Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
If we’re going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without “reasonable grounds” the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That’s not an investigation, that’s walking up to a guy in the street and going “Yo, did this guy do any crimes?” What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?
As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they’re still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can’t just break into someone’s house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That’s it. They’re not Sherlock Holmes.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leaking military info (and why would the US even care?), but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
This is why a full investigation must take place. Until then we have no proof that the meeting did not violate paragraph b.
Paragraph B is the kicker, because we do know they met with a foreign power that has stated it wants to expand into Canada.
Hi there, you seem to be confused about how laws work in Canada. See, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have this crazy notion that civil rights do in fact matter.
That includes the right not to be subject to investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime. There being no evidence that someone has not committed a crime is not a reasonable basis for an investigation.
Do you drive? Prove you haven’t ever committed vehicular manslaughter. Do you own bolt cutters? Prove you’ve never used them to break and enter. Do you have alcohol or weed in your home? Prove you’ve never sold them to minors. Have you ever been near a school? Prove you’re not a child rapist.
See how this works? Saying that someone was in a situation where they could have a comitted a crime cannot be the basis for a criminal investigation, or else we’d be investigating everyone, all the time.
The Alberta separatists are pathetic scumbags, but they’re not automatically criminals just because you don’t like what they did. That’s toddler logic.
I think you’re mistaking “investigation” with “prosecution” or something else. The cops can investigate literally anyone. You can hire a PI to investigate anyone.
There are limits however on what investigative actions can be legally taken by cops based on the evidence they have. Even with no evidence, they can still do things like interview people who know the POI, even follow them around in public. They can’t, for example, detain them and beat a confession out of them, or search their house willy nilly.
If we’re going to get technical, yes, there are extremely limited forms of investigative action that could be taken based on a broad suspicion. But without “reasonable grounds” the police are forbidden from interviewing suspects, detaining people, or performing any form of search or seizure. That’s not an investigation, that’s walking up to a guy in the street and going “Yo, did this guy do any crimes?” What on earth do you imagine would come out of that beyond wasting police time?
As for your comparison with private detectives, do I really have to explain that constraints on state power only apply to state actors? Private detectives are, by definition, private individuals. And they’re still basically constrained in all the same ways anyway, because you can’t just break into someone’s house or hack their computer. I know PIs in Canada. 100% of what they investigate falls into exactly two camps; infidelity, and insurance fraud. That’s it. They’re not Sherlock Holmes.
It’s unlikely that these dorks are leaking military info (and why would the US even care?), but they should definitely be investigated. I think the real question is whether the US are using “force or violence”, which would fall under C) and A)
I’m getting real sick of people ignoring 3/4 of the shit they’re supposedly quoting.
For some reason a lot of y’all wanna bend over backwards to defend this shit.
🙄
Pray tell, what would these dumbfucks even know about science that it’s worth leaking?
Bent so far back you’re crowning.
“anything I don’t like is treason”
No, you’re just ignorant of history and have your head up your ass.