The crazy descent into madness
By Jane Gaffin
web posted May 27, 2013
Back in 2002, the Liberals, who can't be relied on to predict accurate weather information 24 hours in advance, embarked in the horrorscope business of predicting what crimes people were destined to commit in the future.
Specifically, they think kids are killers.
Two educators were interviewed on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio about the merits of a new Yukon education program. Teachers, school counsellors, police officers and others of the law system would participate.
The predictive, preventive, proactive initiative was designed to supposedly weed out students who march to the beat of a different drummer.
Exactly who is qualified to make the determination of who is a "threat to public safety" and "a high risk to offend" is an unknown, unless these educators have a pipeline to the Almighty.
But the program would undoubtedly tug at public and parental heartstrings and garner approval. "Whatever is necessary to be safe," people chant, robotically. The program was ostensibly touted as a measure to prevent another school shooting like occurred at Colorado's Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, and the copycat shooting eight days later at the W.R. Myers High School in Taber, Alberta.
This model, based on recommendations flowing from the Colorado Governor's Columbine Review Commission, may have been well-intentioned but was open to abuse. It employs the Orwellian-style approach of encouraging students to tattle on other students as well as on their own parents.
Five common denominators were cited in both school incidents: the assailants were victims of bullying; they found solace in computers; were ingesting prescribed drugs for depression or hyper-activity; had discussed their plans with others beforehand and nobody reported it; and had obtained the guns from their own homes.
But "zero-tolerance" programs of this ilk obviously reach far beyond the pretended goal of simply keeping violence and guns out of schools. The Whitehorse community had already witnessed the damage that paranoid bureaucrats can do when arbitrarily targeting an exemplary citizen and family man as "a threat to society".
The accusers ("us"), for some inexplicable reason, are always right; the defendants ("them") are always wrong. Yet the accusers don't have degrees or licenses to practice psychiatry, nor are they analyzed for their own mental stability, character and motives.
Regardless, their assessments of "emotional unstable" and "madman" stick and are willingly swallowed by the police, leaving the accused only with denial as an ineffectual defense and a $100,000 legal bill.
Rules are rules and must be obeyed. Any person who doesn't fit the textbook description of politically-correct social thought and behavior is a sinner of the first order who must be punished.
This social re-engineering was a Liberal scheme paralleling the tactics of Josef Stalin, the lunatic butcher of the Kremlin who eliminated millions of "undesirables" by instructing his secret police to hunt down and charge his "enemies" as "crazy".
Some dissidents received one-way tickets to deplorable insane asylums, psihuskas, where they underwent cruel experimentations, or were whisked off to a secret gulag camp to endure inhumane treatment; mostly, however, the courts levied verdicts of death by firing squad.
Except for the firing squad, the same scenario was playing out in Canada. Anybody whose behavior could be construed as "agitated", "subversive", "anti-liberal", or "antipolice" could be tagged as "crazy" or with some other equivalent mentally-ill term.
The person would then be charged with whatever law or non-law was handy. Even "unemployment" is a red flag, denoting financial problems and low self-esteem that leads to societal violence. The accused would then be put to trial in a kangaroo court and locked away for 10 or more years, just like the political prisoners of any dictatorship throughout history.
Another illustration of what happens when power-hungry employees are "conditioned", two federal librarians once banned a long-time local resident from access to a specialty resource library located in a building known as Red Square, for good reason.
These paranoiacs didn't like the man's looks and clothes, although he looked like some other field men who frequented the facility. Nevertheless, these babes, convinced that this "stranger" had a gun or a bomb to plant in the stacks, were ready to pull out the bear spray. Instead, they cooled their jets and requested a bank of security buzzers be installed to provide police protection against "dangerous patrons".
This type bureaucratic overkill is scary. Yet the heavy-handed national police force uses these fairy tales to obtain search warrants (or go warrantless) to raid homes, seize guns and lay whatever trumped-up criminal charges suits them.
Their objective has consistently been to remove guns from the hands of private ownership; now it's based on the pretense of removing guns from homes to prevent another school shooting.
If grown men have difficulty protecting themselves against such unjust bureaucratic witch hunts, what possible chance do innocent youths have who are wrongly crucified by these state vultures?
Advancing a crystal-ball gazing method of "prediction" will hardly prevent a school shooting. In fact, the program could easily backfire and trigger one.
