GO!!! said:
I suppose you also support the "right" of the Angels to grace our city streets wearing their patches, and their prospects to throw their weight around
Yes I do. I don't understand how targetting somebody's choice of fashion is supposed to stop criminal acts. Until they break the law, a fat slob with a patch is free to wear whatever they want because they are just that, a fat slob with a patch. However, I also support
Bill C-95; some Biker's brazen use of his freedom of expression will also provide reasonable evidence to tag him with the additional sentence of belonging to a organized crime group. Now, if one were able to prove that these low-level shooters in Toronto are actually organized criminal enterprises (Crips and Bloods come to mind) then use their dress against them; but I doubt it - most of these guys are probably low-lifes with a silly sense of fashion they lifted from some crappy rap album.
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to protect the citizens of this nation, not to give criminals something to hide behind.
Protect citizens from what? You should read into what roles
constitutionalism and a
bill of rights serve in a liberal, democratic society - the wiki links provided are a good starting place. Constitutionally entrenched individual rights serve to regulate the relationship between people and their government. A government has a lot of resources and power and can bring the hammer of god down on an individual if it wishes - constitutional rights establish the "rules of the game". This is certainly the founding principle behind the US Bill of Rights - it responded to many of the complaints that were lodged in the Declaration of Independence. Our own constitutional evolution is much the same. The Charter is far from perfect (Section 33 is a joke), but it is a step in the right direction.
The "liberal interpretation" of the criminal code that you accuse the judges of having is alive and well in your post when you immediately equate restrictions on dress with "tyranny".
I don't get where you are getting this from. How do you equate a justice system that cycles criminals in and out of a "rehabilitative" penal system and the government saying "Hey you, wearing those clothes in that fashion is now against the law!" as the same thing?
Are tyrrannies like speed limits and drug restrictions also included?
Bullocks. A definite case can be made to show that excessive speed (which is really reckless use of an automobile) and hardcore drug use represent reasonable cases of risk to society; sure, there is a gray area that is open to debate - I think 110Km/H isn't speeding and that Marijuana doesn't constitute a "hard core" drug - but the principles are generally sound. I've yet to see any of you make the case that violating the fundamental freedom of expression will add any realistic value to a law enforcement officers tool-belt when compared to the costs of doing so in both moral and enforcement terms. Sure, there is a cessation of some liberty to the government to ensure a relatively free and peaceful society; these reasonable legal proscriptions in society are covered under the Section 7 of the Charter and as far as I am concerned "dresses funny" is not
"in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
No one is trying to "ban" a certain type of dress, only associate it (officially) with a certain lifestyle that is a threat to society.
Well, Mr Zipperheadcop said "If you look like a criminal, you get treated like a criminal", so I can only assume that a "ban" was the intention. Baggy pants and doo-rags are not a threat to society - I implore you to prove to me that they are.
Just as gun owners give up some money and jump through administrative hoops to remain legal gun owners, I see no reason why a "criminal dress code" could not be used as reason for a search - after all, if you have nothing to hide - what's the big deal?
As I said above, good governance implies that we surrender a certain amount of negative freedom to ensure a free and safe society. It doesn't mean we violate our fundamental principles by flagrantly disregarding the most basic liberal democratic freedoms. Unfortunately, the right to bear arms and protect oneself isn't entrenched, but either way subjecting owners to public scrutiny with a licence and validation is not unreasonable (we do the same with automobiles). Saying that "if you wear X, you open yourself up to arbitrary detainment and arrest" is unreasonable and I challenge you to prove otherwise; there is no reason that you should face a derogation of your rights and freedoms for shopping at the "Urban Barn" and wearing "FUBU".
The "law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide" line is stale. Citizens, irregardless of who they are, shouldn't have to juggle their rights when dealing with the government. As I said earlier, people are fallible and thus governments are apt to follow the fickle whim of whoever is pushing the levers at the time if constraints aren't put in place (and backed by the will to enforce them by the people who live under them). The proof is in the pudding right on Army.ca; look at all the jaw-jaw that goes around these forums. One guy says it would be great to forbid anyone to have handguns without providing any real good reason what-so-ever (except for some lame, unfounded cry to security) while another guy wants to put limits on what people do in the sack for the sake of a "moral wall" that "protects society". Now we see folks willing to base a presumption of guilt upon fashion sense and have no qualms against ignoring the freedom of expression.
You can throw the term "liberal" at me in a crappy ad hominem attempt to undermine my argument, but everything I see here only helps to reinforce my belief in principles because I have no doubt that if we didn't stick to them they would be pissed away in an instant. Because some idiot who likes Fifty-Cent happens to shoot some other guy from his neighbourhood shouldn't grant anybody, including agents of the state (and that includes us soldiers), the authority to tar all with the broad brush of "presumed guilty" for the mere fact that they (in this specific case) happen to prefer similar dress.
Guys, all of this - gun control, morality between the sheets, the clothes you choose to wear and the right against unreasonable search and seizure - is all connected and underlined by the same fundamental principle. Just as I don't appreciate some yuppie from Toronto telling me what firearms I should be allowed to own for the sake of public safety, I don't appreciate some cop telling all Canadians (which is what happens when you make a law) what styles of dress should be more appropriate for wear if you wish to avoid detainment. As I have before, I'll pull out Brad Sallows quote which helps to best encapsulate the debate:
Brad Sallows said:
The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored. OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.
Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you? How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness? Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?
I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.