China Town case and MetCap CEO case.
Typical example of Police filing fake charges
against new immigrants.
1.
In 2012, a thief stole something from a shop in
Chinatown and ran away. Later the shopkeepers
caught him, brought him to the shop, tied him, called the police. The police came, charged the shopkeeper with
assault, forcible confinement and kidnapping.
At that time the media in China had asked only one question, when the
security in Walmart is arresting a person, why are you not charging the
security with assault, forcible confinement, kidnapping, why are you charging a
small shopkeeper for the same actions?
China warned Canada to treat its businessmen in a fair manner or face
the consequences.
2.
Canada panicked. The media invented a story that there
was no law in Canada for the protection of property. (If there was no law for the protection of
property, then why the security of Walmart were not
charged all these years?) Prime
Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper came running to Toronto, bought a bottle of maple
syrup from that shop, assured the shopkeeper of all help, bill C-26 was
enacted. After a year when the matter
went to court, Hon. Mr. Justice Khawley claimed that
the shopkeeper was the victim, the charges were dropped.
3.
Which means all these years they have been wrongly
convicting those who are innocent fully aware that they had not done anything
wrong. What about all other cases in the
past where shopkeepers were convicted and sent to prison? Why those Judges were never punished. Also, why wait for a year to drop the
Charges? Why they did not drop the
charges in the first instance? Now that
laws have been enacted for the protection of property, have they stopped
charging shopkeepers, homeowners or anyone who arrests thieves or tries to
protect their property? I asked the
Police Officer Mr. William Ng, #9683 who appeared as a witness in my
case whether he was aware of Bill C-26 for the protection of property. He said no, he did not know anything about
bill C-26 or any law for the protection of property. They still charge new immigrants, convict
them and send them to prison.
4.
In India, at the first hearing, a Magistrate will
examine the case and see whether prima facie there is a case, if not, the
charges are dropped at the first hearing.
Why that was not done in the China town case? Because here, the Judges, Crown Attorneys are
desperate to create employment for themselves, so, they dragged the case for a
year and then dropped the charges.
Anyone who is considered unfit for employment, studies some dumb subject
like B.A. Arts, then they study law, after which they expect to earn $225,000 a
year. Judges are paid $300,000 a
year. They appoint all their friends and
relatives to these positions, since there are not enough cases, they catch new
immigrants and harass them.
Doctrine of Absurdity:
5.
In law there is a doctrine called the doctrine of
absurdity. No law can be interpreted in
a manner where the law itself becomes absurd.
If you catch someone going on the street, arrest him and lock him up,
then that is assault, forcible confinement and kidnapping. How can catching a thief be equated to
that. If a convict escapes from a
prison, then it is a big crime, if the prison is on fire, the convict escapes,
later surrenders to the police, how can that be a crime? But, these people will argue, he has escaped
from the prison, hence he should be punished.
This is where you apply the doctrine of absurdity.
6.
On the other hand, were the shopkeepers commended for
catching the thief. They were
punished. If the thief is not caught,
then he will be emboldened, go steal in more places, as he knows that he will
not be caught. He might even use weapons
to steal, assault victims, might even kill them. He is a threat to the society. Psychologists will tell you that every
gangster started with petty thefts, when not caught, emboldened they committed
more crimes. So, the shopkeepers should
have been commended for catching the thief.
See below on, how the police in India, commend people who catch
criminals. Here, since there are too
many Crown Attorneys, Judges who have no work, they catch everyone, conduct
trials and create employment for themselves.
Chennai,
India: Commissioner of Police lauds
17-yr-old boy for nabbing chain-snatcher.
A
17-year-old boy became the centre of attraction in
Commissioner of Police office at Chennai on Thursday, as the top cop invited
and lauded him for his brave action that put a chain snatcher behind bars.
N.
Suryakumar (17) of Tirumangalam
chased a chain-snatcher named Janakiraman in Anna
Nagar. “On Tuesday evening, Janakiraman was visiting Dr Amudha (50), a gynaecologist, at her clinic in Anna Nagar pretending to be
a patient seeking doctor’s advice. But he allegedly snatched her 10 sovereign
gold chain and fled the spot,” the police said.
But
the young Surya, a tailor’s son, seeing the snatcher fleeing the spot, Suryakumar chased him and threw some punches on Janakiraman’s face before handing him over to the police.
The CCTV cameras elaborately captured the whole scene.
After coming to know about the
bravery of the teen, city police commissioner A.K. Viswanathan
invited the boy to his office and commended him for his bravery.
Additional Commissioner (South) M.C. Sarangan,
Additional Commissioner (North) H.M. Jayaram and
Joint Commissioner (East) T S Anbu also lauded the
boy.
Delhi,
India: Police reward those who catch
thieves for bravery:
Catch
a thief in Metro, get Rs 1,000: 59 bravehearts rewarded by Delhi Police. Delhi Police handed Ansar and 58 others like him, a reward of Rs 1,000 and a certificate of bravery each for nabbing a
thief on Metro trains.
7.
In India, if a Judge deliberately wrongly convicts you,
then the Judge goes to jail. In Canada,
encourage them by protecting them.
8.
All of you will remember how the MetCap
CEO tried to run over protesting renters.
The police never charged him.
Watch the video here.
Metcap
CEO ploughing through protestors in his pickup truck.
9.
If that had been a new immigrant ploughing through
protestors, the Judges would have put him in jail. The rich have exemptions from laws.