Saturday, July 30, 2016

Canadian Fascism Has Arrived!

Coupled with Turdeau's intention to let StatsCan demand any and all info it wants from you, on pain of jail-time, comes the latest Supreme Court "ruling" proving Justices don't understand the Law at all!

In the Ottawa Citizen (via The Canadian Press) Saturday, July 30, 2016, P.#NP5:

From here and here:

Circumstantial evidence can be enough in child porn cases: top court

Joanna Smith

The Supreme Court of Canada says circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict someone of possessing child pornography.

In a decision Friday, the high court ruled unanimously that the Crown does not have to disprove any other possible explanation for how child pornography ends up on a computer owned by an accused.

Right at the same time Turdeau is approving Harper's Bill C-51 which gives cops and spies full warrantless access to your emails! How convenient!

“‘Other plausible theories’ or ‘other reasonable possibilities’ must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation,” Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote in the 32-page decision.

“Of course, the line between a ‘plausible theory’ and ’speculation’ is not always easy to draw.

That's because there is no line between these two synonyms for subjective "opinions," you assholes!

But the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty.”

The decision concerned the case of Oswald Villaroman, who took his laptop to a Calgary computer shop for repairs in December 2009, and a service technician contacted the police after discovering child pornography downloaded through a file-sharing program.

A judge convicted Villaroman of child pornography possession following a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence such as the fact that he owned the computer, which had only one user account labelled with his name.

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction last year, ruling the trial judge had erred excluding other possibilities as to how the pornography ended up on his computer.

Which made perfect sense, since "file-sharing programs" like TOR have their own Folders and switch and swap files in and out of users' computers all the time without their specific knowledge or assent!

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appeal judgment Friday, setting aside the acquittal.

The high court also handed a separate Charter of Rights issue related to the search and seizure of the laptop back to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which means Villaroman will have another chance to argue his case in the appeal court.

In asking the Supreme Court to consider the case, the Crown argued requiring prosecutors to disprove all other possible conclusions concerning the presence of pornography would increase the burden of proof to an impossible degree.

Like, say, cops or spies having unlimited email access without warrants, planting same on your PC?

The Crown said this could have a devastating impact on the ability to prosecute child pornography cases and others that rely on circumstantial evidence.

i.e: "Think Of The Children!" This emotive appeal trick was last tried by Vic Toewes under Harper!

The lawyers representing Villaroman, however, said the trial judge had simply erred in finding the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a case where the prosecution had brought virtually no evidence of possession.

(Like, if there was evidence he had created his own kiddie-porn Folder, separate from the TOR one).

The Supreme Court affirmed Friday that a judge or jury should consider other plausible theories and reasonable possibilities that point to innocence, and this might sometimes require the Crown to show why they would not apply.

But the high court agreed with the trial judge that this need not extend into the realm of make-believe.

Extending their own make-believe insistence that one must prove a negative (prove one is innocent)!

“The Court of Appeal, my respectful view, erred by focusing on hypothetical alternative theories and, at times, engaging in speculation rather than on the question of whether the inferences drawn by the trial judge, having regard to the standard of proof, were reasonably open to him,” Cromwell wrote.

The Supreme Court acknowledged there were “gaps” in the evidence the Crown presented at trial, but the appeal court went too far in analyzing those gaps, effectively retrying the case.

Did he transfer the kiddie-porn files from the TOR folder to one of his own making, or not, tards?!

“In my view, while not every trier of fact would inevitably have reached the same conclusion as did the trial judge, that conclusion was a reasonable one,” Cromwell wrote.

How's it "reasonable" if cold hard reason and logic (aka scary "facts," to you libtards) weren't used?!

The Supreme Court did not set any new rules for instructing juries on how to deal with circumstantial evidence, but did suggest that in cases that rely only, or largely, on circumstantial evidence, it might be “helpful” for a judge to caution the jury about its limits.

The example Cromwell gave was looking out the window, seeing the road is wet and assuming it had been raining.

A closer look, however, might reveal that the sidewalks are dry, or that a sound that could be coming from a street-cleaning truck can be heard in the distance.

“The inferences that may be drawn from this observation must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.”


With Justin Trudeau’s approval, Statistics Canada is looking to expand their powers on a massive scale in Canada.

They want to be able to force you to hand over any data file they deem relevant, under punishment of law.

Here, let me explain:
In the policy paper that Statistics Canada has put out, they ask for the power over "any organization" to obtain "any data file" at any time. Here's the quote:
that the Agency can require any organization to provide any data file in its possession, that originates with that organization, to Statistics Canada for statistical purposes.
They want all of your files, a classic "Big Brother" move.
If you don't want a government organization to have this much power, then please sign our petition at
This is a privacy invasion of law-abiding citizens on par with the worst excesses of the NSA in the United States, and it needs to be stopped.
So please sign our petition and send the Trudeau government a loud and clear message that you don’t support these invasive measures.
Statistics Canada is asking the government for these powers, and Trudeau surely wants them. But no decision has been made yet. So now is the time to act.
Remember, I'm on your side,
Brian Lilley
P.S. Please help spread the word. Type into your status on Facebook and forward this email to your friends and family.

No comments: