Spark This
  • Spark This
  • About This
  • Subscribe To This
  • Search This

Asset Forfeiture Comes to Canada

1/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Should a man lose his home because police find some marijuana plants in his basement—in an illegal warrantless search, no less? David Lloydsmith was never charged with a crime, but British Columbia's Civil Forfeiture Office is attempting to seize his residence in civil court, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal court. Welcome to the new Canada, where governments fill their coffers with revenue from US-style "laws" that are the very antithesis of justice.

According to an in-depth Globe and Mail article published this past weekend, Ontario was first to introduce civil forfeiture legislation in Canada. It opened its Guilty Till Proven Innocent Office back in 2003. Seven other provinces now have similar legislation, but BC is apparently the one that's raking in the most cash. "The public has a very strong interest in seeing that people do not keep ill-gotten gains," says that province's Justice Minister, Suzanne Anton. Spoken like a true authoritarian who hasn't got the slightest inkling that anyone with power would ever abuse it.

Mr. Lloydsmith, by the way, has been on partial disability since breaking his back on the job. He says he started growing marijuana because he had trouble getting prescriptions for the drug. What a dangerous misfit. How dare he disobey his rulers. Clearly he needs to be punished before he guns down a busload of schoolchildren.

It's one thing if the cops impound a getaway car and sell it at auction once some bank robbers are tried and convicted. It's quite another if the government threatens to seize the home of a family who unwittingly rents to pot growers, as the BC government did to the Jang family in 2009. The Jangs, afraid of losing their home despite having committed no crime, settled out of court for a sizable sum, according to the Globe.

In response to the BC Justice Minister, it is not in the legitimate or long-term interest of "the public" to confiscate, or threaten to confiscate, the property of innocent people. On the contrary, we all have a strong interest in strictly limiting the power of those we pay to protect us, lest they succumb to delusions of grandeur and elect to turn that power against us.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Who Writes This

    Bradley Doucet is a Montreal writer and the English Editor of Le Québécois Libre.

    More of This

    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Even More of This

    The Limits of Power: A review of Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath

    Math Education Should Be Set Free

    Santa on Trial

    What Does Greenpeace Have Against Golden Rice?

    Dear Sugar Man: Does a Nation Really Need a Charter of Values?

    To Dream a Possible Dream: MLK’s Famous Speech, 50 Years Later

    The Cost of Regulation: Why It's Worth Thinking About

    Is Government a Necessary Evil? A Review of Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority

    The Planned Chaos of New Orleans, LA

    The Unplanned Order of Houston, TX

    Dynamists vs. Stasists: Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies, 15 Years Later