We are living a crisis of morality in which leaders have difficulty distinguishing between what is right and wrong. Today, political leaders facing a legal obstacle to their agenda believe that all they have to do is change the law. So if the government stealing from people is illegal, all that one needs to do is change the law and call it “civil forfeiture“, and suddenly it becomes morally acceptable.
I recall reading a few years back a National Post article that brought up the question of lawmaking and morality came up. Fortunately, Mark Steyn, cites the money quote from George Jonas:
Back in the Trudeaupian golden age, you may recall, the great man’s barnstorming transformation of Canada was momentarily halted by a storm about barns. It emerged that some overzealous officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had burned down barns belonging to Quebec separatists. The press was briefly exercised over this, but M. Trudeau gave one of his famous shrugs and airily remarked that, if people were so upset by the Mounties burning down barns illegally, perhaps he’d make the burning of barns by the Mounties legal. As the great George Jonas commented:
“It seemed not to occur to him that it isn’t wrong to burn down barns because it’s illegal, but it’s illegal to burn down barns because it’s wrong. Like other statist politicians, Mr. Trudeau seemed to think his ability to set out for his country what is legal and illegal also entitled him to set out for his citizens what is right and wrong. He either didn’t see, or resented, that right and wrong are only reflected by the laws, not determined by them.”
The Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, is a moral embarrassment. Before he forced the FATCA IGA into law, it was illegal for the government of Canada, based on national origin discrimination, to give the financial information of Canadian citizens to a foreign government. But it is still wrong to do so, and it doesn’t matter how many laws Harper forces through Parliament, it will remain wrong.
Laws are man-made. Hitler and his regime had some doozies too- so many atrocities committed in the name of some “laws” which made murder and confiscation and antisemitism legal.
Laws are only as good as the people who make them.
But having said that, the Charter and the Constitution are supposed to safe-guard against abuse of the system. I will be eagerly awaiting the verdicts on the Charter challenge as well as the Bopp case.
This is where we ask, just what is law?? Laws are made in an effort to keep peace and order in every country in the world. When laws get tried in court, the outcome can be used as “case studies” and be applied to new challenges of the so called “law”. If this challenge wins, which I know it will easily, then it becomes proven and will stand. If this challenge loses, then wow, the whole charter is toilet paper and to hell with laws. We trust laws to keep us safe and to keep our rights protected. This challenge is a true test of Canadian laws. these are laws that have been clearly broken by our own government. If the government thinks they can change laws anytime to suit their needs, it is our job to show in court that they cannot do that. It is also our job to inform EVERY SINGLE CANADIAN of the actions of a corrupt government.
I very much enjoyed this scathing assessment of Harper’s lack of morality. Michael Harris gets it.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/02/19/everythings-harper-c-51-the-charter-and-the-unmaking-of-canada/
@Tricia Moon
Michael Harris mentions in this article that the Canada Revenue Agency is not bound by the Charter. If that’s true, what does that mean for the ADCS challenge?
June 26, 2014: Conservatives not doing enough to protect Charter, legal group thinks
From 2012: “What does Stephen Harper dislike that almost all Canadians like? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that’s what.”
From that article, just making the illustration more visible regarding Harper’s lack of morality…
and
@Marie
To my understanding, the CRA is not affected by the suit. It is against the Minister of National Revenue and the Attorney General. I should check the claim but I am in class at the moment. Bad Trishie LOL!
I am not sure but the changes to the Income Tax Act also would be covered by MNR as CRA is an agency not a Ministry. I will double check this.
@Calgary
Exactly!
@Petros
I love this post. Thanks for writing it. It reaffirms everything that we need to keep sight of and that is energizing.
Hope you are feeling better.
Why are you guys sweating about the laws that are in direct violation of constitution and bill of rights?
I mean the whole income tax in the U.S. is on the verge of legality. Technically nobody can force you to file tax returns even if you live in the U.S. , they can assess taxes but let them do the work and gather evidence.
A lots of Americans live in different countries and almost nobody I know ever talked about any problems, mainly because they don’t know they have to file tax returns and other things. It is a law but it is not enforced. From majority that never heard of FATCA, FBAR and CBT I know that nobody got into a trouble (yet).
“What if they start enforce it?” you may ask. Then it will hit the wall pretty hard, because no court can uphold a law that violates the constitution? Or am I too naive?
I am not saying to go and lie on tax forms. I am saying, if you live abroad, just don’t file in the first place!
@Johnny
The US americans you know will hear about FATCA, FBAR and CBT from their banks, if they haven’t already. That is the immediate — and very real — concern. It remains to be seen how long it will take for the IRS to contact people once it starts receiving customer data from FFIs. Just because it isn’t happening yet doesn’t mean it won’t once FFIs start reporting.
