There's a document in Canada called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's classed as the highest law in Canada and cannot be superseded or overthrown. Our purpose is to remind the people we elected or empowered that they remain bound by it and can not be exempted from it.You are not powerless. Take a stand...and let's remind those who we elected and empowered that they are still CIVIL (people's) SERVANTS
This may have happened to you, your with your friends sitting at the bar and the waitress comes over to take your order and commence service of your table. You and your friends are regular patrons at this establishment and for some strange reason, today the waitress asks you to produce your ID for service of alcoholic beverages. No big deal you know you've been here before and you have one problem...you left your license at home and are not carrying proper photo ID. You produce your birth certificate and other valid government issued pieces that you do have with you and the staff insists..."It must have a picture on it" The question...is this correct? Do you absolutely have to have PHOTO ID to get served?
Here's the answer: Let's look at the legistlation
Section 74 of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act stipulates the following guidelines:
Minors on licensed premises 74(1) If a person who appears to be a minor requests to purchase or be given liquor from a liquor licensee, the licensee or other person to whom the request is made must, before granting the request, demand that the person who appears to be a minor provide proof of age. (2) No minor may enter or be in any licensed premises if the licence prohibits minors from entering into or being in the licensed premises. (3) No liquor licensee may permit a minor to enter or be in any licensed premises if the licence prohibits minors from entering into or being in the licensed premises.
(4) If a person who appears to be a minor enters licensed premises that a minor is not entitled to enter or be in, the liquor licensee must demand that the person who appears to be a minor produce proof of age.
(5) If a person makes a request for identification under subsection
(1) or (4) and the person who appears to be a minor fails to produce identification that is satisfactory to the person making the request, the liquor licensee must (a) not serve liquor to that person, and (b) refuse the person entry or ask the person to leave if the licence prohibits a minor from entering and being in those licensed premises.
Now before we start arguing the point that section 5 states "Satisfactory to the person making the request" let's clarify that we are discussing a provincial law and so the definition of satisfactory in this case would be sufficient as prescribed by law and not sufficient to appeasement of the person requesting the ID or the Bar owner.
So to finish the above question: Are other forms of ID such as Health care, birth certificate or other ID's containing a birthdate and issued by the Government sufficient in lieu of photo ID? The answer is YES: They are acceptable and valid Government issued proof of Age, and as shown above the legislation permits that if sufficient proof of age is produced then a person who produces it is permitted to stay and enjoy the benefits of a licensed facility.
No part of the act or the regulations of the act state specified forms of valid ID. So when the bar owner says you can't be here cause you don't have photo ID. you can tell him that you have provided undoubted proof of age and you are permitted under the act to be served...If you are going to test this one out then I highly recommend you produced a second form of non photo ID to correspond with the first this then creates no doubt at all to ones credibility that you are the person you say you are and that the ID photo or not is valid and produces the required proof of age at any licensed establishment in Alberta.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society.
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election
of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to
be qualified for membership therein.
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
4.(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall
continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return
of the writs of a general election of its members.(81)
Continuation in special circumstances
(2) In time of
real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons
may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be
continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is
not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the
House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.(82)
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.(83)
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general
application in force in a province other than those that discriminate
among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous
residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable
residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly
provided social services.
Affirmative action programs
(4) Subsections
(2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in
that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate
of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in
Canada.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance
with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under
military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial
by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for
five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any
act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it
constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was
criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the
community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not
to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for
the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if
the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of
commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser
punishment.
Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Self-crimination
13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not
to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that
witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or
for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Interpreter
14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand
or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is
deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has
the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection
(1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or
groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national
or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical
disability.(84)
16.(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada
and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their
use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
Official languages of New Brunswick
(2) English and
French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of
status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all
institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.
Advancement of status and use
(3) Nothing in
this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to
advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick
16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French
linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal
rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational
institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary
for the preservation and promotion of those communities.
Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick
(2) The role of
the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote
the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is
affirmed.(85)
Proceedings of Parliament
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.(86)
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.(87)
Parliamentary statutes and records
18.(1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be
printed and published in English and French and both language versions
are equally authoritative.(88)
New Brunswick statutes and records
(2) The statutes,
records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be
printed and published in English and French and both language versions
are equally authoritative.(89)
Proceedings in courts established by Parliament
19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or
in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by
Parliament(90)
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
(2) Either
English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or
process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.(91)
Communications by public with federal institutions
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to
communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or
central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of
Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any
other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is
reasonable that communications with and services from that office be
available in both English and French.
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
(2) Any member of
the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to
receive available services from, any office of an institution of the
legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any
right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French
languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of
any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.(92)
Rights and privileges preserved
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any
legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before
or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any
language that is not English or French.
(a) whose first language learned and still
understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority
population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school
instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province
where the language in which they received that instruction is the
language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the
province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.(93)
Continuity of language instruction
(2) Citizens of
Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or
secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the
right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school
instruction in the same language.
Application where numbers warrant
(3) The right of
citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children
receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the
English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the
number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to
warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language
instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those
children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in
minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
24.
(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter,
have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent
jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate
and just in the circumstances.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in
proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was
obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms
guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is
established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission
of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into
disrepute.
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the
aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or
freedoms that exist in Canada.
Multicultural heritage
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of
Canadians.
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and
freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female
persons.
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any
rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada
in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.(95)
Application to territories and territorial authorities
30. A reference in this Charter to a province or to the
legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to
include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest
Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the
case may be.
Legislative powers not extended
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
(a) to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament
including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest
Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of
each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the
legislature of each province.
Exception
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Exception where express declaration
33.
(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare
in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that
the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
Operation of exception
(2) An Act or a
provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this
section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for
the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
Five year limitation
(3) A declaration
made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after
it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the
declaration.
Re-enactment
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
Five year limitation
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
I came upon this today and thought how ridiculous this is.
Before you read this article you may want to brush up on the definition of entrapment, what it is and how it's merited.
Entrapment and illegal police
activity are both based on the doctrine of abuse of process.
Entrapment
vThe authorities provide a person with an
opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that
this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry; or
vHaving a reasonable suspicion or acting in the
course of a bona fide inquiry, the
police go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an
offence.
To establish entrapment, the accused
is required to demonstrate only that one of the two branches of the test has
been met. If successful, the remedy is a stay of proceedings.
According to the guidelines set out
by the Supreme Court of Canada, the police are required to have a reasonable
suspicion that the accused is already engaged in criminal activity, or must be
acting pursuant to a bona fide
inquiry. The rationale for requiring reasonable suspicion is “because of the risk that the police will
attract people who would not otherwise have any involvement in a crime and
because it is not aproper use of the
police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis.”[2][55]
In determining whether police
conduct goes further than providing an opportunity, a court will assess the
following non-exhaustive list of factors:
vThe type of crime being investigated and the
availability of other techniques for the police detection of its commission;
vWhether an average person, with both strengths
and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the
commission of a crime;
vThe persistence and number of attempts made by
the police before the accused agreed to commit the offence;
vThe type of inducement used by the police,
including deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;
vThe timing of the police conduct, in particular
whether the police instigated the offence or become involved in ongoing
criminal activity;
vWhether the police conduct involves an
exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion,
sympathy and friendship;
vWhether the police appear to have exploited a
particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance
addiction;
vThe proportionality between the police
involvement, as compared to that of the accused, including an assessment of the
degree of harm caused or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and
the commission of any illegal acts by the police themselves;
vThe existence of any threats, implied or
express, made to the accused by the police or their agents; and
vWhether the police conduct is directed at
undermining other constitutional values.[3][56]
Now that you are brushed up on how entraptment is merited you may want to read this article about police in BC disguising themselves as beggars to entrap distracted drivers in the act.
B.C. police officer disguised as a homeless person in bid to nab distracted drivers.
