In life we receive a number of lessons and all we have to pay for tuition is a knock on the noggin or a night in the slammer…in some cases.  Honestly, her ID must have been fake!

Tonight while troddling about with the gal and kidlings, I encountered one such life lesson though luckily, I didn’t have to spend a night in the slammer or get a knock on the noggin.  That and I think I have had this life lesson before so perhaps blogging about it will make it stick.

As we were on our way back to the car to abandon the fringe festival for home, (My couch dent beckoned) I noticed four Saskatoon police officers standing around two asian youth.  Now normally I would simply look carefully and walk on by because for the most part, nothing troubling comes out of these encounters.  Police are breaking up a fight, trying to mediate a dispute or otherwise keep the peace.  Sometimes though, the situation is decidedly anti liberty and some one’s rights are being violated by the police.  As I saw a police officer reach over and start ruffling through a plastic bag that one of the two youth was in possession of, I became concerned.

As I stopped to look, my mind decided to propel one foot after the other until I was standing shoulder to should with one of the youth looking at one of the officers.  I was concerned that perhaps this youth had just undergone an illegal search and was trying to catch some verbal stuff to figure out what was going on.  I was then informed that I should move along.  And to my recollection, the rest went something like this.

OFFICER: Sir, move along.
ME: Oh I think I'll just hang around here.  Whatcha' doin'?
OFFICER: Sir, this is a private matter.  Move along, you're
obstructing us.
ME: How am I obstructing you?  I just want to make sure
everything here is ok. Turning to one of the youth You ok?
OFFICER: Sir, you're obstructing us.  We can arrest you for
that.
ME: I'm sorry officer.  I'll step back.
OFFICER: No you're going to have to move along out of earshot.
ME: Honestly I'm having a bit of trouble hearing you from back
here.

Ok...here I really am being a bit of a jackass.

OFFICER: Approaching me  Alright.  Do you want to be arrested
tonight?
ME:No officer, I don't want to be arrested.  I only wish to
figure out what's going on here.  I don't...
OFFICER: No.  Listen to me.  You are obstructing us and you can
be arrested for that. Putting on his gloves.  By this time a
second officer has come to face me so it's two on one. This is
a private matter and you should not be obstructing us.
ME: Officer, i don't wish to obstruct you if you are engaged in
a lawful action.  I simply want to make sure that everything is
alright here.  I'll move along now with my family.

I really wish that we had our video camera with us.  To be honest, I would really have liked to see them arrest me on camera in a public place for standing in close proximity to them in an attempt to listen to what was going on.  I wouldn’t doubt that perhaps they would do such a thing but so far as I understand it, there is no constitutional law in effect which would bar me from standing within earshot of the officers to ensure that they were engaged in a lawful action.  I didn’t want to back down but to be honest, if a charge of obstruction had stuck, that could have had a terribly negative impact on my career (like ending it) and this is sadly something I can not afford at this time.

I have learned this life lesson before and this was a good refresher course.  Always carry a camera.  Whether it be for insurance or liberty, a camera is worth carrying about.  It’s not really satisfactory to know this but at least I gave the youth a chance to gather themselves up emotionally.  I also ensured that the police were aware of public eyes watching them (Of course they are always aware of this) and hopefully discouraged them from conducting an illegal search…if it was illegal.

I just happen to fear police flippantly disregarding basic civil rights that people are supposed to have.  It starts to get to a point where they start handcuffing 11 year olds.

Apparently we have “options” coming to us.  Actually…we already have big bureaucrats.  I was just trying to make a quip but the more I look at the title of this post. the more I think of fast food outlets being located near government buildings.

That aside, bumbling around the blogosphere, I read a post on abandoned stuff which talked about something being discussed at the Sask liberty Train that points to an announcement published in the Regina Leader Post.

Got the trail of evidence cemented in your head yet?  …..Now?  K good.

Apparently we are getting choices between our old dusty driver’s license and a license or identification card that has everything from biometrics to radio frequency identification chips embedded in them.  No longer is a magnetic strip sufficient for your driver’s license, you won’t be able to hang out with the cool kids across the boarder if you don’t get one of these new nifty cards from SGI after a particular date.

I really don’t have anything against biometric information being embedded into an ID card…no one has really managed to convince me how that can be abused by government.  A radio chip however is a different matter and I don’t want to see these things in any of the ID that I carry around.  My privacy means a little something to me.  It’s not settling to think that the government is providing an option for me to potentially be preyed upon by a government official that I piss off one day.

I really don’t think i have any reason to be of interest to a government official these days but I have a history of making some of them angry.  I would hate for some one one day to get angry with me and decide to abuse the fact that I have a radio frequency attached to me to track my movements to satisfy some ulterior motive.

I have a passport and i think I’ll stick with that for now.  But I might take a trick from Sask’ boy’s playbook and wrap it in tinfoil…I have to amuse myself some how while thinking of grim issues like this.

That’s the best image I could find entitled “happy plant” so I hope it does the trick

According to www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca, (A website on which I have been keeping my eye) more and more cases are cropping up of Canadians having their charges of pot possession thrown out in court.  The reasoning is interesting certainly to not only some one in the legal profession but to simple folk like me as well.  It has to do with how the former Liberal Party government created Canada’s medical marijuana (Spelled Marihuana on Health Canada’s website) program.

