Carol Reid Kevin,
I am so unbelievably sorry for what you have been going through.
I recognize much of what you are saying to parallel my own experiences.
It took great bravery and courage to stand up to this barrage of mind control games, constant surveillance and harassment to share your truth and this information.
By doing so, you run the risk of being diagnosed by one of their ” mind doctor stooges” and apprehended and put away in the bug house.
Or intensified reprisals.
It is very hard to know who to trust in these situations, as their immediate goal will be to discredit you to your family and friends and use sophisticated techniques to do so.
Isolate you from your primary support system, then work on your secondary support system: co workers( if they didn’t block all chances of employment), coffee shops( they will place a phone call and try various techniques to discourage your being there, and neighbours.
You may find your old neighbours changing in their treatment of you, or worse, your neighbours will all move and change and the new neighbours may employ all kinds of techniques in harassing you.
The coffee shops and groups for change are indeed infected as is my FB page.
They only seem to target the really bright, usually articulate and credible who will not cow tow and roadie to their agenda.
Or those who know their secrets of wrong doing they wish to silence.
“Re education” think a lot of mind numbing agreement and dumbing down to accept their absolute authority. is also a possibility.
Allow CSIS to detain?
“Arrest” is a term of art. A person is arrested on a specific criminal charge to be heard in court, with habeas corpus and legal representation. “Detention” is an extraordinary power, outside the normal law enforcement process, which may or may not bear the same safeguards as arrest. Under the old War Measures Act (now repealed) the Canadian government, in both the Gouzenko spy affair of 1945 and the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec invoked national security to detain and interrogate people without criminal charges and without legal counsel. In both cases, these instances were controversial as departures from the rule of law. When the Chrétien Liberal government introduced a new power of preventive detention in its Anti-terrorism Act 2001, it proved sufficiently contentious that a sunset clause was added. After five years, Parliament had to renew the power or it would lapse — which was exactly what happened in a minority Parliament with the Liberals and NDP voting against renewal. Subsequently, the Harper government restored the act after it won a majority in 2011.
More alarming is another possibility lying hidden in plain sight in Bill C-51.
Why should snatching persons off the street and detaining them in secret under conditions controlled entirely by CSIS not fit under its authorized “measures?” After all, every Canadian citizen’s rights under the Charter of Rights, sections 9 and 10 (the right not be arbitrarily detained, and if detained to be represented by counsel and to be protected by habeas corpus) can be overridden by CSIS — assuming of course that CSIS can persuade a judge to warrant its actions in advance. Since warrants applications are heard and executed in secret, no third parties need ever be the wiser.
This is within Canada. Outside Canada, CSIS has an even freer hand. Under Bill C-51’s companion Bill C-44 (The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act), CSIS is explicitly authorized to investigate threats to the security of Canada “without regard to any other law, including that of a foreign state.” No warrant would be required from a Canadian judge authorizing CSIS measures breaking the laws of a foreign country. The extraterritorial application of Charter rights to Canadians outside Canada is a muddy, confusing area of jurisprudence. This opens the door to an alarming possibility.
In other words, it’s the Maher Arar scenario, except that in this case it is Canada alone that is responsible for detention and rendition.
But that is not the point. The point is that Bill C-51 makes such scenarios possible, which is scary. The government’s strange amendment about CSIS not having arrest powers can be interpreted as a deliberate diversion to evade a closer look at CSIS’s possible detention powers. And that is even scarier.
RELATED STORIES
0 Comments
Most Voted