In five months, Calgary cops managed to nab 1,456 drivers — or
rather, 1,456 people texting, dining, changing songs and chattering on
their cellphones.
Driving was definitely a secondary concern for the motorists fined
under Alberta’s Distracted Driving law, just as it was for the 379
people fined by Edmonton police in February alone.
Three hundred and seventy-nine tickets in one month? An average of 291 distracted drivers every four weeks in Calgary?
That’s some fine police work — or it is, until you measure it against
the ingenious tactic being used by RCMP traffic cops in B.C.
Try 4,449 tickets written in a single month, in large part because of
a sneaky strategy which puts drivers at ease, even as a police officer
peers into their vehicle from a few centimetres away.
“Hello, my name is Constable Martell. If you’re on your cellphone
right now, you are about to get a ticket,” reads the hand-drawn
cardboard sign, held by the scruffy man in the blue hoodie.
The man posing as a panhandler is actually an RCMP officer,
reportedly from Chilliwack, B.C., and his photograph is currently making
the rounds online.
We’ve all seen them, the scruffs who hang around at traffic lights
begging for spare change, a sob story about lost jobs or similar
misfortune scrawled on their cardboard.
When the light turns red, the panhandler wanders among the cars,
seeking surplus coins — and most motorists ignore them, going about
their business while trying to avoid eye contact.
Stop-light begging is a big city issue, but it’s provided the urban
camouflage that’s allowed RCMP officers to walk right up to cars at
lights, to see what the driver is doing.
Texting, talking, and so forth are noted — and then the details are
radioed to the uniformed officers waiting just up the road, ready to
pull the distracted driver over, and issue a ticket.
“Some of the enforcement involves our officers being in plain clothes
of one form or another, standing around the intersections,” said Sgt.
Peter Thiessen, spokesman for the RCMP Lower Mainland District Regional
Police Service.
“Sometimes they appear to be squeegee people or something like that —
the Lower Mainland is leading the way with different methods of
enforcement.”
A February 2012 enforcement blitz, where the bogus-beggar tactic was
part of the plan, resulted in a dramatic increase in tickets — nearly
double the year before.
Police in B.C. say the change in tactics may have shown that
distracted driving numbers haven’t decreased, so much as drivers are
learning to be sneaky.
But with fake panhandlers now staring into cars, so are the police —
and with 27 B.C. traffic deaths linked to distracted driving in 2011,
sneaky policing isn’t about to stop.
Like Alberta, hands-free phones are allowed in B.C., where the fine
for using an electronic device while driving is $167, plus three
demerits.
But drivers aren’t getting it, and so Thiessen says drivers in his
province — including Albertans visiting B.C. — shouldn’t be surprised to
find out that last beggar was a cop.
“It certainly works,” said Thiessen.
“Our stats went up from last year significantly.”
And if police in Edmonton and Calgary choose to follow, it could work in Alberta too.
Provincial Solicitor General Jonathan Denis says B.C.’s traffic-light
tactics could certainly be imported by police here, with the full
support of the Alberta government.
Denis sees undercover officer strategy as a fair way of catching those driver breaking the rules.
“Often for speeding, the officers will hide somewhere, and I don’t see this as any different from that,” said Denis.
The Sol-Gen, who sets the rules for Alberta police forces but doesn’t
tell them how to operate, says he sees no reason for Albertans to
complain if police in our big cities start using the panhandler ploy.
“If people are worried about getting distracted driving tickets, they shouldn’t drive distracted,” said Denis.
END OF ARTICLE
Believe whatever you like...but based on my assessment of this article the police are not conducting a bona fide inquiry. But rather making an attempt to locate distracted drivers on a more aggressive level than in the past. They are however providing drivers with an opportunity to commit an offencewithout acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already in the act of committing an offence.
