No law, No Crime

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
No Law. No Crime
What a great idea! I realise that there needs to be a few laws but not proliferated at the extent they are now. We had laws for most things and now there's stacks and stacks of legislated laws being passed everyday.
Most of the new laws being created seem to mess the system up even more than it already is. Just think if we continued to take out laws that mean nothing and don't do a good job of governing. What a great idea!
Just passing new laws only serve the bureaucrats by making the public think they are actually doing something with all their time, energy and money.
Just a thought to discuss. Just think if we worked at taking laws out of the system instead of creating a police state globally. We would need less government. Less laws. Less police. Less bureaucracy. Less news. Less of pretty much everything we don't need on this planet.

chancy

[robinr1]

no victim no crime

[Matt P]

I'm not sure I've ever noticed a single law that applies to me. In fact, I ignore any that I find ridiculous, without a second thought or guilt. I'm far from perfect but does a moral person need any laws? I have always thought a good way to live is to do no harm to others or their property or to the environment. So long as you follow this "law" all should be well. Of course, that's my perfect world and I understand there's not many others that share my philosophy so I'm probably glad there are laws...for the others. It's always about those other people, right? Though our lawmakers never get the laws right because the same people that destroy and kill are the ones that make the laws. I could probably go in circles on this for hours.

Matt

[edit: so as soon as I posted I notice robinr1's post and it reminded me of one of my favorite books of all time, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do, by the late Peter McWilliams]

[Ernie Nemeth]

I was just this moment thinking about something very similar.

At first I thought anarchy would be my choice, but I realized that anarchy among the masses of today would result in chaos.

So I think individual sovereignty is the only fair and reasonable alternative. That encompasses the "no victim, no crime" concept but it implies more. Because to be sovereign, one must "know", "understand" and "adopt" a more comprehensive world view. To be sovereign is to be responsible for one's own decisions: to be able to assess incoming information without bias and act in accordance with universal law. Much of that is just respect for others and love for all that lives.

Problem is: very few uphold that notion the way it is intended and fewer still would ever rise to protect it or cherish it the way it must - if freedom and peace are truly the goal.

[OMG]

http://kentfreedommovement.com/profi...l-jeremy-locke

[A Voice from the Mountains]

"No victim, no crime" sounds about right to me.

The ancient Greeks had a lot to say about this. Particularly the Athenians who had the first democratic government and had to decide amongst themselves what was right or wrong to do and why.

[Nasu]

I had a fencing master who had this as his mantra, make no rules.. The way he explained it was simple, humans by their very nature are imaginative creatures so when we see a rule, our minds show us how to circumnavigate it. Thus rules have to grow or multiply in order to compensate for mans ingenuity.

For example, no feet up on the table, rule one. Someone puts their shoes only on the table, rule two, no shoes on the table. People start sitting on the table, rule three, no sitting on the table. Someone turns the table over and stands on it, rule four, no turning the table over to stand on... Etc, etc, etc. one rule becomes one hundred over time.... N

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
I have an article here that explains why we don't continually need new laws in real time.
chancy

Link:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/anti-terro...100000728.html


Article:
New anti-terror bill could put chill on freedom of speech
CBCCBC – 7 hours ago - January 29, 2015

Reuters/REUTERS - Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa January 28, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Wattie (CANADA - Tags: POLITI …more

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last weekend that new anti-terror legislation to be introduced on Friday will, among other things, “criminalize the promotion of terrorism.”

Such a move, however, could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada and would not necessarily contribute to effectively fighting domestic extremism, according to legal experts.

The new bill aimed at combating domestic threats was promised by the federal government in the weeks following the October attacks in Quebec and Ottawa that left two members of the Canadian Forces dead.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested that the measures would, among a host of other consequences, allow authorities to target materials that may be contributing to the radicalization of Canadians, particularly online.

The new bill, however, is largely a knee-jerk response to October’s attacks and Canada already has the necessary laws on the books to pursue and prosecute people promoting hatred or inciting violence, says Kent Roach, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in constitutional and terrorism law.

“The government has the burden before they introduce new laws to demonstrate why it’s not possible to prosecute these kinds of offences under existing Canadian law,” he says.

“There’s a real danger when we make laws in reaction to events with the assumption that those laws will help prevent tragedies from happening again.”

[ Related: CSE's project: Expert says spy agencies 'drowning in data' and unable to follow leads ]

Government officials have repeatedly stated that any new legislation would be drafted in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will not infringe on freedom of expression and religion.

'Glorification' offences

Similar legislation criminalizing the "glorification" of terrorist acts exists in several European countries, and MacKay said last year that the government was reviewing specific laws in the U.K. as a possible template.

Earlier this month, Roach co-authored a working paper with Craig Forcese, an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa, that analyzed the prospect of a Canadian law targeting glorification of terrorism offences.

Pushing the limits on what kinds of speech are considered criminal may put a "chill" on the dialogue around terrorism, they wrote, particularly in communities where discussing the issues around radicalization and extremism is most critical.

"There are at least two concerns about speech chill: will people not talk about controversial topics because they’re worried about being charged under a new offence? And second, will it drive potentially radicalized individuals further underground?" says Roach.

