The Shotgun Blog
« He'll arrest speeders on the way to the all-candidates meeting? | Main | Stephen Harper: Go Away! »
Friday, April 17, 2009
License to Steal
The Canadian Supreme Court today upheld the provincial governments' right to seize your property if they suspect it was connected with a crime even if they don't charge you with it. The decision is here and is hyper-technical and shows that the court is straining to justify this amazing intrusion. I will be writing a Lawyers Weekly column on this, so I will come back next week to analyze the case some more once I am done with the column. (cross posted at UofA Law)
Posted by Moin A Yahya on April 17, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
.
Heil Miller
.
Posted by: Momar | 2009-04-17 4:36:28 PM
The law-and-order crowd is once again proving that they have no real regard for either law or order, as there can be neither without property rights.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 4:43:35 PM
The proletariat will soon rise up, and the capitalists and property owners will be executed publicly! Property rights are tools of capitalist oppression to steal what rightfully belongs to everyone!
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-17 4:48:25 PM
Ten bucks says "No Commies" defends this anti-property rights ruling.
It's funny how the people who claim to be defenders of liberty and anti-commie have never seen a government scheme they didn't like, as long as it comes from the right party.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 4:53:33 PM
So I we should all start driving around with a circumstantial stash of unregistered firearms and completely unrelated cash, then. Okay. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-04-17 4:58:32 PM
You should do that if you want to make a "contribution" to the state beyond your taxes, KS.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 5:10:29 PM
On the one hand, it does raise a few hackles, because you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's a sad commentary on our legal system that judges, attorneys, and even laymen are coming up with more and more ways to avoid trials, which are capricious, slow, cumbersome, and extremely expensive.
On the other hand, if you're found in possession of something that quite obviously isn't yours, then you shouldn't be allowed to keep it simply because our courts have become almost completely dysfunctional.
My preference would be to fix the court system. Trim the fat from the trial process. Impose sanctions on lawyers who argue over trivial points or waste the court's time with dog and pony shows. Above all, simplify the law. When it's become so complicated that even judges have to guess at it, it's time to start simplifying.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 5:12:26 PM
Technically, Matthew, this policy comes from the Supreme Court, and thus came from no party at all. Or, since the writ involved eight provinces, you could alternately argue that it came from all of them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 5:13:38 PM
Technically, the decision came from the Supreme Court; the policy(ies) comes from the provinces, Shane.
Ontario and Alberta both have asset forfeiture laws, and I'm sure the rest of the provinces do as well in some form. (I haven’t looked.) It's an irresistible cash grab pioneered by US law enforcement courtesy of the war on drugs.
Checked out http://www.fear.org/ if you have a spare minute.
Better yet, I'll find Ezra Levant's article on Alberta's asset forfeiture law concerning prostitution and post it. Levant seems to be able convince conservatives of libertarian ideas the way libertarians never can.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 5:46:22 PM
Your jihad against drug policy permeates every fibre of your mind, doesn't it, Matthew? Perhaps libertarians' increasing tendency to view everything through the lens of legalizing marijuana is the real reason they're having trouble growing their numbers.
You have long argued that the reason people enter the drug trade is because they find it profitable. Policies like this make it less profitable, and as forfeitures are stepped up, it will become less profitable still.
Oh, and I already said that it could be argued that the policy came from the eight provinces on the writ and not the Court. But the Court upheld it, so apparently they found it sufficiently non-partisan for broad application.
As for asset forfeiture law and prostitution, it could easily be that Ezra's real beef is that the seller of the illegal service (the prostitute) is generally regarded as a victim, while the buyer (the john) is punished far more severely. This is the very reverse of the policy with most other illegal transactions, including drugs. It wouldn't be because prostitutes are women and all women are victims, would it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 6:20:33 PM
"...apparently they found it sufficiently non-partisan for broad application."
What does "sufficiently non-partisan" have to do with anything?
They found it sufficiently constitutional, Shane, which is sad.