They are creating a distraction to drivers by way of disguising themselves as squeegee people and slapping drivers with fine if they are caught taking their eyes off the road (meriting a so called distraction) and how do they justify the action? They can't since they are not following you before hand and have not received any complaints they cannot presume that you were already in the act of committing this offence. Entrapment at it's finest coming soon to Alberta. DISTRACTED DRIVERS...BEWARE
Recently after reviewing the City Of Calgary Municipal Bylaw 4M81 I found the following issues which breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So your on the train and you were for some reason unable to pay the fare (debit machine failed, you only have bills and the machines don't accept them etc.) I AM NOT ENDORSING THE BEHAVIOR OF FARE DODGING SO PLEASE DO NOT MISREPRESENT THIS INFORMATION. Suddenly you board the train since you are in a hurry to get to your destination and shortly after Transit Peace Officers board the train and ask you to produce ticket, pass or transfers.
You are unable to produce the requested item because of any of the above circumstances and the officer asks you to produce identification and a name so they can issue a violation ticket for City of Calgary Bylaw 4M81 are they entitled to do so? Currently...NO because this bylaw is in breach of the basic human rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, here's the sections in question and the reason why they pose a breach of the charter:
8.No person shall board, ride upon or otherwise use a
light rail transit vehicle of the City unless he has on his person at such time
a valid ticket, transfer, permit or pass. (B/L 62M81, 1981 December 15)
9.Any person who is found:
.(a) Boarding or using a light rail transit
vehicle of the City; or
.(b) Entering or within a Restricted Fare
Area;
10.and who fails to produce to a Peace Officer upon
demand a valid ticket, transfer, permit or pass is guilty of an offence.
Now in a natural situation you would be compelled to comply with their request for identification to issue you a ticket. Do you have the right to refuse this?
YES...you have been found by a Peace Officer committing a said offence (part 10 of the above) which states "who fails to produce to a Peace Officer upon
demand a valid ticket, transfer, permit or pass is guilty of an offence. " But now let's compare this with the Charter of Rights (The supreme law that cannot be superseded by any other particularly a municipal bylaw)
11.
Any person charged with an offence has the right
(d)to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal;
Let's examine this: How can a municipal bylaw legislate that a person is found guilty of an offence solely upon the suggestion of their peace officers who would not be impartial (BIASED) and how can you be found guilty if you have not had a fair and public hearing (court date and a decision by a judge who is impartial). The Charter in this case wins, as the bylaw does not comply with section 11 (D) of the Charter.
This is how it should have been written..." One who fails to produce to a Peace Officer upon demand a Valid ticket, transfer, permit or pass is presumed to be guilty of an offence and may be subject to penalty under this bylaw if found guilty of such an offence."
By wording this way, the assumption of guilt is negated and you are now innocent until proven guilty.
Also you advised the peace officer that you were unable to pay the fare because of the debit failure or the lack of bill acceptors you have demonstrated INTENT TO COMPLY with the bylaw in question. A person who shows INTENT TO COMPLY with a prescribed law is NOT GUILTY.
Let's analyze another section of the same bylaw and compare it to a completely different section of the Charter of Rights as this will emphasize my point about this bylaw.
14. (1)
No person shall, in or upon any transit vehicle, passenger shelter, transit
station, 7th Avenue transit corridor, or any other property owned or occupied
by The City for the purposes of Calgary Transit:
(c) use profane, insulting or obscene language;
Please understand that I do endorse that as a courtesy to others I would myself not condone this type of language but because this bylaw prescribes a monetary fine of $100 for an offence of this nature it again does not adhere to the Charter which states:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Let's face it...curse words and profane language are defined whether we like it or not as part of the english language which is used as a form of EXPRESSION so...to write a bylaw that prohibits one from using such language and to issue a violation ticket for use of this language is...UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Unfortunately due to profane language being a part of the English language there is no possible way for the City Of Calgary to even amend this bylaw without breaching this section of the constitution and would be obligated to remove it from existence within the bylaw completely.
I hope that this has enlightened you I know it has for me. Email us if you would like to petition the City of Calgary to amend this bylaw. The full PDF Version can be found here
The PDF will download automatically when you click the link.