When people don’t feel free to talk about the political, religious and ideological elements of extremism, Canadian society won’t be able to address the underlying forces that drive people toward radicalization and, in some cases, to acts of violence, says University of Waterloo sociology and legal studies professor Lorne Dawson.

'It's silencing'

Dawson does extensive research within communities dealing with radicalization. He says many people are already reluctant to speak openly about the subject.

"If we expand our laws, it will stoke the fear that people are susceptible to prosecution just by the suggestion that that they may empathize in part with the world view of people that are considered terrorists, but they themselves would never do anything violent or hateful," says Dawson.

"There is already an increasing sense that it is a forbidden topic — it’s too potentially dangerous and words could be misconstrued or misunderstood. It’s silencing."

While there is no question that extremist networks use the internet to communicate and promote their causes, mounting evidence has shown online activity is not always a driving force on the path to radicalization.

"The internet might be a facilitator, but it’s not the cause," says Forcese, who argued in his paper with Roach that contact with a charismatic thought leader is almost certainly the strongest influence on those moving toward extreme viewpoints.

The RCMP has already begun developing an anti-radicalization program in conjunction with local police forces, and if a community leader was inciting people to join extremist movements, their actions are already illegal under the Criminal Code.

Making 'martyrs' of ideas

Similarly, stifling speech plays into the narrative promoted by many extremist groups that Western societies are hypocritical to espouse free speech values while repressing contradictory views. In essence, says Forcese, these kinds of laws can make "martyrs of ideas" and speech that lie within the definition of protected speech.

The ultimate result is to provide propagandists and recruiters in foreign groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, which are far out of reach of Canadian law, another weapon in their arsenal.

"Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists," says Scott Stewart, vice-president of tactical analysis at Stratfor, a U.S.-based private intelligence and consulting firm.

"They are trying to provoke further attacks and if the response reinforces their perspective on the state of the world, then it ends up helping their cause."

On the other hand, it can be helpful to provide resource-strapped counterterrorism forces with additional tools in the uphill battle against homegrown threats. That was the fundamental basis for the laws that were passed in the U.K., and Stewart says Canada’s new legislation could be sculpted in the image of those laws.

While critics of the U.K.’s approach to glorification offences argue there is room for abuses, particularly when it comes to the expression of political and religious ideologies, "the British have addressed the possibility of overstepping by surgically applying the laws," says Stewart.

Enforcement of existing laws

While the U.K.’s efforts have arguably been effective, "Canada can already accomplish what the U.K. has done in terms of most prosecutions" under laws already in place, Roach and Forcese wrote.

"It seems to me that Canada’s legal house is pretty much in order," says Roach. "The problem in Canada is not that the laws aren’t on the books, but rather the enforcement of those laws."

For example, Canadian legislation allows for a judge to issue a warrant that would force internet service providers or individual websites to take down material if it can be shown that it falls outside of constitutionally protected speech.

The kinds of terrorist propaganda targeted by U.K. law could largely fall under this category in Canada, according to Roach.

Interestingly, there’s no publicly available evidence that the provision has ever been used by Canadian law enforcement since being enacted shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

He points to a history of co-operation between MI-5, the U.K.’s domestic intelligence agency, and police forces throughout the country as the primary reason for the U.K.’s ability to keep tabs on homegrown extremism.

'Political posturing'

CBC News reported earlier this month that the new anti-terror legislation will likely include provisions to allow increased information-sharing between federal agencies, currently limited by privacy laws.

Ultimately, pushing the limits of criminalized speech in the digital age "is not going to stop the spread of information and it’s not going to reduce the flow of propaganda," asserts Dawson.

Rather, it is intended to convey the message that Canada as a nation is trying to do something to combat domestic threats.

"It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy."

[conk]

In a perfect world there would be only two laws.

1. Harm no others.
2. Do as you say you'll do.

Today we have something far worse than laws and that is an obscene abundance of regulations. Hundreds issued daily. Government agencies issuing regulations that are enforced as if written into law by Congress, which of course they are not.

[genevieve]

As U.S. citizens (don't know that other countries would be any different), we are subject to the laws (rules and regulations) for members of the U.S. Corporation. CORPORATION = COMPANY (like Wal-Mart)

In order to make it clear that you're not a member/employee of the company/corporation, you can rescind your voter registration, which registration is clear evidence you consider yourself "one of theirs" and are agreeing to be subject to all their rules.

Then you can abide by Natural Law (harm no one or their property and honor your contracts) and have a chance at not getting sucked into the money-making control scam of the corporation.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

[jerry]

the police taking a strike attitude over the murders of a couple of their comrades in NY served as a great example of how bad we don't need the rudimentary rules and regs used to extract wealth

[Ernie Nemeth]

Ten years ago, I was completely legally working in my trade. Today I am a criminal for doing the same. That's how they do it. Take a section of society and define them into a sub-group, then use that definition to marginalize them using legislative interference.
Not to mention the vested interests that push for restrictive legislation.
It's old hat for the elite and those little people THAT STAND TO GAIN BY SIDING WITH THE ENEMY!