Rights and Freedoms Bulletin No 122

7/29/2019 Rights and Freedoms Bulletin No 122

1/10

Rights and Freedoms Bulletin (ISSN 1923-998X) is a public service of provided byRightsAndFreedoms.org and KM Publishing Inc., P.O. Box 21004, Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A9

Te Ontario Court o Appeal decision in R. v. Fearon makes it clear that you have no Right to Privacy i

you are detained by the police and your cell phone is not password-protected.From the written ruling:

[72] Te problem I have with the appellants position and, in particular, the position o the Cana-dian Civil Liberties Association, is that it would appear to mark a signicant departure rom the existingstate o the law on the basis o a record that does not suggest it is necessary. While I appreciate the highlypersonal and sensitive nature o the contents o a cell phone and the high expectation o privacy that theymay attract, I am o the view that it is dicult to generalize and create an exception based on the acts othis case. Te acts o this case, with the correct application o the existing law, suggest that the search andseizure o the cell phone at the scene o the arrest were carried out appropriately and within the limits othe law articulated by the Supreme Court in Caslake.

[73] In this case, it is signicant that the cell phone was apparently not password protected or other-wise locked to users other than the appellant when it was seized. Furthermore, the police had a reason-able belie that it would contain relevant evidence. Te police, in my view, were within the limits o Caslaketo examine the contents o the cell phone in a cursory ashion to ascertain i it contained evidence relevantto the alleged crime. I a cursory examination did not reveal any such evidence, then at that point thesearch incident to arrest should have ceased.

[74] removed due to space considerations....[75] If the cell phone had been password protected or otherwise locked to users other than

the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cell phone and examine its

contents without rst obtaining a search warrant.[76] In short, I nd mysel in the same position as this court ound itsel in Manley. o quote rom the

reasons o Sharpe J.A. again, it is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt to provide a comprehensive deni-tion o the powers o the police to search the stored data in cell phones seized upon arrest.

[77] It may be that some uture case will produce a actual matrix that will lead the court to carve out acell phone exception to the law as articulated in Caslake. Tis is not that case.o put it in the modern vernacular: I it aint broke, dont x it.

Your cell phone contains inormation you probably dont

want people viewing without your consent.Password-protect your phone.

Yours in Liberty,

Own a Smart Phone?

Then Password-Protect It... Youll be glad you did.

Christopher

ext like this is a link toonline content.

Tese links are provided

to give you easy access tothe original news story orother relevant inormation.
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca106/2013onca106.htmlhttp://kateysfirearmsfacts.com/newslettersignupbulletin.htmlhttp://kateysfirearmsfacts.com/newslettersignupbulletin.htmlhttp://canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca106/2013onca106.htmlhttp://rightsandfreedoms.org/


2/10

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 122 Feb 23, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

2 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 122 Feb 23, 2013 http://RightsAndFreedoms.org

Freedom of Speech

Dear Free Speech Supporter,

o succinctly summarize the importance and meaning o reedom o speech is no small task. I have

laboured on this short essay or many an hour trying to distil the essence down to where it might become100% proo and with the light o a match burst into a ame o truth bright enough to expose the underly-

ing deception that now exists in Canadian law with respect to this subject.Please take the time to read it and ponder its implications and should the import o its plea hold meaning

or you pass it along to others who you may eel could also benet rom reading it.It was obviously written in my own deence but Im hopeul that upon understanding all the implications

o these unjust laws that you will be able to see the danger to all Canadians who value this crucial right.Sincerely

Arthur ophamPublisher & Editor

Te Radical Press

Digging to the root o the issues since 1998

Freedom of Speech by Arthur opham

Teres no such thing as Hate Speech.

You either have FREE speech or you dont - its that simple.

~Anonymous

Were I able to stand as Norman Rockwells iconic American citizen oncestood, expressing one o the our basic inherent reedoms o democracy, Iwould have the ollowing to say about the subject o reedom o speech.

Foremost is the realization o the dual nature o subject. Tere are twocomponents to reedom o speech that orm the basis or all the myriad vari-ations on the theme o communication.

