"Public Good" and "Economic Benefit" Justify Stealing?

The peaceful occupation of the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers has now entered into its third week. Supporters of the 85-year-old farmer have been occupying the farm since January 13, as a defensive measure, in order to prevent an armed invasion and seizure of the property by the Department of National Defence (DND). The DND is seeking to expropriate (i.e. steal) the farm in order to build a new training facility for the controversial and secretive Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2).

To this point, in my communications regarding the attempted expropriation of the Meyers farm, I have assumed that my audience sees the situation for what it is – an armed robbery.  This week, I would like to take the opportunity to address some points made by those who favour this expropriation (and expropriation in general) as a legitimate function of government.

 

Greater Good & Economic Benefit 

Those in favour of the expropriation say that the “greater public good” that would be achieved far outweighs the trauma that would be experienced by Mr. Meyers as a result of being forcibly evicted from his farm. Local proponents of the government’s plan, including Member of Parliament Rick Norlock, Quinte West Mayor John Williams and talk radio host Lorne Brooker, point to the economic benefit to the community, and the hundreds of new jobs that the new base is supposed to bring to the region, as basis for the legitimacy of the government’s action.

Consider this scenario: An armed robber enters a convenience store in your town and forces the storeowner, at gunpoint, to hand over all of the money in the store’s safe. He exits the store with a bag full of cash, leaving behind a box of chocolates and a thank you card for the shopkeeper.

Couldn’t it be said that the robber has acted for the greater good? Maybe he’s a friend of yours, a neighbour or co-worker.  Maybe he’s someone who brings his car to your auto repair business for maintenance, and someone with whom you share a beer on a weekly basis. He’ll likely use the money he’s stolen to purchase goods and services at local businesses around town. Maybe he’ll bring his car to your shop for a tune-up that he’s been putting off for a while, or buy everyone at the local pub a round next week. Heck, he’ll even buy a beer for the shopkeeper who he’s robbed. 

You, the proprietor of the pub and other business owners around town will be glad to see the additional business, and the townsfolk will be satisfied with a free beer. Shouldn’t the whole town be glad to have such a skilled and benevolent robber among them, who, through his act of violence, has stimulated the local economy?*

Surely you wouldn’t defend this man’s act of robbery merely based on the use he makes of the stolen property. If it’s not appropriate for an individual to steal, then by what mechanism does it become okay for a group of individuals, who call themselves the government, or the Department of National Defence, or defenders of freedom, or public servants, to do just that? 

*For a better economic understanding of the impact of crime, learn about the Broken Window Fallacy.

Peaceful Occupation of the Meyers Farm a Success, For Now

The peaceful occupation of the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers has succeeded, for now, in preventing the demolition of Mr. Meyers’ barns, and the ultimate and irreversible seizure of his prime farmland by the Department of National Defence (DND).

Image by Occupy Canada

Though Mr. Meyers had been promised by the DND that he would receive written notice in advance of the demolition of his farm buildings, the first of the peaceful occupiers arrived at the Meyers farm early Monday morning to keep vigilant watch. On the morning of January 13, an OPP cruiser arrived at the Meyers home, and an officer informed Frank that the demolition would indeed be taking place that very day.

The first occupiers on scene, Phil Ostroskie, Kim Verner-Ostroskie and Rachelle Verner, of Prince Edward County Ontario, keeping watch from their motor home parked in the driveway of the farm, alerted Mr. Meyers as military police and demolition crews, led by Major Ronald Nelson of CFB Trenton, rolled through Meyers’ corn field. In response to this armed invasion of his property, Mr. Meyers crossed the railroad tracks onto the part of his farm that the DND claims as their own, and served Major Nelson, as well as members of the demolition crew employed by Parkside Landscaping and Contracting, with cease and desist orders.

In receipt of the cease and desist orders, the invaders retreated, but not before threatening Mr. Meyers and his supporters with arrest, should they remain on the wrong side of the tracks upon their return. Dozens of supporters arrived throughout the day Monday, as Meyers scrambled to remove as many of his belongings from his barns as possible, in case demolition crews were to succeed in their mission of destroying his property.

The presence of Meyers’ supporters as well as several national media outlets on the farm kept demolition crews and military police at bay Monday, and through the night until early Tuesday morning. Under the cover of darkness and a blanket of fog, a single military police vehicle approached Meyers’ barns by way of a makeshift road forged through the cornfield by demolition crews the previous morning. Vigilant occupiers, who had remained on the farm overnight, once again alerted Frank to the invasion, and the military police quickly retreated down the path, with 85-year-old Meyers following closely behind in his John Deere tractor.

