Is It Time to Revamp the Vancouver Police Department?

July 25th, 2010 Thomasso

Lets start off with a woman named Sandy. When we talked about this after class on back Thursday, which was fittingly a class about human rights, I was applauded, shocked and embarrassed from both watching and hearing the news about the women in the Vancouver Downtown East Side who was pushed to the ground by a Vancouver Police Officer because she walked into him. The embarrassment escalated when it was discovered that the women has cerebral palsy, and because of this she has difficulty walking at the best of times.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties (BCCL) are an organization of lawyers who volunteer their time that fight for the rights of those who otherwise could not, or challenges our legal and moral values that have being corrupted and that treat people unfairly. They released the video from a street cam that takes video for the purposes of surveillance along Hastings Street where there is no doubt a high concentration of the poor and homeless, and where drug addicts and malcontents gather. Ironically, that same video is what brought justice, the public’s view as in this case, to the forefront.

The public outcry has been deafening in my circles of friends. I have not heard so much outrage about the police since the Robert Dziekanski Tasering murder at the Vancouver Airport back in October 14, 2007 by four RCMP Officers.

The impact that video has is immediate and stands on it own in the public’s mind. Unlike paper that can be censored by government, special organizations and the courts, or testimony that is based on memory that is tainted with objective spin and well rehearsed lines, video is the ultimate eye witness, even when there is no audio to accompany it. It is very difficult for the pubic to see the extenuating circumstances, and to allow legal ambiguous speak to interfere with the actors’ case who is trying to change public’s opinion as the legal system is constantly under attack by the public from all angles.

Does the moral compass of the VPD and other police forces need to be fixed? This was one of the questions that we debated back on Thursday. With the riggers of police training, one would assume that police would be more attuned to the area that they are serving. As one colleague put it, “all it takes is one bad apple…”

Here is the email I sent after class:

Things That Make Canada Questionable in its Stance on Human Rights and the treatment of the Weak and Disabled.

Last night in one of my classes we debated the aspects of what transpired from an incident that occurred along Hasting street in Vancouver, BC on about July 1st 2010. We focused on the communication by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), not what the media is saying. At present, the VPD is saying very little as it seems that the department is still reviewing the case; however, they are satisfied that the officer did apologies, but the three officers have not comment on their conduct before, during and after the incident occurred.

Have an opened mind when viewing this video. Reflect upon it, and then ask yourself these questions, what would you do if you were the police officer, and the person with the disability? How would you react? If you were a bystander, what would you do? There were Good Samaritan’s along the sidewalk, but would you look the other way, or would intervene regardless that it was police offers who started the action?

Courtesy of CBC NEWS

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/22/bc-civil-liberties-police-push-ms-woman-video.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/22/bc-woman-shoved-sandy-police-downtown-eastside.html

Just blowing off of some steam when I see imbalances in power and misuses of authority.

Please go to these links:

CBC New Website -

“Police Shoving Woman On Video Raises Questions.”

“Woman Shoved By Police Says, ‘He Has No Right.‘”

You can watch the video for yourself, and you be the judge, “was it provoked, or a bad move on the officer’s part?”

Sincerly

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice, University classes, Video | Comments Off

Human Rights Maybe Low on the Priority of Some

May 29th, 2010 Thomasso

OK, a little back grounder on for my thoughts on human rights, and why we wave the banner around but no one does anything about it. I am taking this course, as part of my degree in Criminology, and it deals specificity with all subject matter under the umbrella of human rights. We will cover, once the course is completed, everything from domestic and local issues, all the way up to international and global issues that concerns us today, and from the past. The mesh of political views, to cultural dynamics, are the themes that are a constant so far in this course. But this course is more than covering current events, and history texts, it is all about the ideas and solutions that could change the world in the near future.

War is a nasty business, right? When we talk about human rights, it is usually in the shadow of war. Ware is when man kind is at its worse. War teaches that all rules can be thrown out, or ignored, and these times of conflict bring the opportunity of creating exceptions to the rules of human rights, circumventing them in order to wreck complete havoc towards the enemy. However, when the conflict is over, and the wounds begin to heal, the world cries out for accountability, so the Untied National was born, and later on, the World Criminal Court. Venues that try to convict those people who started these terrible things that they did during those conflicts, and hold them to accountability. But the system is weak and, yes, it is very politely motivated.