One is the reedom to lie and deceive (both onesel and others) and thesecond (the most critical) is the reedom to speak the truth.

When the reedom to lie and deceive gains the upper hand and establishes itsel as the only reedomallowed within a society it signals the eventual demise o the remainder o that societys reedoms, as well

and the beginning o a process o mass sel-deception, denial and decay eventually leading to enslavementto alse ideals which must, ultimately, lead to the nal death and destruction o the afected society ornation.

Te issue o whether or not people ought to have unlimited reedom to express whatever thoughts andopinions they may hold is, at this important juncture in humanitys evolvement toward universal reedomand peaceul co-existence, o the utmost and undamental importance and will determine whether or not

we survive both as a species and as ree and independent individuals.While this may sound at rst like a rather preposterous and pretentious pronouncement to make, none-

theless it bears urgent consideration given the relative and recent turn o events over the past century;ones which have accelerated all the major components o a nations (and a planets) essential nature
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


3/10



political, economic, social, cultural and environmental to such a degree o intensity that the world is nowacing a global dilemma o such scale that at no other time in our collective past have we had to ace theharsh, impending realities that presently lay beore us.

Te litany o lies and deception and the magnitude o maleasance on the part o our governments, ourjudiciaries, our religious institutions, coupled with the calculated, criminal complicity o the corporations

and media, has reached a zenith o decadence and delusion and unless, as a collectively conscious andunited whole, we the people o planet Earth begin to openly analyze and question the root causes o our

combined quandary we will soon lose the one key able to unlock the mystery o the dismal human predica-ment we now nd ourselves in.

Tat key is the individuals ability to express their thoughts and ideas freely and without fear on anyconceivable subject.

It is not hyperbolical to state that this reedom is akin to ones right to breath the common air that

surrounds the planet or drink water, without which our bodies quickly cease to unction.Its synonymous with our right to eat healthy, vital, lie-giving ood that nourishes and sustains our

physical sel rather than being orced to consume adulterated, genetically modied ood substitutes thatare proven causes o disease and deormity in all living entities.

It is parallel with ones right and reedom to light a re on a cold winters night to keep themselves warmor to seek shade when the suns benecent rays become too hot to handle.

Freedom o Speech is thereore quintessential to our emotional, mental and spiritual health and well-being and cannot be allowed to be inringed by any organized body or any reason, be they legislators or

lobbyists.Tere are those who would scof at pronouncements such as these and counter with endless argumenta-

tion, pleading that restrictions upon a persons right to reedom o expression are necessary or the greatergood o the public at large, all the while rolling out their reasons why this and that particular aspect ospeech is dangerous or harmul to certain segments o society and, thereore, ought to be seen as a neces-sary compromise in order to protect whatever minority group that might be afected by the opinions orthoughts o others which they deem inimical to the interests o the aoresaid group.

Tat is all part o the process o reedom o speech and ought to remain sacrosanct even though it is aplea or restrictions. Tis same sort o argument against limiting reedom o speech also uses such ruses

as a person cannot be allowed to yell re inside a crowded theatre or room in a vain efort to lend credence totheir seemingly innocuous arguments or restricting speech yet at the same time they reuse to acknowl-edge the benecial results that oten can result rom a person who senses a grave danger in the body politicitsel and yells be aware! via whatever medium o expression is available to them, be it a soap box, a song,a newspaper, a book or the Internet.

Where such proposed limitations cease to have meaning or validity and become a threat to every citizensundamental right to reedom o speech is when they advocate the imposition o criminal charges suchas are contained in Section 13 o the Canadian Human Rights Code and in Section 319(2) o the Criminal

Code o Canada.It is here the metaphoric Rubicon o reason and common sense has been crossed and double-crossed and

where tyranny begins.It is here that all o our combined reedoms end and Orwells ction becomes act. Tus the necessity to

rid Canadian jurisprudence o these dangerous, undemocratic hate crime laws that benet only speciedminority interests and penalize the undamental reedoms o the vast majority.

Such is the pressing predicament that restrictions on Freedom o Speech pose; not only or the personwho tries to warn others o impending threats to their (and others) well being but or those who, unbe-knownst to themselves, are being led into liestyles or linear patterns o thinking that ultimately are not

benecial to the planet or its inhabitants.
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


4/10



As the quote at the top o this article clearly states, we either have reedom o speech or we dont.Tere is no in-between stage; no dead zone o arbitrary discernment; no no-mans-land o equivocation;

no bardo plane o intermediary bluf that can be exploited and manipulated to the detriment o this unda-mental right o all people everywhere and used to justiy its limitations.

All our reedoms rest upon this one.

Never orget it.

Support Freedom of Speech

NOE: Te struggle to retain our inherent Right to Freedom o Speech doesnt come without costs, bothnancially and otherwise.

Out o necessity, I am orced to ask or nancial assistance in this ongoing battle with censors who aredetermined to stop all reedom o expression in Canada.

Being a Senior Citizen on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aidservices here in B.C., this leaves me in the unenviable position o having to rely solely upon donations rom

supporters to help me pay my legal expenses.As such I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation

via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash tome via snail mail at the ollowing postal address. Please DO NO make the cheque out to RadicalPress asthat account is no longer available to me.

Arthur ophamAttn: Free Speech Legal Deence Fund4633 Barkerville HighwayQuesnel, B.C Canada

V2J 68

o access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or myblog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com

Te PayPal button is up on the right hand corner o the Home Page on either site.

Sincerely,

Arthur opham

Publisher & Editor

Te Radical Press

Digging to the root o the issues since 1998
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com/http://www.radicalpress.com/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


5/10



Self Defense

Firearm Manufacturers Fight Back Against New York Assault Weapon Ban

New York State recently implemented a ban on the sale o AR-15 style rearms, limited magazine capac-ity to 7 bullets and a state-wide rearm owner licensing standard and gun registry. Naturally, these bansand magazine capacity limits apply only to we mere citizens, not to agents o the Almighty State.

Within hours o New Yorks gun ban announcement 7 companies announced they would no longer dobusiness with the State o New York or any level o government within that state.

Now, just one week later, that list has grown to 62 companies who will no longer do business with govern-ments intent on stripping Americans o their 2nd Amendment Rights.

As o Sunday, February 24, 2013, here is a list o companies who will no longer sell banned rearms,magazines, etc to law-enorcement.

Te website Te Police Loophole compiled the list and is updating it as new inormation is released romrearm manuacturers. Visit them here or the most current version o this list:

http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

Company WebsiteAmmoClip www.ammoclip.comExtreme Firepower Inc, LLC www.extremerepower.comCheaper Tan Dirt www.cheaperthandirt.comBarrett www.barrett.netDead Bang Guns www.deadbangguns.comOld Grouchs Military Surplus www.oldgrouch.comPredator Intelligence www.predatorarmament.com

LaRue actical www.laruetactical.comSouthwest Shooting Authority www.southwestshootingauthority.com

Olympic Arms www.olyarms.comemplar Custom www.templarcustom.com

York Arms www.yorkarms.comSouthern Appalachian Arms www.southernapparms.comBullwater Enterprises LLC www.aandtrearms.comWest Fork Armory www.westorkarmory.com

Iron Goat Guns www.irongoatguns.comrident Armory www.tridentarmory.netSmith Enterprise, Inc www.smithenterprise.com

Alex Arms www.alexarms.comOFA actical www.ochsnergroup.comSpikes actical www.spikestactical.com

For the ull and updated list visit http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/http://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/free-concealed-carry-report/tid-rfbhttp://www.thepoliceloophole.com/http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


6/10



Property Rights

Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Property Rights and the Constitution

House o Commons, Monday, September 30, 1996

CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHS - Te House resumed rom June 10 consideration o the motion.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,I rise today in support o M-205. I want to commend thework o my colleague rom Comox-Alberni or bringingthis motion orward and also to note the work done by themember or Yorkton-Melville who has brought in Bill C-284which has a similar purpose to this motion.

Tis motion is designed to strengthen and protect the

property rights o Canadians. I wholeheartedly supportM-205 or many reasons, which I will elaborate on momen-

tarily.Let me review very quickly what this motion says. M-205reads:

Tat, in the opinion o this House, the governmentshould provide a greater measure o protection or individ-ual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill o Rightsto read:

``1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by lawas can be demonstrably justied in a ree and democraticsociety, every person has the right to the enjoyment o thatpersons personal and real property and the right not to be

deprived thereo unless the person(a) is accorded a air hearing in accordance with the prin-

ciples o undamental justice, and(b) is paid air compensation in respect o the property, and the amount o that compensation is xed

impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount o time ater the person is deprived o their property.2. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been inringed or denied may apply to a court

o competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circum-stances.

It is my pleasure to speak today about this very important motion because I believe in the rights o Cana-dians, and specically, the need to strengthen the protection o property rights.

Te motion would amend the Canadian Bill o Rights by adding two sections. Te rst section wouldprotect Canadians rights with respect to property. In any case where this right were to be restricted,this motion would guarantee the right to a air hearing in accordance with the principles o undamental

justice. Te second section gives individual property owners the right to air compensation or their prop-erty and ensures compensation within a reasonable time period.

What I nd most surprising in this debate is that it has taken so long or the House to make a clearexpression o its support or the protection o property rights. Te importance o protecting propertyrights has long been recognized in Canada and around the world. Property rights are included in the 1948United Nations Universal Declaration o Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory. Other democraticcountries have already taken the lead in property rights legislation, including the United States, Germany,
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2007_new/167.htmhttp://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2007_new/167.htmhttp://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


7/10



Italy and Finland. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontariohave also initiated resolutions supporting stronger protection or property rights.

Te debate about the protection o property rights is not new to the House either. In 1988 a motion to

protect property rights received overwhelming support and was adopted as a resolution o the House. Tiswas an example o cross-party support or the protection o property rights in Canada.

Te Deputy Speaker o the House at another time and in another capacity expressed the view o theimportance o property rights and his concern with the adequate saeguarding o these rights in Canada. In

his words: ``We must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. Te right to hold and enjoy prop-erty provides one o the checks and balances against undue concentration o power in government at anylevel.

In act, many members rom the government side have in the past deemed there to be a need or stronger

protection o property rights. In the early 1980s Prime Minister Pierre rudeau who had originally writ-ten against property rights and the current Prime Minister both expressed the strong desire to strengthenthe protection o property rights, so much so that the current government party wanted to go beyond thismotion and entrench property rights into the charter o rights and reedoms.

Back in 1980 the current Prime Minister said: ``In deciding which rights should be included in the char-ter, we have selected only those which we eel reect the central values o our society. Each o the rightswe have listed is an essential ingredient or the charter and all are rights which all Canadians should have

regardless o where they live in our country. Tis statement was made as part o his presentation to theprovinces on the importance o strengthening the protection o property rights by entrenching them in the

charter and they were included in his list.At the time several Canadian provinces as well as the opposition parties at the time rustrated the inclu-

sion o property rights in the charter.While I am pleased to see that members o the government side, including their leader, have in the past

recognized the need to better saeguard this important category o rights, entrenching them into the char-ter would require a constitutional amendment. Tis would be problematic, as we are all aware o the di-culty o amending the Constitution at the current time.

Te beauty o this motion is that it does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Because this

motion targets the bill o rights as opposed to the charter o rights and reedoms, it is easier to amend andwell within the jurisdiction o the House.

Another advantage o M-205 is that the motion avoids concerns about encroaching on areas o provincialjurisdiction. In past debates on the issue concerns were raised about protecting property rights by includingthem in the charter. Te objection was not about the importance o property rights, but rather about theencroachment o the ederal government in areas o provincial jurisdiction through the charter.

My colleague, in designing this motion deliberately targeted the bill o rights as opposed to the charter orights and reedoms. Te reason or this is that the charter applies to the provinces as well as to the ederalgovernment while the bill o rights applies only to areas o ederal jurisdiction. By targeting the bill o

rights this motion avoids intruding into areas o provincial jurisdiction.I would like to add my personal voice as a citizen. I do not believe any level o government should inringe

on property rights in an unjust manner.In the debate ollowing the introduction o this particular motion on property rights, the government

members who responded expressed their support or property rights. However, and there is always a but,they said they could not support the motion because they believed property rights already have adequateprotection. I am pleased that the members opposite support property rights, but I would challenge them ontheir assertion that property rights are adequately saeguarded.

