Canadian police getting Muslim hijbas!
- Thread starter Kiopa_Matt
- Start date
This is not true. You can and will be detained by the police until you have a trial.
The trial proves your guilt or innocence, but you're incarcerated in advance.
The only justification for that incarceration is that you're assumed to NOT be innocent, otherwise they would have to let you go.
Think it over. Question things.
They have to get a warrant for your arrest, showing that they have reason to believe a crime was committed (i.e. you can't just go arresting random people with hijabs).
And there is such a thing as Bail (introduced by the much maligned Richard III before he got usurped), which exists because it was recognised that the person might be innocent and mainly because at the time people were making all sorts of accusations in order to get someone incarcerated and then nicking their property while they weren't around to defend it. Bail has existed since 1484. It got briefly overturned by Charles I in the 17th century, but Parliament beheaded him for his pains and reinstated the law.
Ever since you could only get incarcerated as a group (ie. people with hijabs, or all Germans) if Parliament has passed an Act of War against your group and hence your civil rights don't exist any more and you are an enemy combatant covered under the Geneva convention instead (which allows imprisonment of enemies).
All this law went into Canadian law too - canada got dominion status in 1867 and inherited all this stuff.
As no Act of War has been passed against people with hijabs, the state cannot go around arresting them simply because they feel threatened by not seeing a woman's hair. Same thing with people who like to wear hoodies in the street.
This is an assumption of guilt.
You haven't been judged, you haven't been proven guilty, but you're being treated under the assumption you could be guilty.
The warrant is to charge you for an offence, and ask you to turn up to a trial to assess your innocence or guilt. You then get bailed. They only refuse to bail you if the prosecutor can prove that you are likely to run.
For further protection (an outcome of the English Civil War), law was passed to ensure that bails were not set unreasonably high. "Excessive bail ought not to be required" said the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and that law not only goes into the Canadian and Australian constitutions but into the American one too.
Julian Assange got bailed - and those providing the bail only had to sign a letter saying they would pay a sum if he ran, they didn't have to part with a penny till he actually decided to run instead of turning up to his trial (in scary Sweden).
It's good to question things - but you can waste an awful lot of time re-fighting battles that have already been fought and won, instead of concentrating on the battles of our time.
A big battle of our time is that the muslims are the new jews, and people who claim to be libertarian have a blind spot about collective guilt and collective punishment (not you, I hasten to add) - even as they assert that they arn't responsible for their neighbour's actions they simultaneously claim some poor hapless muslim in Britain or Canada is responsible for some action they didn't even know was happening in Indonesia or Afghanistan. And nobody points this out - at least nobody in power - that is the battle.
buddhist =! buddhist monk
if your logic is correct, then every Christians will be running around with their robes too.
C'mon, an average human only saw Buddhists in some TV program about exotic countries.
:xmas-smiley-022: