Canada passes Codex food law that permits police to trespass

[WhatThe]

Yes please kompili, show us in the document where these fredoms are taken away.

[kompili]

I will break it down for you for I know it is hard to understand all the legal mumble jumble in the document.

Bill C-36 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.
Bill C-36 for the first time in Canadian history allows warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrong doing.
Bill C-36 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.
Bill C-36 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.

[GoStumpy]

no no no, no breaking it down, actual quotations please.

Where did those quotations come from?

Do we really call things "the State" in Canada?

[Nebula]

As usual, no proof given; just some dribble from some fearmongering website.

No fears people. The Vitamin Gestapo won't be coming to your house.

[GoStumpy]

Punched it into google, here is his 'resource':

http://nhppa.org/?page_id=24

Full quotation:

Summary of Points Discussed In This Paper

* Bill C-52 is being advertised as necessary to protect our families.
* Under the existing law the State can already:
o ban or restrict any consumer product under threat of million dollar fines and two year jail sentences under the Hazardous Products Act;
o make immediate orders banning or restricting any consumer product if there is a significant risk to health or safety. In addition to fines and imprisonment for non-compliance, the State can apply to the Court for an injunction which brings police enforcement of the order, and
o prosecute for criminal negligence or homicide under the Criminal Code. In some cases this can result in penalties of life imprisonment.
* The real change brought about by Bill C-52 is not that it protects consumers, as the current law already grants the State significant powers to protect safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards citizens currently enjoy.
* Bill C-52 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.
* Bill C-52 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.
* Bill C-52 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.
* The search and seizure powers in Bill C-52 are probably unconstitutional for violating the right found in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
* Persons can be fined and have property forfeited to the State for administrative violations. Persons so charged have no right to have a Court determine their guilt or innocence. Guilt is determined by the Minister. There is no defence of due diligence or of honest but mistaken belief. There does not have to be a safety risk to be charged with an administrative offence. The Minister who determines your guilt or innocence can keep seized property if he/she finds you guilty.

[Nebula]

Punched it into google, here is his 'resource':

http://nhppa.org/?page_id=24

Uh huh. The Natural Health Products Protection Association. Certainly can't be a biased organization, can they?

[GoStumpy]

Again I ask, do we really use the term "the state" in Canada?

[kompili]

At least The Natural Health Products Protection Association took the time to study the bill as professionals and report what it means for Canadians.

[GoStumpy]

At least The Natural Health Products Protection Association took the time to study the bill as professionals and report what it means for Canadians.

Biased professionals.

[kompili]

I guess we have to take Nebula's, and the government that is being controlled by big corporations word as to be true.

[Fancy]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Legisl ... es=3#ftn36
This site should help.

[WhatThe]

Reading the link fancy provided- there's absolutely no provisions that corroborate these assinine allegations and are in fact quite reasonable. Typical CT at it's best, or is that worst.
What you've been saying kompili, is all unsubstantiated alarmism. I guess you don't understand all that "legal mumbo jumble" afterall huh?

[Nebula]

Reading the link fancy provided- there's absolutely no provisions that corroborate these assinine allegations and are in fact quite reasonable. Typical CT at it's best, or is that worst.
What you've been saying kompili, is all unsubstantiated alarmism. I guess you don't understand all that "legal mumbo jumble" afterall huh?

What gets my goat is that CTs consistently say the big bad government is guilty of keeping the populace in fear, yet it is the CTs themselves that are guilty of fearmongering.

[kompili]

I see that all the hard work we put in sending constant letters to Senator's over the last year or so have paid off, and they have removed some of our concerns from the original bill, but there are still things in the bill to be concerned about that will have to be studied more closely.

[Fancy]

Reading the link fancy provided- there's absolutely no provisions that corroborate these assinine allegations and are in fact quite reasonable. Typical CT at it's best, or is that worst.
What you've been saying kompili, is all unsubstantiated alarmism. I guess you don't understand all that "legal mumbo jumble" afterall huh?

What gets my goat is that CTs consistently say the big bad government is guilty of keeping the populace in fear, yet it is the CTs themselves that are guilty of fearmongering.

Agreed. The actual bill should be the topic instead of relying on third hand information.