Te bill o rights makes mention o the right o Canadians to enjoy property. However, this is simply notenough. Section 1(a) o the bill o rights states: ``Te right o the individual to lie, liberty, security o theperson and enjoyment o property, and the right not to be deprived thereo, except by due process o law.

Section 2(e) provides that no ederal law ``deprive a person o the right to a air hearing in accordance


8/10



with the principles o undamental justice or the determination o his rights an obligations.While I think all members o the House would support the principles outlined in the bill o rights as

they apply to property rights, there is a problem. Unortunately, while the bill o rights mentions property

rights, the guarantee o protection and compensation in cases where private property has been surrenderedis not explicit. Tis weakens the level o protection or property rights. Because the bill o rights is a regularstatute, it can be overridden by a new ederal statute. Without the explicit mention o compensation, a newederal statute could rather easily restrict the right o Canadians to air and prompt compensation. M-205

would correct this by making explicit the governments requirement to provide air and prompt compensa-tion in circumstances where it is necessary or an individual to surrender property.I am quite surprised by the current governments opposition to this motion. While members o the

government party previously advocated entrenching property rights in the Constitution, they now seem to

believe the status quo is good enough. I ail to see what could have changed their minds.We have had in Parliament the Pearson airport bill which provides a precise example o why we need this

kind o protection. While this bill ultimately died, had it been passed it would have cancelled agreementsto privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 o orontos international airport. Parts o the bill would haveabsolved the ederal government o any liability associated with the cancellation o the agreements. As weknow it would have gone urther and even basically cancelled recourse to the courts. Tis is precisely thekind o example o why we need stronger protection o property rights in this country.

No one is suggesting there are never occasions where it may be necessary or individuals to surrenderproperty. Te motion recognizes this possibility. Te diference between the status quo and the amend-

ments this motion would bring about is that Motion M-205 would ensure that the property rights o Cana-dians could not be inringed upon without due process and air compensation.

Te existence o undamental rights and the importance o airness and justice are principles that Cana-dians have come to expect. I the government truly does support the property rights o

Canadians and the principles o airness and justice, I am condent it should have no reservations aboutsupporting Motion M-205.

Let me add in concluding that we cannot understate the importance o property rights in the mainte-nance o a ree society. We all know that ree society and reedom in human history have been a eeting

thing. Only under certain legal, cultural and economic conditions are we able to enjoy the benets o a reeand democratic society.

We had an example o another kind o society in this century in the Soviet Union. We all know that theSoviet Union had one o the most democratic constitutions in the world in terms o its symbolic recogni-tion o rights. What the people o the Soviet Union ultimately lacked was the right to own property. With-out the right to own property and without iron clad guarantees that cannot be taken rom you except bylegal and just processes, all other rights are meaningless. Tat is precisely what happened in that society. Allthe other human rights, all the democratic reedoms enunciated in that constitution were absolutely mean-ingless because there was no undamental right to property without which there is not a ree society.

Tere are numerous examples in this country o the unjust expropriation o property by governments,governments orcing people to sell land and other material without compensation, without alternatives

or without recourse to the courts. I know in Calgary it happened in the establishment o a transportationcorridor. Tere have been other examples. It is not true to say we have adequate protection o property.Until we ensure these rights to property in the bill o rights, the charter and many other pieces o legisla-tion, our reedoms will always be in jeopardy.

I Stephen Harper truly believes what he said in Parliament in 1996 he should immediately repealall laws surrounding civil asset oreiture, repeal the confscation provisions o the Firearms Act andamend the Constitution so that Canadians are guaranteed Property Rights, something we do NOTcurrently enjoy.


9/10



Te Firearms Act

Te Return of Property Seized by the Police

Tere are some important pieces o the Criminal Code o Canada (CCC) that everyone should be aware o,gun owner or not. Tese pieces o the CCC have to do with the returning o property conscated, or seizedby the Crown (police).

