Published on this site July 31, 2001. A similar article was published in French in Le Devoir.
An Unspeakable Contempt for Police Canada
The 18th-century English writer known under the pseudonym of Junius said, “The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.” Indeed.
"Police Canada" is the name we have to give to the cartel of state organizations that has brought administrative tyranny to this country over the last few decades. It's spear-head is now the infamous Canadian Firearms Centre.
Since the C-17 so-called law of 1991 and the C-68 so-called law of 1995, all firearm owners are forced, every five years, to beg again for the “privilege” of owning their firearms (even hunting guns), and to fill in a form where Police Canada asks questions about their private lives. Hundreds of thousands (according to federal estimates) or probably a few millions (according to more realistic estimates) of Canadians have become paper criminals liable to 10 years in jail because they have not obtained the new permits.
Since the last “law” came into force (the term is well chosen), I purchased hunting firearms that had to be registered before I took them out of the gun shop. “Registered” means identified, with their owner, in the new central registry that replaced the registries that were previously maintained by gun shops. Police Canada therefore has evidence that I own these guns, and I would be a too easy victim if I did not take some steps to renew my licence.
For the second time in my life, I filled in the obscene form and, on June 29, sent it to the Sûreté du Québec which, in this province, administers the so-called laws on behalf of Police Canada. At 53 years of age, I have been asked again with whom I sleep. In order to reclaim my individual dignity and to prepare future actions, I crossed the boundaries of the bureaucratic questionnaire. Moreover, I have put my entire form on the web (at www.pierrelemieux.org/policecanada.html) in order that everybody may see what this jungle of so-called laws actually is.
Take question 19d: “During the past five years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for depression, alcohol, drug or substance abuse, behavioural problems, or emotional problems?”
In answering this or other questions, a person who “knowingly makes a statement … that is false or misleading, or knowingly fail to disclose any information” is, under their so-called law, committing a crime punishable by a maximum of five years in jail. On the other hand, a positive answer means that one has to “provide details on a separate page.” This will trigger an investigation, further questions, and perhaps a medical or psychological report.
Question 19e asks, “During the past five years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?”
Question 27 forces the applicant to list the legal or common-law spouses with whom he has lived over the past two years. Question 26 forces the applicant to identify his actual spouse. And there is question 19f: “During the past two years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?” I refused to answer this question and, as can be verified on the web, I wrote, in lieu of an answer, “My love affairs are none of your business.”
Not only does the applicant need the signatures of two guarantors plus a validated photograph, but he must also, in a country where compulsory ID papers are not supposed to exist, provide official ID with an official number. I had no choice but to comply, and I gave the number of my Canadian passport, which can be seen on the Web. I thus threw their own number back at them.
In the annex, I asked, “Why do I need to be numbered and to have an ‘official piece of identification with a number’? Like cattle or slaves? Did you know that, in this country, we used to live without being constantly numbered by the State?”
I embellished their form with two stickers. One, inspired by the famous TV series The Prisoner with Patrick McGoohan, says, “Be seeing you! A message from Police Canada.” The other one recalls that “The French Canadians have owned firearms without asking permission during four centuries (until 1997).”
At least we can still express opinions. Perhaps.
If Police Canada does not renew my licence before August 11, I will be an official criminal liable to ten years in jail. Although I have other things to do in life, I think we have a moral obligation to resist to these “laws” which are violent, anti-liberty, and contrary to our traditions. It is difficult to convey my unspeakable contempt for Police Canada.