Sovereignty (hey, I got the “g” in the right spot) is the key issue when thinking globally.  Would we ever consider the UN police marching down the streets of Washington D.C., poised to arrest President George W. Bush for possible war crimes? No way because the U.S. Would not tolerate it, and they have the means of making sure they are in total control of their sovereignty, not the U.N.. It is not the U.N.’s place to do this anyway. But for a class debate, this makes for some very interesting lectures. What right does a nation have for sending in it’s “special” forces to capture and detain a suspect of war crimes inside another country? I can write about this for hours…

In my class, there is a great mix of students from just about every walk of life from around the glob. We have students from just about all of the major organized religions, and about five students who are from the Middle Eastern areas, including Israel. Last week’s class lecture was the best yet. Although the principles of human rights seems obvious, the world that we live in is far to complicated to have every nation adopt in its laws these basic tenants. However, having such a diverse class means that the discussions are as diverse too, so when discussions start tackling issues such as international human rights laws, the brain power really start to crank up among the students.

I am look forward to next class. I think as we dive deeper into the murky world of human rights, my level of enlightenment will also increase.

Sadly, this will be my official last class of Criminology. I only have two courses after this, and they are electives. I will miss these classes after I graduate.

Posted in Criminal Law, Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice, University classes | Comments Off

So, Do You Think Canada is Learning Anything from the Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?

May 15th, 2010 Thomasso

So, do you think Canada is learning anything from the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? With the oil spewing into the water from British Petroleum’s doomed Deep Sea oil platform where, several workers died, is it any wonder that people in Canada should be very concerned as oil exploration is top on the list for all three coasts here. The precedence has being set–we now know first hand just how bad off shore oil operation is now, not that we didn’t know from before, but we can see it now right in front of a faces today.

There is a very good chance that the United States could be powerless getting the “full” cost settled from British Petroleum for the clean up. Like any corporation/business, the risk that they go bankrupted, challenge it court, or just refuse to pay is always there. My fear is, the U.S. government could at best meet them halfway and let the taxpayers flip the second half of the bill.

And what about Mexico? Oil must be landing on their shores too? I have heard very little from the other countries who share those waters, and this bothers me as I listen to the media, in particular the CBC, but only little snippets of news that amount to nothing.

In Canada, if such a disaster were to occur, the likelihood of the corporation responsible getting away with cleaning up is very good, and current laws work in its favour. Canada’s track record shows this quite well: look up the Great Lakes, the Love Canal 1976.

Sadly, in my opinion, Canada is ripe for such a disaster to happen on our waters, and with a federal government that is pro corporation, the law will likely get softer on businesses as they can seek exemptions and ask for environmental guild lines to be lifted in lieu of profits. In my group of friends, having cheep gasoline to put in their cars is far more important than the risk of loosing an entire ecosystem, a vital food source. Where the rubber meets the road is fore most top of any voter now-a-days, and no one wants higher taxes either, so they vote accordingly.

I have heard one “self expert” tell me face to face that oil is a perfectly nature substance and nature has a way of taking care of it. The Gulf of Mexico will be back to normal in a matter of a few years he told me. I highly doubt that, but he sure believes it. But he is also one of these people that believes the Earth is only 4300 years old too? Where did that come from? Perhaps I could sell him a bridge over the Fraser River. But this proves that some people will never understand the damage that is taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. Heck, with British Petroleum using huge amounts of chemicals to disperse the oil, a blatant form of the cover-up becuase if the oil stays below the surface then it is out of sight-out of mind, and the media will have search harder to get images of huge oil slicks floating on the water along the beaches. So for my friend, seeing is believing, and if you can’t see it, then it is a conspiracy perpetrated by the government. The oil is still there.

Oh Canada.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

If You Drink and Drive, You Should Forget About Driving Ever Again!

February 20th, 2010 Thomasso

Last night while I was heading home from work, I was passed on the road by a rather rude driver who was just in too much of a rush that everyone on the road was in his way, so he tail-gated, honked his horn and swerved contently to get around you. Finally he passed me going towards Fort Langley on Glover Road, just pasted the 232nd Street turn-off to highway #1. I kept to my lane, gave him some extra room so he could at least have some space to make his manoeuvre before he had a head on collision with the on coming traffic, and then he was gone.

