters who, could
be deemed to be violent, and therefore subject to monitoring. The KGB would
have loved this idea.
Gun owners must realize that, as over one quarter of the population,
in the 1997 election, they can defeat Rock and Company, the Liberals, the
control freaks and the shock troops of the New World Order eager to disarm
people lest they resist. They should work for the Reform Party, as Preston
Manning has vowed to repeal the guns laws. Secondly, they should consider
a legal class action suit against Wendy Cukier because of the harmful statements
she has made. Gun owners' associations must start to organize now to defeat
the enemies of freedom in Canada, including Allan Rock and the government
of Jean Chretien in the upcoming election. -- John
H. Morgan, M.A., M.B.A.
Support Free Speech -- Support the
Freedom-Site