At approximately 9:00 am on Tuesday morning, Mr. Meyers placed a call to CFB Trenton, demanding an audience on his farm with base commander Colonel David Lothian. Meyers asked that the Colonel attend with documentation in-hand, proving the legitimacy of the DND’s claimed ownership of his farm. Having received no response from the Colonel, Meyers and his supporters crossed the railroad tracks onto the DND-claimed portion of his farm, and set up camp next to the barns. Military police did not respond, and demonstrators remained for the duration of the day and through the night. 

Occupiers of the Meyers farm vow to remain on site around
the clock in order to protect the property against armed
military invasion.
Photo by Michael Clark

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for CFB Trenton told local media that demolition of the farm buildings would be postponed, citing a desire to “make this as easy as possible on the individual (Meyers)” and a recognition of the occupiers’ “right to protest”. There were, however, no statements made indicating that plans to demolish the buildings would be scrapped. Instead, it seems, the DND will wait for occupiers to leave to farm so that they can proceed unencumbered with the destruction of Meyers’ property. CFB Trenton spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Danny Breton said, “We are waiting until conditions are appropriate to continue further development of the site.”

While the military waits for peaceful occupiers of the Meyers farm to disappear so they can proceed with their plans, supporters of the farmer remain on site, and vow to stay put around the clock to protect the private property against this armed invasion.

A Message to Military and Police Employees Re: Frank Meyers' Farm

This article was also published on The Art of Not Being Governed Blog.

On November 29, we learned that 85-year-old Ontario farmer Frank Meyers had finally caved to government threats, signing a contract to sell his farm to the Department of National Defence. I have spent much time, since then, considering my response to this news.

Read previous posts about the Frank Meyers' battle with the government here, here and here.

First, Frank Meyers' ultimate decision - to submit to the government's demand that he sell his farm - is not to be condemned. At the end of the day, Frank had to make the difficult decision, in order to preserve his own life, and to mitigate the harm done to himself and his family by the government through its agents; police officers, military members, court and elected officials.

Let me be clear. The contract that Frank Meyers signed with the Department of National Defence is not valid and must not be taken as a voluntary agreement. Frank Meyers signed the contract under duress, with the guns of the state pointed at him, his family and his farm. Meyers said, "They threatened me, that’s what it was. They told us if I didn’t take the money they wanted to give me they would go to court and I wouldn’t get half of what they offered me. That’s what they said."

Notwithstanding the clear lack of consent, I do not believe that the individuals responsible for the initial decision to expropriate the Meyers farm are at all likely to, in an unprecedented act of humanity, change their minds and leave Frank Meyers alone, either because they suddenly recognize and respect the need for consent or because they are moved by letters, e-mails and tweets of their "constituents".

Since I first wrote about the Meyers case, I have taken heat from other supporters of Frank for my condemnation of military members and police officers for their roles in the expropriation of the farm. Critics told me that military members, and police, both in general and those who have been involved in the Meyers eviction, probably don't agree with the government taking this action, and that they are just following orders. This is my message to government employees - police, military members, court officials, military contractors, etc. - like the ones described by many of my critics:

If it is true that you do not agree with the government's action to expropriate Frank's farm, then you must realize that it is not the government who is acting to steal Mr. Meyers property, but individuals, including yourself, whose actions make this theft possible. If, as it has been presented to me, it is not the enforcers and administrators of laws and government policies who want to carry out this theft, but a small group of immoral decision-makers, then why do not the good men and women who, I am told work for the government, refuse to carry out these immoral and criminal orders?

If you are a police officer who enforces the DND's claimed ownership of the Meyers farm, and would be prepared to arrest Frank Meyers or his guests as trespassers on his own farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a court employee who would work to support a process that would see Frank Meyers or his guests prosecuted as trespassers on the farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a member of the military who would work at the new Joint Task Force training facility to be built on the Meyers farm, you are a party to theft.

If you are a military contractor, or a local resident who would work to build the new facility or to service it once built, you are a party to theft, and you are guilty of profiting from the proceeds of a criminal act.

I implore those "good" government employees, if they exist, to affirm their morality by refusing to act to support the theft of Frank Meyers' farm. While it may not sit well with you to admit, if you do not refuse to follow orders that support theft, then you are not a good person, as you would claim to be, but a thief and a criminal.