And like it or not, asset forfeiture was develop as a tool in the war on drugs. And it's a great tool for that purpose, as you say, except that it erodes property rights and due process for the rest of us law abiding citizens.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 6:40:31 PM
The point is, Matthew, that the policies were not upheld because they came at the behest of any political party in particular. The plaintiffs represent the whole gamut of Canadian politics.
I don't like the erosion of property rights either, but the sad fact is that property rights are not Constitutionally protected in Canada as far as I am aware. And Canadians have no one but themselves to blame for this development, because they continue to buy illegal drugs. If a drug user doesn't care that people are getting murdered so long as he can get high, he's not preaching from a very solid moral base, is he?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 6:45:36 PM
Sorry Matthew but this has nothing to do with law and order; in fact the total opposite. I call it tyranny. Considering the lack of credibility of our police to-day, this is outrageous to say the least. Our traditional system of justice of being innocent until proved guilty is being changed to being guilty without proof. Very scary I say.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-04-17 8:31:15 PM
“The point is, Matthew, that the policies were not upheld because they came at the behest of any political party in particular.”
I did not argue that this policy was being driven by a particular party. Nor did I argue that the Supreme Court is upholding a policy at the behest of any party. So while it’s a reasonable point, it has nothing to do with any of the comments I’ve made on this thread.
"And Canadians have no one but themselves to blame for this development, because they continue to buy illegal drugs."
Do you by illegal drugs, Shane? Because I don't. So I am not to blame.
We have the drug prohibitionist to blame for this; it's their war and it’s their policy. And now we have the courts to blame for their complicity and general contempt for the common law tradition of property rights and basic due process.
If you want to continue with the drug war angle here, I'm happy to discuss it, but please don't make insulting comments later about my so-called jihad against prohibition. There is a direct drug war angle to this story so I addressed it.
I want the discussions on this site to be civil -- or at the very least, I want my discussions with you and others on this site to be civil. I don't enjoy ugly exchanges and they don't advance the general debate. If I get snarky or obnoxious, which I can do from time to time, let me know.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 8:51:26 PM
I don't call it law and order either, Alain. It is tyranny. It's the breakdown and corruption of law and order -- and it should be met with outrage and disgust by conservatives and libertarians alike.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 8:53:18 PM
If you don't buy or produce illegal drugs, Matthew, you're unlikely to have your assets seized. The cops don't just say, "Yup, looks suspicious," and sell your house out from under you; everything has to be approved by a judge.
As for the modern judicial aversion to trials, that is the fault of the trial lawyer and the judges that trial lawyers eventually become, and no one else's. The longer and more complicated trials become, the more money lawyers make.
No one accused you of being snarky; but sometimes you do come across as a One-Note Man who plays it all he can. Especially the obligatory shot at the Americans. Drugs have been illegal in many parts of the world for centuries, and the penalties there are a lot stricter than you'll find in North America. Yet always the blame boomerangs back on the Americans. Why is that, Matthew?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 10:41:06 PM
Shane Matthews wrote: “…sometimes you do come across as a One-Note Man who plays it all he can.”
Here are all my recent posts. What note am I playing?
• National Review reviews Ezra Levant’s “Shakedown,” but I’m guided by Reason
• Scott Reid brings home the bacon: Corporate Welfare Alert
• The “ugly American” tourism wave to hit Cuba
• A single mom just can’t catch a break: Madonna’s child rescue scheme fails
• Corporate spokesmodel, porn star and libertarian: Marilyn Chambers dies at 56
• Is a Calgary mayoral hopeful building a war chest?
• Minister Day introduces Canadian capitalists to Chinese communists; new contracts
• Fewer Canadians believe in God: Poll
• B.C. Libertarians looking for candidates to run on guns and drugs platform
• Libertarian Party: 47% of Americans reject capitalism
• Normalized trade with Cuba brought to you by the useful idiots for global capitalism
• Don’t restrict lobbyists; restrict government
• Keith Martin proposes market-based healthcare reforms
• The importance of character in a free society: Acton Institute
• BCCLA complaint, coverage leads to policy change and apology from Vancouver police
• Freedom movement news: The Moderate Separatist, The Fraser Institute, Tibor Machan, Pierre Lemieux, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation kick statist butt today
• Alberta NDP slam “welfare budget”
• Alberta budget: Record deficit includes $2 billion public relations scheme to capture C02
• Should Conrad Black lose his Order of Canada? NDP attack government’s “double standard”
• BCCLA demands clarification of Vancouver Police policy on seizing cameras
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 11:32:03 PM
Uh huh. Notice that those are the titles of the threads; they don't mean you didn't raise the issue of marijuana in them. This thread does not have marijuana in the title, correct? And yet you raise the issue.
Don't try to play the picture of offended dignity, Matthew. You don't do it well.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-17 11:43:01 PM
My posts showcase my diverse interests, but let's try a different point.
You wrote: "Drugs have been illegal in many parts of the world for centuries, and the penalties there are a lot stricter than you'll find in North America. Yet always the blame boomerangs back on the Americans. Why is that, Matthew?"
If I do that, it is because Canadian drug policy and American drug policy are closely tied because of a shared border, as you point out regularly.
Also, it was the DEA that arrested Marc Emery, not the Canadian government.
Also, I don't care what happens in Saudi Arabia. I care what happens in Canada, and what happens in what was once and perhaps still is the greatest nation on earth, the US.
Finally, the US political scene is bigger and almost always more interesting than are own on account of the countries size and global importance.
Anything sinister here, Shane? You think I have some deep rooted anti-Americanism?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 1:17:29 AM
If I do that, it is because Canadian drug policy and American drug policy are closely tied because of a shared border, as you point out regularly.
Yet you would put the policies wildly out of sync, in spite of your knowledge at some level that it just wouldn’t work. And civil forfeiture without trial has a long history in English tradition, based on the supremacy of the peerage.
blockquote>
Also, it was the DEA that arrested Marc Emery, not the Canadian government.
The Canadian government has arrested Marc Emery several times, Matthew.
Also, I don't care what happens in Saudi Arabia. I care what happens in Canada, and what happens in what was once and perhaps still is the greatest nation on earth, the US.
If America is no longer the greatest nation, Matthew, which nation is? If you were offered residence in any nation on Earth, but were expected to make your own way with the skills you now have, which one would you pick? If the U.S. offered B.C. statehood I’d take it in a flash. Of course, given the fact that eight or nine provinces are now “have nots,” it’s debatable whether America would even consider accepting any outside of B.C. and Alberta.
Besides, don’t anti-prohibitionists often point to other countries (specifically western Europe) when attempting to make their case as to what would work in North America? Do you support that view, or no?
Finally, the US political scene is bigger and almost always more interesting than are own on account of the countries size and global importance.
But we are not discussing an American policy. At least we weren’t until you brought it up.
Anything sinister here, Shane? You think I have some deep rooted anti-Americanism?
Not nearly as much as many Canadians, that’s for sure.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 11:24:25 AM
Mr M Johnson-
We are very _pleased to see you force mealy vague concept';wishy washy forum participants into a do or die show down = putting ones money where ones mouth is, or should be, in these matters is the ultimate in freedom, second only to living on roots & berries and running around naked in the woods
so, how about _your enlightened $20 on whether designated WS freedom hero # 003 walks or swings ? You have 42 days to stake a claim before the Extradition Hearings door slams shut on his tail..
in your case, because you have a job, your spelling and grammar are so empekabul and you are in general, so darned cool - not afraid of a little spittle like your coffee boys
- I will accept your cheque
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-18 11:45:26 AM
"so, how about _your enlightened $20 on whether designated WS freedom hero # 003 walks or swings ?"
I don't think he'll walk, 419.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 12:48:06 PM
You're pretty funny, 419, even when it's at my expense I can't help but laugh. But you are so very wrong on this policy.
I'm a conservative guy who doesn't like the drug culture, but there are better ways to achieve conservative outcomes than the coercive power of the state.
And if you knew me better, you'd know I'm not that cool.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 12:52:04 PM
"Yet you would put the policies wildly out of sync, in spite of your knowledge at some level that it just wouldn’t work." -- Shane
I don't think it's necessary to harmonize our nations gun laws anymore than I think it is necessary to harmonize our drug laws. We should pursue policies that are just.