The debate is ongoing about the Harper government and how they acquired their majority. To date they have chosen to deny any, and all claims that this may or may not be factual. Yet neither the opposition or the Harper government has produced any evidence to support their guilt or innocence in this scandal.
Whether truthful or not; this demonstrates the extreme lengths that politicians, and those we elect into a leadership are willing to go and just how shameless they are in misusing public trust to get what they want. We continue as a population to forget that there are only 300 or so people elected and chosen to represent the "Public Interest" in the House of Commons. Remember they are being paid a rather generous six figure salary and a cushy pension to do the job. But what accountability do they take for their actions when something goes wrong and they face the cross-hairs of political scandal?...NONE AT ALL!!!
What I am suggesting is that of the 300 or so people we pay six figures a year to run our country; I am compelled to say: I FEEL THEY HAVE DONE A TERRIBLE JOB AND ARE CONTINUING TO DO SO!! and the only reason that this pattern continues is because there are many individuals who question the ethics and integrity of our elected leaders...But there are few willing to unite in the masses to lobby against the corruption.
Think about it...one person has the power at any time to influence a large circle of friends that they associate with. So why then can we not all coordinate and come together as a larger group DEMANDING that the crooks who govern us be held accountable for their actions?
In more primitive times where technologies were limited, if people were not happy with a person or felt that a someone had betrayed their trust. They would gather together to locate that person and hold them accountable. I am not suggesting that we should all unite, and storm parliament with torches and pitchforks like they used to...but with only 300 officials and a few police and security personnel I think the outcome of 3000 or even 30,000 like minded people uniting to ask the crooks in power to answer for their actions would compel them to LISTEN!
PEOPLE I BEG YOU...DON'T EVER FEEL YOUR VOICE IS TOO QUIET TO BE HEARD BECAUSE... ALONE A SINGLE VOICE IS HEARD AS ONLY A WHISPER. BUT THOUSANDS OF VOICES IS A NOISE HEARD ACROSS THE NATION, THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED WHEN EXPRESSING THEIR DISCONTENT FOR THE WAY OUR COUNTRY IS BEING RUN...DO YOU THINK THEN THEY MIGHT START TO HEAR US?? I'd say the answer is rather obvious.
We are here to defend what other parties deny and what many organizations shamelessly deny the existence of each and every day.
Who are we?We are you, the people the citizens of a country which we are told is subject to liberty and freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Why are we here?
WE HAVE BEEN BATTERED, TREAD ON AND TOLD WE ARE TO LISTEN AND ABIDE BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COUNTRY WE LIVE IN...IF WE SPEAK: WE ARE QUICKLY SILENCED AND LABELED BY THOSE WE TRUSTED TO GOVERN US AS CRIMINALS OR TERRORISTS. WE TRY AND TAKE A STAND IN SMALL NUMBERS, BUT ARE OVERTHROWN BY CIVIL SERVANTS WHOSE JOBS WE CREATED AND WHOSE WAGES WE PAY... ONLY TO MISUSE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY WE APPOINTED THEM WITH FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE, OR WHAT THEY MIGHT CALL REBELLION.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE, AND WE WILL TAKE NO MORE OF YOUR BLATANT ABUSE OF THE POWER WE GAVE YOU. WE ARE MANY, AND ARE HERE ONLY TO REMIND YOU THAT THOSE WHO GOVERN US ARE FEW IN NUMBERS TO THE POPULATION AND EVENTUALLY THE DAM WILL BURST AS WE GROW TIRED OF THE CORRUPTION, GREED, AND SCANDAL THAT HAS MADE YOU THE POWERFUL PEOPLE YOU THINK YOU ARE...WE WILL TAKE NO MORE OF YOUR BLATANT IGNORANCE FOR THE SACRED DOCUMENT THAT YOU TOO ARE BOUND BY. WE ARE...STRONGER THAN YOU THINK AND WE WILL HAVE OUR RIGHTS ACKNOWLEGED!!!