All laws are upheld (and then some) by enforcers until someone pays the lawyer fees to challenge their constitutionality.
The only thing I see binding US legislation to constitutionality is the oath that they take when going in to office, for which they cross their fingers while their lips are moving.
Well, gosh golly gee, I’d like to BURN DOWN the US’s barn; preferably that ugly looking piece of $%^& that they painted white because we burned it down the first time 203 years ago.
@notamused
It depends on the country, but I think that the whole thing was supposed to be rolled out by 2017.
FATCA has been really low profile in many countries. Here in Britain I suspect that lots of U.S. people are having their OMG moments regarding PFICs only now because it is heading toward the end of the UK tax year and this is the first year that the “no U.S. person” sign is going up on putting mutual funds into ISAs (which are like Canadian TFSAs). There is no U.S.-compliant fund you can put in a British ISA, so they have to move it all into cash or learn stock-investing really quickly (not a realistic option). Some U.S. persons are about to have a really miserable weekend.
@Publius
I think that part of the low profile is the fact that most people cannot believe that America would do something so heinous to them. They find out about it and in the beginning, they dont think it can be THAT bad. And then slowly they found out how truly confiscatory and ruinous their situation is. But at first there is this disbelief – similar to one`s thoughts about a parental figure- that our own government could ever do something that could actually ruin our retirement or bankrupt us – that they could wield a sword so murderous. Nobody wants to believe that- not even the homelanders. And I personally dont think this is even emphasised enough by us in the media. Everybody thinks it ain`t so bad.
Thanks @Petros… and many others who post here.
There is a moral case from the outset not to comply (while waving a CLN in one’s hand back and forth like a victory flag).
If the law was changed to “Every U.S. Person should shoot themselves when they reach the age of 60”, who would do it? Based on what rationale. It’s the law, stupid, SO JUST GO AHEAD AND PULL THE TRIGGER.
@Publius
FATCA has been quite low profile (as far as media coverage goes, at least) here in Germany as well. However, banks are generally being overly zealous about implementing FATCA and I would be very surprised to hear if any banks who had knowledge of their customers’ US person status didn’t confront them with it. Many banks no longer accept US persons as customers (or have already thrown them out). Some don’t even allow non-US persons who were born in the USA to open an account, which is something I particularly resent.
Almost 25 years ago, when I was young and it was still called Revenue Canada, I worked assessing tax returns. And drilled into our heads was the notion that Canadians’ tax information was a sacred trust. The idea was that without faith that it would be held confidential, people could not be expected to volunteer truthful information. We were reminded constantly to beware, that the RCMP or some other authority might ask for information–an address, an income figure–from a tax return, but to provide anything was a vile breach of confidentiality. If they had a warrant, we were reminded, they’d go through the proper channels. Now, between FATCA and Bill C51, it’s an info-sharing free-for-all, and trust is non-existent on all sides. And that makes it hard to imagine that honesty and integrity will survive in this country.
Leslie: Amen! … and thank you!
Leslie: Maybe I shouldn’t have said “amen” since it actually means “so be it”. 🙂 I meant to underline and agree with the final conclusion that you have drawn with regard to what the Canadian government has done by signing the FATCA IGA and concocting Bill C-51.
Thanks Petros….another home run!
@notamused:
but as I said from maybe 10 of my friends, US citizens, nobody was contacted yet. And nobody is even compliant as far as I know. Some of these friends are dual citizens so I guess they could have opened accounts using foreign documents?
Two of my friends, that are aware of FBAR, are actually pretty angry and we all believe that FBAR only provides information to US government that they couldn’t obtain themselves. That way one registers his assets at the government and the government will use it against you when convenient.
So it is just easier to play ignorant and not to file anything.
I understand FATCA is making it a little harder to escape, but I believe you can get second citizenship, can’t you?
Rick’s Mercer’s Rant – The State of Democracy (in Canada)
He has been talking with *young* Canadians — they would rather slam their heads into a wall than be involved with today’s political parties of Canada.
In other news, did anyone realize that the creator of the “Pet Rock” died? Gary Dahl passed away from COPD. My pet rock (unfortunately it’s not pedigreed, so it’s not a purebred Pet Rock…it’s evidently only one step away from gravel). I wish there was some way for my Pet Rock to meet Stephen Harper, but unfortunately I don’t think that the Pet Rock would be impressed nor would Stephen Harper (plus I have no interest in spending the night in jail).
The only thing that we can hope for is that Canadians wake up to the disaster that Stephen Harper represents and remove him from office. Though my idea of having several million people with Pet Rocks clamoring to meet Stephen Harper sounds much more appealing.
@The_Animal
Can’t afford the pet rock… we are heavily invested in Pokemon cards, mindcraft crap and Barbies… u wanna trade a hacked up Barbie with magic marker make-up for your pet rock?