The Coming Police State

Recently, while watching an American television program called “Law & Order,” I heard a statement presented as an introduction to the program which truly shocked: “The criminal justice system has two parts, the police who apprehend criminals and the prosecutors who present evidence of their crimes in court.” To a vast audience of the young, naïve, and perhaps unsophisticated, this is all there is. I thought this might be just an American view, but then I began to think of my experience.

I thought of W. T.’s case, where the police seized my client’s sailboat which was his only home, $47,000 in cash which he held in trust from investors in his boat during repairs, and then they took his car. He was left with a bicycle and a hotel bill. His crime? He has never been convicted of any drug crime since 1994, when he was fined $400 for cultivating marijuana. He is not charged with any crime now, nor are any criminal charges pending against him. No need of proof, no need of evidence of crime, just seizure by Canada Border Agency and Civil Forfeiture. Why bother with courts? Just take what you want if you carry a gun.

I thought of Bruce Montague, a former gunsmith who because he objects to the gun registry, refuses to obtain licenses or registration of his vast gun collection. He securely hides them in a secret sealed room so even the police can’t find them. After a trial in which the myriad of complex gun laws are presented to a confused jury by a self-assured prosecutor, they convict him of unsafe storage, improper storage, and unlawful possession, and in 120 counts damn him for keeping his own property, safely. Unsatisfied with that, the government wants forfeiture of all the guns, ammunition, and other items seized. The court partly agrees. The province wants civil forfeiture of his log house, which he and his family built with their own hands from scratch. In that action, they have no right to remain silent, no right to a jury, no right to the presumption of innocence, and no right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The state needs only prove a balance of probabilities.

There are many more examples I could give, but I shall stop with these two examples. The first statement at the beginning of “Law & Order” reveals the premise of all the rest. There is no person ever wrongly accused, no need of a defence counsel, no need of an impartial judge, no need of a trial really. Just take the money, property, savings, and home of the alleged criminal. Crime pays – the State. Thus, a police state arrives with no dictatorial revolution. Why is this? There are three main reasons…

1. Firstly, the average Canadian wants to be nice and sees police as nice, so to be accepted as Canadian, they help police. This is supposed to be the way to prove patriotism in the minds of many. Police are well paid, respected, privileged, and trusted to carry guns, so they must be right. This is an impression based on prestige and the desire to be acceptable.

2. Secondly, the average Canadian can see what has happened to those who stand up to authority, to either question or reject (or as authorities would say “to defy”) authority. They can see what happens to those on the disapproval side of authority and they are very afraid it might happen to them. This is a very powerful impression based on fear, subtle unstated but effective fear.

3. Thirdly, there is a strong sense of conformity in society and an inherent belief in all groups that their leadership must be nice and benevolent. This permeates society because to believe otherwise creates discomfort, alienation, and among moral beings (to which category most ordinary people belong) a strong obligation to do something about it. Much easier to just believe in the system and if some G8 protester gets locked up without trial or charge, he or she must have done something wrong. This group delusion is based on the herd instinct, conformity, laziness, and comfort in the status quo. Put another way, change is uncomfortable and inertia prevents it.

What is the Remedy?

The police state is really the last phase of a decadent culture, in denial of its founding premises. It really appeals to all the worst features of an entrenched elite, to which everybody struggles to conform and to belong. This is precisely where Canada is now. The elite owns and controls the media, and elects the politicians, who appoint the judges, who impose the desires of the State with absolute unquestioning obedience. Canada has left power in the hands of a Central Canadian Mafia since 1867 and left the West and the Maritimes as useless appendages, of no consequence unless the opinions of the Ontario and Quebec mafia appear to disagree. In that case, the election is actually decided with votes from Western Canada.

So to restore true democracy, a Triple-E Senate, referendum, initiative, and recall, to re-establish a vision of liberty throughout our land, we must free the West. Change in Canada in a positive sense is impossible. Those who wanted a Triple-E Senate discovered this when they attempted to amend the constitution and ran head first into the wall of opposition in Ontario and Upper Canada. Improvement in a positive sense in Western Canada is inevitable and desirable. What can we in the West have? The essential alternative between a growing, intrusive, burdensome police state, ramming their way into our lives, or Independence and a whole new way of self-government where our voices really count. The bitterness of many at the growing police state requires a return to a peaceful referendum to avoid violence. Violence of any individual merely legitimizes much more effective violence by the state against the individual. Thus, we see our final goal of Independence as the only way for positive, constructive change and to sideline forever all talk of violence. Ordinary people need to join and support our movement for positive change.