The Canadian government has arrested him several times and I've been critical each and every time. The arrest that threatens to take away his freedom for the rest of his life -- the arrest currently making its way through the system -- was initiated by the DEA. Emery's case is weighty and current. It's worth writing about, and it doesn't reveal an anti-American sentiment.
"If America is no longer the greatest nation, Matthew, which nation is?" -- Shane
It might still be.
"Besides, don’t anti-prohibitionists often point to other countries (specifically western Europe) when attempting to make their case as to what would work in North America?" -- Shane
I tend to ignore harm reduction and decriminalization experiments like the ones we see in western Europe. There are lots of good reasons to think these models will fail. Do they improve things? Maybe. But asking conservative taxpayers to pay for heroin or clean needles against their conscience offends my sense of justice. I don't want policy to shift from prohibiting drugs to subsidizing drugs. That's madness in my assessment. If these models actually reduce harm, that's good, but I won't defend those programs. Or at the very least I'll only offer a lackluster defense.
You asked me why I always turn to America. My answer among many answers was that it's an interesting country on account of its size and importance. What the US president has to say about drug policy is more important that what anyone else has to say on the subject, practically speaking.
"Not nearly as much as many Canadians, that’s for sure." - Shane
That's good. I wish you could have attended my annual Fourth of July party in Alberta. They were too much work to continue, but I always do something celebrate the birth of the modern freedom movement.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 1:14:35 PM
Matthew,
I referred to your statement concerning the "law and order crowd" when I said it has nothing to do with law and order. I see we both agree.
I find it sad that some do not see the danger here, because it appears to relate to those suspected of drug dealing. Just remember that once unleashed the same can and will apply to anyone suspected of just about any crime. It flies in the face of innocent until and unless proved guilty.
So no matter where one stands on the drug issue, one should be very very concerned about this ruling.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-04-18 8:07:58 PM
As per usual, you're dead on, Alain.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-18 8:19:47 PM
"...And if you knew me better, you'd know I'm not that cool..."
lets hitchike to Peru
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-18 10:42:20 PM
"..there are better ways to achieve conservative outcomes than the coercive power of the state..."
what did you have in mind , the
" honour system ? "
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-18 11:09:43 PM
I don't think it's necessary to harmonize our nations gun laws anymore than I think it is necessary to harmonize our drug laws. We should pursue policies that are just.
Spoken like a true utopian! You’re forgetting that firearms are legal products in both countries. And you as much as admitted that as far as you’re concerned, reality takes a back seat to principle. If a policy is infeasible, it doesn’t matter how just or noble it is; it still won’t work. And in deference to P.M.’s sensibilities, Matthew, I’m going to refrain from flaying you alive for using the words “I think.” Debate is not about telling us what you think; it’s about telling us why we should think it.
The Canadian government has arrested him several times and I've been critical each and every time.
Which is not the same as saying that the Canadian government has not arrested him. They have. You lied. The fact that you opposed the arrests does not alter the fact that they happened. This is what I have in mind when I tell you to stop being narcissistic—what you think does not alter reality.
The arrest that threatens to take away his freedom for the rest of his life -- the arrest currently making its way through the system -- was initiated by the DEA. Emery's case is weighty and current. It's worth writing about, and it doesn't reveal an anti-American sentiment.
He’s spent most of his adult life daring the authorities to do exactly what the DEA has done. Yes, it’s weighty, and given that he’s up for extradition, it certainly is current. No, it’s not, and yes, it does.
"If America is no longer the greatest nation, Matthew, which nation is?" -- Shane It might still be.
This is not an answer. If America is not the greatest country, that means another country is greater. In which case you should be able to name it. A country greater than America could hardly escape notice.