After I got home, I decided to do a little shopping. I hopped back in the truck and headed off to Walnut-Grove, where “low and behold” there was that same rude driver again, stopped by the police getting a breathalyser test. The officer has his stash of beer cans on top of his car, and I could see the look on the driver’s face as he was lead to the police car when I drove by.

I am somewhat perplexed that after all the TV commercials and anti-driving ads, that people still think it is wise to drive while having a few drinks? I mean honestly, you are endangering all the people around you when you are driving intoxicated. You are not in full control of your faculties–even though “you” think so. And with the beefed up laws that we have now, with costly fines and a possible criminal record, not to mention the loss of your driver’s license, you would wonder that people would think twice about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and driving off after having a few belts.

I hope that the system has done its job and has taken one more inconsiderate driver off the road. If anyone wants to argue with me on this one, then I will start with by saying this is a safety issue from all aspects. Unsafe drivers need-not-drive.

Posted in Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | Comments Off

The Sue-ability Scale

February 5th, 2010 Thomasso

Lawyers, you may not want to read this, this might be a tough pill to swallow? These are my personal thoughts based on my personal experiences with Civil Court.

Justice is a weird thing. I have studied it to death and it still leaves me scratching my head wondering, asking why-and the answers become as vague as following a white car in the middle of a snowstorm. I have found that justice in Canada is only for those who are rich, or are very clever. That in most cases if you are being sued in civil court, it is better not to participate than it is to waste your time with the process of jurisprudences; and flip side to this, if you are rich, you are an easy target than compared to someone who is poor and homeless. Seriously, of the five people in my life that I have brought to the halls of justice, only one took the pledge and participated. The other four knew the system well enough not to bother, and I found it (almost) impossible to seek my claim, costs, damages and compensation. In fact, the one time that I was the respondent, it was easer to go on with my life than it was to play the game. To this day, the company that I had an agreement with is still out the initial $72.00, but they are also out on their costs too, so it pays not to bother with Canadian Justice if you have nothing to loose. Was it worth my time to show up—I’m still evaluating that?

I now know that there is a scale that the professionals follow when they go out on suing expeditions. They automatically drop anyone who has no money; who is renting; earning a low wage; has no bank account; has little or no identification, i.e., drivers license or birth certificate; uses aliases and moves around a lot. However, for the poor there is this thing called Small Claims Court, or the Pauper’s Court as it is called in my circles, but you still need to pay to use it though. When I studied Medieval legal systems of European cultures, Small Claims Court to me has a reminiscent quality of early continental European courts where the jurist is free to adjust, amend, vary and control all aspects of the hearing and decisions—although you can appeal in today’s court. One day I was helping a friend fight for his money from a debtor, and once it was our turn, the sitting judge read the Statement of Claim, then threw up his arm up with the documents in hand and said, “You expect to me rule on this? I think you should go back and talk to this person and make the effort on collecting your money before you go into my court.” Perhaps it was because we were not wearing $900.00 suites at the time? I’m still in awe to this day about that?

If you do have something to loose like a house, wages, assets, or your respondent has too, then going to court is the way to go. I have also seen the dual effects of court at play many times as the monetary and psychological costs play their toll and all parties. The trouble is, court is not a guaranteed bet. Just when you thought you had the full force of the law on your side, you are hit with a sucker-punch and your case falls like a house of cards. In one case of mine, I filed for a garnishment of wages and the respondent’s employer decided not to cooperate. The business told me that he does not work in their department any more. I found myself having to take extraordinary measures to track down who this person really worked for before I could I proceed with the action. This involved two days of driving by this guy’s work every ten minutes searching for what door he came out of. Then once I saw him walking out to go home, I went into the building and had to do some quick lurking. I asked one of the managers that I was looking for my “friend.” When I confirmed that that was the respondent’s employer, I then went to the manager’s office to serve the garnishment order. I received two out of the five payment to fulfil the debt, but then they stopped as the guy quit his job and moved elsewhere. I just recovered only my court costs in that case. Was it worth it? At least I got to play the psych-game with him.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | Comments Off

I Applaud the BC Court of Appeal’s decision on Insite

January 16th, 2010 Thomasso

One of the greatest contradictions of Canada’s “sheepish” war on drugs as been the connection between the cost of health to our healthcare system and the battle to regulate what the State thinks is good or bad for its citizens. The criminalization of drugs is a recent phenomenon that is just over a hundred years old, and was born out of attacking specific marginal and ethnic groups. Canada has a very deep cultural love affair with illegal narcotics, and none could be more so than with marijuana. But for whatever stance you choose in your ideology, albeit the left or right, the drug culture in Canada isn’t going to go away any time soon, and we have to deal with that.

