British Columbia�s forfeiture office abused power, lawsuit says

Finally!

Hopefully the same judicial interference doesn't happen in Alberta because the program to seize and shutter drug houses that destroy the quality of life for entire neighbourhoods has been a resounding success.

But Alberta hasn't been abusing the law. That's why it's been a success. They don't seize your house and your car here if you get busted for carrying too much weed, they only do it if you've got a farm in your basement.

They don't even do it for that. The seize & shutter in Alberta has only been applied so far to crack houses and heroin shooting galleries because (as opposed to even a large grow-op) those are the kind of things that attract addicts, prostitutes, gun-play, vandals, and thieves from all over to a house that's usually on a residential street. The grow-op bros are usually a lot more discreet and polite as far as law-breaking neighbours go.

My concern as usual is with a judiciary that would toss out an entire successful program because one element of it allegedly violated some rights somewhere. It's like when the Edmonton police service was banned from profiling and tailing chronic drunk drivers during their daytime activities, even though they found that some of them were cross-spectrum miscreants who were involved in other forms of daily mischief and not just being ignorant about racking up repetitive DUI's. Rights vs responsibility as usual, with the courts once again siding with the law-breakers no matter how corrosive and dangerous their activities are to society at large.

That the inconvenience with 'rights'. We have them, and the government is prevented from violating them because it's recognized that the government is the 900 pound gorilla that is able to easily trample anyone's rights if there is nothing to prevent them from doing it. Having police follow you around all day was a practice of the Volkspolizei, not the EPS. It has no place in Canada!

'Proceeds of Crime' legislation has got out of hand in BC, where it was applied to all sorts of crime from fraud to gun violations. Then the accused has all their assets seized before a conviction, and has no capital with which to mount a defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and facing an accuser with basically unlimited resources. Not a fair fight.

Look at places in the US as to how crazy these laws have become. In Utah, you can be pulled over for speeding, the officer can look in your wallet and seize any cash there. You then have to prove that those weren't the proceeds of crime before you can get a percentage of it back. Not all of it, and that's not including court costs.

You do not have property rights in Canada so the actions of the government in BC are consistent with the presumption that all property is the property of the government.

I don't deny my authoritarian impulses. It only developed from being turned into a victim and doormat by two legged garbage that chose to use their freedoms to be the worst scumbags they possibly could.

You've said that more than once. And you were wrong each time, as you are now.

http://propertyrightsguide.ca/are-prope ... adian-law/


Canadians are sometimes surprised to learn that the right to property is not afforded the same constitutional protection that exists in other countries such as Australia, India, and the United States. But it is not accurate to say that property enjoys no constitutional protection. The framers of The Constitution Act, 1867 (originally called the British North America Act) followed the British principle of �parliamentary sovereignty� by allocating lawmaking powers to the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures, while incorporating limited checks and balances on government instead of absolute restrictions.


The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not directly protect property rights. The Charter was enacted as part of the Constitution Act, 1982, which affirmed the Constitution as the supreme law of Canada and provided that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is of no force or effect. The Charter guarantees certain individual rights against intrusion by the state and gives the courts the power to provide a remedy to anyone whose Charter rights are denied. For example, section 7 of the Charter reads:


Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. (this last paragraph isn't protected in Canada either, as my wife and I can attest to).

And if you read this entire article you'll see that the very tenuous recognition of private property is not a right but a privilege that is subject to revocation by an act of Parliament.

Rights are irrevocable.

Ergo, there are no property rights in Canada when an act of a capricious Parliament can order the seizure of all private property if the government so desires.

And if you read this entire article you'll see that the very tenuous recognition of private property is not a right but a privilege that is subject to revocation by an act of Parliament.

Rights are irrevocable.

Ergo, there are no property rights in Canada when an act of a capricious Parliament can order the seizure of all private property if the government so desires.

In America you call it "eminent domain", something strong Conservatives and Libertarians dislike in a broad sense, though specifically it has it's role.

In Canada we call this "that's just the way it is".

Eminent domain not imminent. Sometimes the governments use it for public works. Sometimes creatures like Donald Trump use it to kick seniors out of their houses so he can build another golf course or another godawful casino. Either way it sucks but at least the government can claim it serves a greater common good as opposed to the private sector that uses it just to enrich the same greedy shitlords again.

1. FTFY.

2. Eminent domain is the principle that private property can be taken by the government for a critical national interest but then only with fair compensation to the property owner.

In the aftermath of the hideous decision by the Supreme Court which says that government can seize private property simply to enhance tax revenues several states have passed laws and state constitutional amendments that set strict limits on the seizure of private property.

In California we are lacking in this regard because the typical path that government uses to seize a property is to first cut off all services to the property and then because the property has no services they declare it to be 'blighted'. Then they condemn the blighted property after they order the property owner to remedy a condition that the government created in the first place. Then they seize the property and they give the property owner 'fair compensation' for their blighted and condemned property that was worth 10x to 20x that value before government got involved. Then the government sells the property at a discount to a developer who saves tons of money by having the government pull this shit on his behalf.

On the upside the courts have been starting to side with property owners against this kind of shit. Still, in California we lack for a state constitutional amendment to clearly define that property can only be taken for government purposes and not just transferred to wealthy and politically connected donors to the state Democrat party.

No, you're wrong. Property rights are well entrenched in common law in Canada. There are thousands of caselaw references. Plus there's Section 26 of the Charter. If you think property rights are somehow better protected anywhere in the world than in Canada, you simply don't know what you're talking about.