It can plant the idea into the scrambled minds of kids who are ingesting illegal street drugs or are overdosed by medical doctors on mind-altering prescription drugs. Those who crave attention or have reached the age of rebellion will do exactly the opposite of what they think the authorities don't want them to do.
The Liberals hoped the reverse psychology worked. Sociopathic government organizations were waiting in the wings to choreograph another Columbine as an excuse to tighten the screws on gun-control laws.
The gun advocates had gained too much urban support since the box-cutter wielding terrorists attacked America in 2001. In Canada, anti-gun nuts needed another Montreal Massacre to regain lost ground.
Then the Marxists could easily turn up the heat on politicians to toughen what is already an unconstitutional firearms law, so draconian the U.S. government recently adopted it as a prototype to introduce registration, confiscation and/or a lifetime gun prohibition based on fluff "mental disorders".
Twitchy soothsayers started branding youths as "bullies" for engaging in natural boyish "dust-up" wrestling matches in the school yard. That appraisal could lead to a youth being expelled from school or sent off for psychiatric evaluation and a stay in a mental ward. Parents could be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation and/or treatment as well.
Meanwhile, the police will scan the FIPS, FAPS and FARTS registries for any sign of guns in the household where the marked student resides and contact his chums, family and neighbors.
By virtue of the Canadian Firearms Act 1995, all are guilty by association, even if they are not gun owners. If the "associates" are gun owners, the police will seize their property, too. One way or the other, guns are going to be ultimately sacrificed to the state.
What better excuse for confiscation than for the police to link gun owners with youths the state has predicted to be at "high-risk to offend"--and the child may be yours! Or a child of a friend living next door or two hundred miles away.
But nobody can object to the government wanting to remove temptation from the hands of a potential killer, can they? That's a hard one to rebuff. Still, the police's campaign to cleanse Yukonslavia, or the whole of Kanuckistan, of guns is about as effective as spitting into a willawaw.
Anybody bent on having guns and can't latch onto them legally, can acquire them from the black market. If all else fails, they can construct their own from instructions found in books and on the Internet.
Under Section 55 of the firearms act, police are authorized to question anybody about a gun owner who is accused of "suspicious" behavior or whose "suspicious" registration form was red-flagged in the computer. The gun owner's license will be suspended and the guns confiscated if the snoop troops happen to interview a complainant who feels the gun owner is "a threat to society".
There are no provisions for the accused--gun owners or not--to defend himself against nasty, treacherous, bitter, vindictive, mean-spirited individuals or the muscle-flexing, badge-bearing bureaucratic bullies who have too much discretionary power.
While the accusers are protected with total impunity, the constitutional rights of innocent Canadians are shredded. Those gun owners who tried to comply with the law dutifully registered their guns. That was handy for the police. It's easier for the state to confiscate personal property when the police know where you live and what you own--and is the very reason U.S President Obama is trying to railroad Canadian firearm law into his country.
Regardless of what gun owners do or don't do about the paperwork, the police are going to learn whether an individual owns guns by interrogating the kids at school. The police are banking on the probability that most parents taught their offsprings not to lie, notwithstanding that the government has made liars out of us all.
By 2013, the Yukon's department of Education had blindly skipped ahead with a special section that houses a "threat-assessment" team who mentally evaluate students who 4 of 7 make "threatening remarks", although nobody seems to know precisely what constitutes a "threatening remark".
The bureaucratic moralizers continue to labor under the belief that they can somehow "predict" and "prevent" youths from committing a crime they probably haven't even thought about doing.
This rash political notion was instigated despite the 2001 warnings from a Yukon territorial judge, well-versed in young offender cases, while presiding over the trial of a 17-year-old cocaine abuser whose fists were the weapon of choice when inflicting lifethreatening injuries to a 19-year-old man.
A concerned mother of another teen, assaulted by the same youth on trial, told the court she had spoken to the police about crime and young offenders. She suggested maybe some outside professional help would assist in averting some of these horrible crimes before they happened.
The judge responded that the court can't round up people on the street because authorities think they're a high risk to maybe do something. "Court is reactive, not predictive," he reminded. "We can do a lot of harm if we intervene too soon. We don't want to be proactive, pulling people out of their homes."
However, the system is "predictive" and "proactive" toward gun owners, pointing to adults as a high risks to commit offenses without any valid reason. Police training films illustrate an act of violence as one in which a man displays irritation by slamming a pop can on the ground.
The insane adoption of unjust people-control policies, programs and passing unlawful legislation started with unconstitutional provisions embedded in the Canadian Firearms Act of 1995.
The firearms law, which carries an intent to jail more citizens, has actually effected everybody. It violates natural-born rights in order for the government to usher in more statutes that tamper with thought-control processes in an attempt to shape the human mind and behavior into a one-size-fits-all pattern.
With the passing of the firearms act, "rule of law" and "due process of law' were rendered obsolete. Non-gun owners did not realize nor care that anti-constitutional provisions were written into the firearms law to eventually bit them on the butt, too.
For instance, it has opened the doors to property forfeiture laws and given leeway for hotshot law enforcers, acting with impunity, to arrest, cuff and search pedestrians without warrant or valid reason. http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/mansarrest- was-unreasonable-commission/
The firearms act was been used as a template for a number of freedom-sucking federal and provincial acts as a method for Canada to harmonize its laws with the United Nations' dictates.
One was the unconstitutional Anti-Terrorism Act that was ready for tabling immediately following the anticipated 9-11, 2001 attack on America; another was the unconstitutional Combating Terrorism Act (S-7), quickly advanced after an alleged staged bombing event at the Boston marathon run of April 15, 2013.
As expected, the Yukon education department's "proactive" approach has merged into the next politically-correct phase of government making wrongful accusations against innocent gun owners and rambunctious kids.
The multi-killings at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 serves as a very useful purpose, as has previous school shootings.
As per the Canadian firearms model which prohibits "mentally-ill" people from owning guns, the U.S.--another lapdog to the United Nations--has given researchers the greenlight and greenbacks to pull a languishing brain-mapping project off the shelf to unleash on the unsuspecting public.
The objective of this non-scientific farce is to brainwash the impressionable populace into believing that a group of mad quacks can somehow stop murders simply by conjuring up predictions based on sketching the interior of the head.
In fact, the deceptive project is nothing more than another government machination for grabbing guns and controlling people. The authorities, who will be making all sorts of outrageous predictions about who is likely to kill other people, will want the unaware rounded up before they "snap".
Unsuspecting people will be forced into psych wards--maybe without a judge's order--to undergo psychiatric analysis and be stupefied with psychotropic drugs. If the victim doesn't have supportive family and friends with access to cash, the chances of the patient's release are negligible.
It's more totalitarianism ladled out like the old Soviet-style accusation method, only in the name of "science" augmented with dollops of p.r. and "high-tech computer models".
One shrink offering some sanity to this moronic fray is psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances who chaired the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), published nearly 20 years ago. Dr. Frances--as well as a handful of colleagues who obviously aren't beholding to Big Pharma kickbacks--was demonized for his criticism of DSM-5 (Arabic replaced the Roman numerals), published in May, 2013.
They're determined to pin you with some mental malady. The latest edition of the socalled "bible of the psychiatry business" has dumped an assortment of new mental disorders into the mixture that sent the previous numbers leaping from an already mindboggling 250 in 1994 to a current 297. Dr. Frances bluntly told writer Gary Greenberg, whose article "Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness" appeared in Wired Magazine on December 27, 2010: "There is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it. These concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries."
Harkening back to the 1990s, diagnosticians trusted the Democrats' long list of mental deficiencies to embark on their fishing expeditions to net "mentally-ill" people. They were in psychiatric heaven. HillaryCare was allowing them to prey on everybody for anything: talking loudly; drinking coffee; using tobacco; reading the Bible; owning a gun...and the list has continued to expand exponentially ever since.
In the last few years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Securities has joined the mania. Anybody diagnosed as "certifiable" (and DHS is going after virtually everybody except government-employed psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists, lunatics and other assorted weirdoes) automatically places the accused in the category of unadulterated "terrorist" which translates into "legalized bait" for admittance to a "psychiatric ward" or an old Soviet-style "reeducation (prison) camp".
Underneath this "proactive" master plan is a devious ruse to con leaders of sovereign
nations to abandon their respective constitutions in favor of embracing the United
Nations' crazy descent into a one-world government madness that promises to reduce
the masses to globalist-controlled prisoners.
Jane Gaffin, a freelance writer based in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, can be contacted at janegaffin@northwestel.net.