Insite was born out of long term thinking and the concept of rehabilitation; in other words, having a safe place to be that offers hope is a better approach than by pushing it underground and letting the long term effects eat away at our society. The logic behind Insite is simple: safety and hope. The people who use the facility are addicted to drugs, and are at the bottom of the social ladder. Further criminalization is not going to “fix” them, but rather push them deeper into marginalization.

The nay-sayers seems to start off with the line, “If you prohibit drugs and the use of it, then that will fix the problem… .”

I argue that the nay-sayer, has not found the root cause of the problem, but has only made it even worse than the act of using the drugs in the first place. The nay-sayer needs to ask why that person has chosen to take the drugs in the first place. However, it is easer to criminalize something than to fix it—well, that seems to be Canada’s current model. But to become homeless and drug dependant means that that person has issues that go beyond the act of taking drugs. Then you reach a point where you have no where to go, you become vulnerable, and as a result you become more visible. From Hitler to Harper, the right-wing thinking is to invoke prohibition against specific marginal groups that do not appeal to middle and upper class standards, and to simply criminalize something that does not adhere to those standards seems to be the answer.

What insite does is to give these people the chance to use clean needles to inject themselves with in hopes of stopping the practice of sharing needles. The AIDS epidemic, and many other diseases too, has a direct correlation with this group of people with the sharing of needles, so it would make sense to offer clean needles than to deal with growing numbers of AIDS victims. Safety too is an issue with Insite because if that user needs further treatment, or decides to move towards kicking their habit, then there are people right there on site to offer that help. When the user is in the facility there are staff on hand that can promptly offer help if that person is in distress. I think it is far better than having someone injecting drugs in some back alley in the middle of Vancouver.

I totally agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal on their decision to keep the jurisdiction of Instie with British Columbia’s authority, and thus allowing the facility to stay open without Federal interference. The Federal government should stop wasting our tax money on fighting this. Remember that the majority of Canadians did not vote for Harper!

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

I Got a Question?

November 22nd, 2009 Thomasso

Like the old saying goes,” there’s no such thing as a dumb question, only a dumb answer,” and it rang oh so loudly last Wednesday when I was attending a Criminology seminar on youth crime in the Fraser Valley. This has been gnawing at me for the last three days, so I’m finally going to put it out in the open so I can analyse more closely, and perhaps let anyone else weigh in on it?

It happened when a young mother stopped a presenter in the middle of his presentation on community responsibilities and she started to ask a very basic question. The woman was polite and very straight forward and to the point. She asked why law enforcement authorities enforce different standards of enforcement on different people, and why the police seem to show no standard of treating everyone the same.  The presenter told her that her question had no relevance to his presentation. This really shocked me, and I thought why a professional would allow such a question to go unanswered, especially in a public forum. Later, when I asked him why he said what he said, he replied saying that all the presenters were under time restraints. That being said, the Q & A period ran well over 45 minutes.

I did talk to the woman myself, and she seemed untouched by all of this. I tried to answer her question, but she seemed to draw a blank face and told me that she already knew the answers to her questions, but wanted the officials to say it. She herself is someone who has had run-ins with the law from her past and said that if places like the City of Surrey, BC want to clean up Gangs, then they really need to focus on giving kids something to do that they find interesting, like sports, mechanics and various other activities. She then laughed and said, “Do everything opposite that Gordon Campbell is doing… .”

I remember in grade school when I asked a question to my Grade five teacher, why we had to eat our lunches in the classroom instead of outside, she told me to go to the detention room for the rest of the day. Now that I look back, that person should of had her teaching certificate revoked and promptly fired for such a display of arrogance. Talking out of line, as she put it when talking to my parents was far from the truth of what really happened. But as justice would have it, back in 2001 I discovered that she did in fact lost her job as a teacher and is currently defending herself from litigation of an assault charge that took place in 1982 with one of her former students. In Canada we have a problem with corporal punishment in our schools – hitting someone is an assault no matter who you are.  Again I say, “there is no such thing a dumb questions, but only a dumb answer.” And added to that, “what comes around, goes around.”