"Besides, don’t anti-prohibitionists often point to other countries (specifically western Europe) when attempting to make their case as to what would work in North America?" -- Shane I tend to ignore harm reduction and decriminalization experiments like the ones we see in western Europe. There are lots of good reasons to think these models will fail. Do they improve things? Maybe. But asking conservative taxpayers to pay for heroin or clean needles against their conscience offends my sense of justice. I don't want policy to shift from prohibiting drugs to subsidizing drugs. That's madness in my assessment. If these models actually reduce harm, that's good, but I won't defend those programs. Or at the very least I'll only offer a lackluster defense.
Unfortunately, Matthew, given the effect drugs have on people, and indirectly on those around them, a taking a laissez-faire attitude towards drugs is like turning a blind eye towards barbarian hordes sacking your capital. Either you outlaw them or legalize them but require all addicts to receive treatment. Doing nothing is not an option.
You asked me why I always turn to America. My answer among many answers was that it's an interesting country on account of its size and importance. What the US president has to say about drug policy is more important that what anyone else has to say on the subject, practically speaking.
Well, no. What the President says counts for next to nothing in other sovereign nations. And outside of the U.S. and Latin America, the U.S. has very little influence on drug policy. Colombia, for its part, has in the past registered alarm and strong protest whenever the U.S. appeared to be softening its stance on drugs, for fear that the cartels will completely overrun the country. Which they could do whether drugs were legal or not, because even legal products are frequently subject to monopoly. Oil barons, drug barons; same deal.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 11:37:46 PM
As I said, Alain, I would prefer that the court system be streamlined to the point where it can actually begin functioning again. That's not going to happen, though, not with this generation of judges.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-18 11:38:58 PM
"Ten bucks says "No Commies" defends this anti-property rights ruling.
It's funny how the people who claim to be defenders of liberty and anti-commie have never seen a government scheme they didn't like, as long as it comes from the right party."
There goes Matthew being civil again. In my short time here I've established broader and deeper liberty credentials than you have, Single Issue. I'm still waiting for you and Mike Brock to explain to me why you support a system where over 50% of Canadians incarcerated haven't even been convicted of a crime. Am I really the only person in Canada who cares about this astonishing fact? Wow, I guess I really am operating on a higher plane of morality, hrmph.
"pioneered by US law enforcement courtesy of the war on drugs."
Nope, the RICO statutes precede the so-called "war" on drugs, having been enacted in 1970 with the specific intent of going after the Mafia. You might very well be the least factually accurate individual I have ever encountered.
Posted by: No Commies | 2009-04-19 1:23:56 AM
"...Nope, the RICO statutes precede the so-called "war" on drugs, having been enacted in 1970 with the specific intent of going after the Mafia...."
We are under th impression, based on news footage of President Nixon available on YouTube that he declared a " war on drugs " in 1970/
In 1969 Mr Nixon implimented "Operation Incerpt" which stopped every vehicle entering the United Stats to search it for drugs. Tens of thousands of motor vehicles were searched..
are you implying that there were tens of thousands of Mafia car pools smuggling chiefly cannabis into the USA in 1969-1970??
WE are unaware of President Nixon mentioning MAFIA after 1969-- his administrations concern was the thousands of small time/ one tim hobby smugglers.
BTW :Like it or not, President Nixons anti drug policies orchestrated and refined by successive administrations of crackdown at their ports of entry forever turned the tides from American market reliance on imported cannabis. These policies were a kick start of the domestic North American marijuana industry. Canada for instance, in just two generations for instance evolved from a minor hashish importing nation into a major marijuana _exporting nation.
no sign of the Mafia anywhere in the 1969-1970 cannabis cultural escalation. If you mean " Mafia+ opiates" please say so. Or if its Mob run Viagara, where can we get some ?
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-19 7:13:18 AM
"There is a direct drug war angle to this story so I addressed it.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-17 8:51:26 PM"
Matthew, Shane is obsessed with drug policy. Don't let him bring it up (*again*) and then blame it on you.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-04-19 9:51:45 PM
Matthew, Shane is obsessed with drug policy. Don't let him bring it up (*again*) and then blame it on you.
If you could read, Janet, you'd see that Matthew brought drug policy up first. I addressed what this policy potentially does to our liberties and suggested a fix. Matthew decided it would be more constructive to slag the Americans and their drug policies.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-19 10:22:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.