Do you know what the main difference between a police state, and a non-police state is? In a non-police state the police serve the public. Even when providing security for political officials, they do this as a service to the public in order to ensure unhindered continuity of government, so the public doesn’t have to deal with a disruption of leadership and bear the costs associated with such. In a police state, however, the police become tools of the governmental bodies in power. Their job becomes split between serving the public and supporting the current power structure – not as a mandate given to them by the people, but at the behest of the power elite.
You see? It’s simple: In a non-police state, the police are tools of the people. In a police state, the police are tools of the people in power.
In Canada; in Montebello, we have now seen an incident where police, at an event sponsored by the power elite, were working against free Canadian citizens in order to incite violence and undermine their rights to protest, dissent and free speech.
In P.E.I. a couple of weeks ago, the RCMP removed reporters from a hotel lobby on orders from the Conservative party, because the party didn’t want to be asked questions. An RCMP officer at that event was quoted as saying: “”No cameras, no mics. That is what the party asked.”
Do either of these incidents make it sound as if the police in this country are still tools of the common citizenry? Or, tools of the governmental power structure?
Stephen Harper – Bush’s little lap-dog – has delivered Canada into a police state. I’m not going to tell you that a police state is coming if you don’t do something about it. I’m not going to tell you that it’s just around the corner. Because, it’s not – It’s already here. The only thing that’s around the corner now is incrementalism.