In the year 2000, a guy by the name of Terry Parker won the right in court to use marijuana for his epilepsy.  The court ruled that the situation was something that parliament (not the courts) should deal with and gave the liberal government a deadline to make a new law governing how medical marijuana was accessed by patients.  About a day before the deadline, the government set up a bunch of policies (not laws) that governed how medical marijuana was to be accessed by patients.

The policies were considered to be so obstructionist that two Ontario superior court justices ruled that marijuana possession laws were illegitimate.  If patients in need of medical marijuana couldn’t access this substance, how on earth could the possession laws be justified right?  It wouldn’t be easy for a legal professional prosecuting a case to make a credible determination between some one in possession of pot and some one in possession of medicine because the government had refused to live up to its obligation to make a law clarifying such cases.

That same year, the government requested that the court clarify what was required to make the possession laws constitutional.  The court offered up a list of requirements and (prematurely) declared the law to be back in force.  Unfortunately, the government never lived up to any of the requirements as clarified by the court and reinstated sections of the policies that the court had previously found to be unconstitutional.

I don’t know about you but this just screams “stubborn jackwads” to me.  Since the year 2000 (that’s eight years or about 416 weeks or approximately 2,912 days) that the government has refused to actually pass a law that determines the idea that some people have a right to use marijuana as a medicine.  The government has instead opted for a program that would make a successful applicant think of their odds playing the lottery.

Anyway, this all leads up to the situation today.  Because the government has been so stubborn and refused to make a law satisfying the requirements of the Canadian constitution, pot possession laws are still questionable and it seems like the questions regarding its constitutionality are once again being answered by the courts.

So far, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have struck down pot possession laws as unconstitutional.  I have heard through the grape vine that cases may be under way in Alberta that would test the efficacy of this argument as well but so far, it looks like it’s got a pretty good success streak.  The fellow who runs the website linked above offers up a “legal defence kit” for people charged with possession.  It’s not meant to replace legal council or anything from what I understand (though technically it seemingly does) but it certainly does provide a heck of a good legal argument in court for possession charges to be tossed out.

You know it’s tempting for some one like me (even though I don’t use any drugs) to waltz into the police station with a bit of marijuana and ask to be charged with possession.  I do wonder what the result would be in a Saskatchewan court after looking at that website.

El Presidente Boosh (Believe me comrade, it’s no capitalist state down there anymore) signed a bill into law today (is it past midnight yet?) that will bail out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac…well…really anyone that was really irresponsible with extending credit and accepting it form those who would give it up.

It’s really troubling to see people hoping for a hand out from government every time they steer themselves off the deep end.  It’s like they fall right through their waletts and hope to fall into the waiting hand of government just waiting to raise them back up into financial health and happiness.  The deal to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac is nothing more than theft for the benefit of those who have been irresponsible.  How on earth this was justified is beyond me…well I know how it was justified I just can’t believe the president rode a bomb into the office one morning waving his cowboy hat before signing a commie bill into law.

Come on…you know he rides a bomb to work.  Just listen to him talk.  It’s like listening to a victim of perpetual shell shock.

At least that what it sounds like when the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour talks about union votes. The SFL and a number of other unions in Saskatchewan are taking the provincial government to court over Bills 5 (The Public Service Essential Services Act) and 6.

From the SP article:

The statement of claim, which contains arguments that have not been proven in court, also outlines concerns with a number of items in Bill 6, including a requirement to hold secret ballot votes for union certification even if it can be demonstrated that all workers support a union.

Now the bit about strike rights and such in the public service essential services act (The biggest issue for some) isn’t what’s bothering me here but for the record, legislating groups of people into a position where they can’t strike seems pretty fascist to me. If nurses go on strike and endanger our health to the point where we are running into massive public health problems without them, it just means we aren’t willing to pay full market value for a group of workers in a publicly funded system. but that’s not what I’m blogging about at the moment…honest. It’s this whole secret ballot thing that the SFL and other unions seem to think is unfair.

Unions always seem to want open ballots (Usually in the form of a raised hand count or something) so no one can hide their vote from their co-workers. Unions want this because they depend in part on intimidation tactics to certify work places and thusly collect union dues. I have worked in a few unionized work places and the union structure seemed to me to be a useless organization that protected the workers after protecting its own existence and general security. I know of a recent union negotiation in Saskatoon that took place last year. Workers got a nominal raise while the Chief Shop Steward and local union President got a hefty raise…it might even have been retroactive.

Anyway, I have a problem with the SFL having a problem with secret ballots and I think it serves to show the true colours of a union’s motivation for advocating “pro-labour” laws. This particular “pro-labour” position is nothing but a pro-union executive position that would make it easier for a union to certify in a workplace where perhaps all the workers would rather not be unionized. By trying to ensure that secret ballots are not allowed for union certification votes, the SFL and others are trying to ensure that they can use intimidation and peer pressure to see work places start paying their dues to some useless bureaucracy that looks out for itself before the workers it claims to protect.