Most people believe i you want your property returned you must go beore a judge and have him/herorder the police to return your property. Tis section also covers possible compensation or the property.Tis is all covered in Section 117:

117. Where the competent authority that makes a prohibition order or that would have had jurisdic-tion to make the order is, on application or an order under this section, satised that a person, otherthan the person against whom a prohibition order was or will be made,

(a) is the owner o any thing that is or may be oreited to Her Majesty under subsection115(1) and is lawully entitled to possess it, and

(b) in the case o a prohibition order under subsection 109(1) or 110(1), had no reasonable

grounds to believe that the thing would or might be used in the commission o the oence in respect owhich the prohibition order was made,the competent authority shall order that the thing be returned to the owner or the proceeds o any

sale o the thing be paid to that owner or, i the thing was destroyed, that an amount equal to the valueo the thing be paid to the owner.

What most people do not know is that there is another section o the CCC that enables anyone to gettheir property back without having to go through a judge.

Tis is Section 337:

Public servant refusing to deliver property

337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service o Her Majesty in right o Canadaor a province, or in the service o a municipality, and entrusted by virtue o that employment with thereceipt, custody, management or control o anything, reuses or ails to deliver it to a person who isauthorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty o an indictable oence and liable to imprison-ment or a term not exceeding ourteen years.

Providing that you have every legal right to possess the property, you can go to the police station anddemand that your property be returned using Section 337.

Worthy o note is the 14 year penalty or not returning property to the person who demands it underSection 337.

Tis is something everyone should remember as no lawyer is required.

Know your rights, or you wont have any.odd [email protected] - Concerned Gun Owners o Alberta

http://www.facebook.com/groups/376543929052940/
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://blog.rightsandfreedoms.org/424/return-property-seized-police/mailto:[email protected]://www.facebook.com/groups/376543929052940/http://www.facebook.com/groups/376543929052940/mailto:[email protected]://blog.rightsandfreedoms.org/424/return-property-seized-police/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/


10/10



From Te Inbox

I love hearing rom you, the reader oCanadian Rights and Freedom Bulletin.I you would like to submit a comment about a story thats appeared in Canadian Rights and Freedom

Bulletin or i you would like to submit an article or publication, you can do that by sending an email to

[email protected]. Alternatively, you can submit your thoughts through the web orm

located at http://support.rightsandfreedoms.org/contact-us/.

Yours in Liberty,Christopher di Armani

re: Unions and Public Service Dont Mix by Mischa Popo(Rights & Freedom Bulletin #121)

Christopher;

I must strongly disagree with the article about public sectorunions.

It isnt the ault o the unions that things are screwed up, its theault o the government dealing with them.

I the law would clearly dene what a union can and cant do,there would be no more problems than in any employer employeerelationship.

Te government writes the rules governing unions and as such is

responsible or the mess those rules make.As or the need o unions: i employers would treat people with respect and dignity, there would be no

need or them, but since that isnt the case, workers have to protect themselves.As or this case with the erry sinking, there is no law that prevents punishment o wrongdoers, union-

ized or not.

I dont know the particulars o this case, but I know that unions operate only within rules that govern-ments allow.

Dirk Emde

Mr. Emde let out the part where the public-service unions use their infuence (usually through third-party adver-tising) to get the most moronic politicians elected wholl agree to the unions most outlandish demands.

Mischa Popo
http://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/mailto:[email protected]://support.rightsandfreedoms.org/contact-us/http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-and-Freedoms-Bulletin-No-121.pdfhttp://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/threat-detection-master-course/tid-inbox4http://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/free-concealed-carry-report/tid-inbox1http://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/tims-evergreen-presentation/tid-inbox2http://readthis.rightsandfreedoms.org/bullet-proof-mind-dvd-series/tid-inbox3http://rfb.s3.amazonaws.com/Rights-and-Freedoms-Bulletin-No-121.pdfhttp://support.rightsandfreedoms.org/contact-us/mailto:[email protected]://rightsandfreedoms.org/http://rightsandfreedoms.org/

Documents

Rights and Freedoms Bulletin No 122