You can see I love colloquialisms and adages.

So remember that when someone asks you a question, no matter how absurd you think it is, you should at least take the moral high ground and answer it to the best of your ability. Even saying “I don’t know,” is a good thing to do if you can’t answer it.

Posted in Criminology, Diatribe, General, Law, Social Justice | Comments Off

Such a Foolish Waste of Life Taken Around Someone Else’s Personal Pleasure

September 19th, 2009 Thomasso

Warning: this post contains graphic and disturbing language.

It was about 6:00pm back on Thursday, September 17, 2009, that I was going to my evening class. I was nervous and excited all at the some time because this was the first week of the new semester, and I was anticipating a hard and gruelling course, especially because it is a third year science class. I was driving from HY10, heading up on 128 Street towards 72 Avenue in Surrey, where the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Campus is located. Along 128 Street there was water-main construction taking place, so the road was full of obstacles and uneven surfaces that made driving on it very slow going.

With the road full of construction, traffic was continuously backed up, but it came to a complete standstill just before the turn off into the campus parking lot before 72 Avenue. I could see flashing and strobing lights ahead, and the sounds of several sirens racing towards the intersection of 128 Street and 72 Avenue.  As I got closer, just before I was going to turn left I saw a green garbage can with its contents strewn across the road. Then I saw the tipped-over bench by the bus stop and clumps of freshly dug up grass and soil spread along the edge of the road, and then what looked like a suitcase full of clothes laying in the middle of the road. But tucked back up into some bushes and trees was the front of the dark coloured sports car pointing towards the road. The vehicle had somehow made a 180 degree turn when it slid off the road.

I pulled into the campus parking lot and parked when I saw a friend of mine who was walking from the scene of the accident less than 30 metres away, so I asked him what he saw.  He said that he saw a man whose legs were completely severed from his body, and lots of blood. He described how he could see the bone of one of the legs and stated how still the man was as he laid on the ground. My friend was in shock from seeing this.

As for the young person who was in the car, my friend said “we were going to make sure the guy in the car was not going to run from the accident,” His car would not start, but he stayed inside it anyway.

I went to my class which started at 7:00pm, and everyone was talking about the accident. It was a few minutes later before it was known that what had happened was due to a street race, and one of drivers lost control and hit a man at the bus stop. One of the students in my class said she gave her statement to police because she saw the whole accident take place, and told of a yellow car that was racing along side the dark blue car just before it had sped out of control.

I am outraged as is everyone else I had talked to about this. I have had a day to think about what I had seen, and I have come to the conclusion that I am outraged about it. When I heard about it on the news the next day at work, I could not believe that it was in fact a street race, and that a elderly man sitting at a bus stop is hanging onto his life a result of it. What a stupid waste.

This is no doubt a selfless act of someone who at the expense of innocent bystanders was willing to endanger those around him for his personal enjoyment and adrenalin rush. In this light I see the vehicle as a weapon, and when misused like this it has the potential to kill because the user has taken it means beyond what its intended uses are. If the vehicle was being used under normal circumstance, such as normal speeds and driving operations, then this light would be different.

The worry is that our laws may not give the driver, if found guilty, what the public would consider proper sentencing and punishment for his crimes. Because a man maybe killed, he is reportedly clinging to life in the hospital at the time of this writing, then nothing less than a charge of (vehicular) manslaughter must be given. As it stands now, a charge of attempted manslaughter maybe the direction the Crown should move on this, either way a life sentence. I will be paying close attention to this to see what the RCMP are going to charge the driver with, and how the judge will rule on this when sentencing takes place. I think the public gaze will be very critical about this as the wheels of justice start to turn.

Posted in Criminal Law, Criminology, General, Law, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

The Telephone Cops for the Internet

September 14th, 2009 Thomasso

Yesterday I had a conversation with a very good friend of mine about the new set of Internet laws that the Canadian government is poised to set into reading this Fall in Ottawa, (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act). I think for the average Canadian, most would react the same way as my friend did, in outrage that Big brother is about to be given another set of tools that will erode our privacy even further, but not really giving thought as to what the actual ramifications would be. But I like to think that both sides of the coin should be represented, but that can be hard to do when only one side does not want to listen. So, I’m going to post about.

Today I watched an online presentation that was offered by the department of Criminology from Boston University, the centre of North American Criminology, where I saw some opinions of the many governments who are finding the World Wide Web a network of security issues that they would like to control. The web has become a huge security issue for most countries. Among most criminal violations, crimes committed on the Internet are almost never caught. Police are powerless with this new technology, and rightfully so as most countries’ laws have not caught up to it. Especially when the net knows no borders.

Talking about my friend’s ideas. This is what I like to call the American contradiction, when the same person claims that they want privacy, and want to be protected from the boogie man at the some time. It is like paying no taxes, and having one of the largest military budgets on Earth: There is give and take, but you can’t talk from both sides of your mouth. Like my friend, he says that no one should have the right to peek into what people are doing on the Internet without common legal tools such as warrants and seizures of equipment, done through a court order, issued by a judge. The problem for police is the speed and stealth of which criminals work at when committing internet crimes. A clever computer geek can reasonably hide their tracks over the internet, but if police could tap into all ISPs and monitor all networks, then catching criminals would be several times easer.

Am I supporting the new piece of legislation that is about to be read in Parliament? In some respects, yes. I see a need by government to adopt a more realistic set of tools to deal with Internet crimes. Sure, But this with where me and my friend agree on—should this be a blanket law that would allow the police to truly become big brother, and through monitoring, watch every move that its citizens are doing every second of every day? Then I have to draw the line and say not 100 percent of the time. I still believe that “just cause” should be a major of the equation. So I’m going to do some more research on this topic and see what I can come up with. In the mean time, here are some links to read:

The Western Standard – Government of Canada moves to monitor Internet users.

Canada proposes new powers to police Internet.

No Appologies – Harper Conservatives expantion of Police Powers Conserns Freedom Advocates.

Posted in Criminal Law, Criminology, General, Law, Social Justice | Comments Off

How Difficult it is to Change Things without Changing them into Things you don’t Want

June 13th, 2009 Thomasso

Yesterday a co-worker had some thoughts on what he would like changed in terms of improvements to many of the social and political problems that he sees in Canada today.

The first area of change he wanted was a massive reform of the government, literally reducing the bureaucratic/administration portion of government down to a skeleton, and only allowing them a wage of one dollar per year as their paid salary from the tax payer. Politicians, the elected officials would also received the same pay structure of one dollar per annum. Also on the “to go” list would be offices such as the Privy Counsel, the Senate, most advisory offices; areas where only a handful of people are needed. Research and advisory offices would be hired on a need-be bases.

Next to get changed is a judiciary, where, not only would the structure and principles of law are revamped, but so to are the courts in terms of localities and functions they would serve. The rule of law would have some additional points added to it, and so to would the type of legal system to, in other words, what I think he is after is a change from the common law and a move towards the Civil Code style of law we see in France today. Courts essentially would mainly reside at a municipal level, and there would only be one court of appeal, or super court, the supreme court which would be located probably in Ottawa.

Taxation would take on a new changes, for example, anyone who wishes to donate money to their organization of choice would no longer receive a tax right-off, e.g., churches, NGOs, and taxes would remain localized, so only your tax money would stay in your community, and only a portion of it would go federally.

What is interesting is that most people feel that improvements are needed in government, however, to make changes and then try to formulate how those changes will affect the country as a whole, we then start to see how problematic it is. There is no way that we can please everyone who sees imperfections in our governmental system, but we all have special interests that we would like to see. We get into problems of conflict when what I would like to see as the ideal government in Canada varies extremely from yours.

But there is a deeper problem that I see now after talking to my co-worker which I never really gave that much thought about before, and that is one should really try and fully understand what the political processes are, and how the structure of our three main levels of government work before we can fully qualify serious changes to it. Then once we are armed with the knowledge of all these things, then we should hopefully see the dynamics and shifts of each idea proposed on a theoretical bases, in other words, seeing the causes and effects in an abstract view.

In  my understanding of Canadian politics and jurisprudence, among all of its processes and structure, I feel it needs to stay the way it is now. But take in mind that we are contently in a state of flux, and changes, although small and minute, are always talking place. Each time we elect an government, and new markets open and old ones close, change is inevitable on a whole. However, without going through these exercises of playing around with these ideas we would never learn and understand what it is that we have now to and hopefully appreciate the rights and freedoms we enjoy.

Posted in Criminal Law, General, Law, Law and Order, Social Justice, Social economics | Comments Off