Peaceful Demonstrators Gather at Meyers Farm, Police Respond En Masse

A small but dedicated group gathered at the Trenton Ontario farm of Frank Meyers on Sunday November 17 to demonstrate in opposition to the Department of National Defence's attempt to expropriate the prime farmland in order to build a military training facility.

Does a No Trespassing sign constitute
ownership?

Organizers of the event had intended for today's demonstration to mark the beginning of a peaceful occupation of the portion of Meyers' farm and outbuilding, which had been scheduled to be demolished the following day (November 18).*

The Occupation for Peace, in opposition to the military's plans for Frank's farm, has been postponed, along with the DND's demolition plans. Frank received word from the military, Saturday, that work would not begin to convert his farm into a specialized military training facility until some time in December. It would stand to reason that the postponement of the demolition is directly related to activist plans to occupy the land. In an effort to avoid interactions with protestors, I would not be surprised to see the DND attempt to begin work without warning, and at a time close to the holidays, when activists are less capable of mobilizing (maybe between Christmas and the new year?).

While the peaceful demonstrators did not occupy the "disputed" property, more than a dozen police officers including one CN Rail officer (Sabo), four military police (McCann, Long, Frost, Currie) and several OPP officers (Steele, Gibson, et al.) arrived at Meyers' farm in a show of force and intimidation. While on scene, cruisers drove onto the undisputed private property of Frank Meyers, and officers roamed the property, despite constant reminders from demonstrators that the Meyers farm is private property, and that their presence was not welcomed.

When asked by a demonstrator about the purpose of the police presence at the peaceful gathering on the farm, Quinte West OPP officer Shelley Steele responded, "We are here to just try to keep the peace for you guys." At the peak of police presence, there were eight cruisers, and twelve to fifteen armed officers on scene, compared to fifteen to twenty peaceful, unarmed demonstrators.

The dedicated group of demonstrators on hand Sunday has vowed to return to occupy the "disputed" property in order to prevent the demolition of Frank's outbuildings, and ultimately the construction of a military training facility on his land, and say that they expect a large mobilization of supporters in the coming weeks in order to ensure a substantial number of peaceful occupiers.

For updates on the Meyers farm, and the Occupation for Peace, please like the Facebook page.

Related posts:

Trenton Farm to be Occupied for Peace...
Government Steals Land to Build Murderer Training Camp

*The government, in their infinite benevolence, will allow Meyers to maintain ownership of a small piece of property consisting of his house, as well as the farm's original homestead and a few outbuilding.

Trenton Ontario Farm to Be Occupied for Peace, In Defence Against Government Aggression

This is an update on the story of Ontario farmer Frank Meyers, which I wrote about last month.

Frank Meyers has extended an open invitation to his supporters
to come to his farm and stay for an indefinite period of time
in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan
to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

Since that time, when a senior military official, accompanied by two (presumably) armed OPP officers visited the home of the octogenarian farmer to inform him that, going forward, he would no longer be the owner of his farm, Frank's legal battle has not proceeded in his favour. Despite his many efforts to combat the expropriation of his farm through legal means, Mr. Meyers stands to see his farm, as he knows it, scraped away to make way for a state-of-the-art 400 hectare training facility for the highly classified Joint Task Force 2, any day now.

With earth already being moved on neighbouring farms also expropriated by the Department of National Defence for the military training facility, Frank Meyers and his supporters have had to come to the sobering realization that a government cannot be effectively challenged from within a system where it acts as its own judge, jury and executioner.

A frustrated Meyers, this afternoon, told Lisa Gibson, the administrator of the Facebook page 'Save Frank & Marjorie Meyers Farm',  "Do what you have to do to save my farm!" The farmer has extended an open invitation for his supporters to come to his farm, and to stay for an indefinite period of time, in order to prevent the military from proceeding with its plan to steal and re-purpose his farmland.

I am reminded of a line from The Philosophy of Liberty, by Ken Schoolland;

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you.

Frank Meyers is asking for our help to protect his property, and, by extension, his life and his liberty, from the forceful aggression of the government. Occupation organizer Lisa Gibson sees a very real threat to Frank Meyers' life in the theft of his farm. She says, "I have been in the death care sector for 22 years. I have seen first hand that when you take a person Frank's age and you take away their purpose in life, their reason for getting up in the morning, they die!"

This demonstration will be an occupation for peace, demanding that government agents stand down with their aggressive acts of theft, and their threats of violence and imprisonment against those who dare challenge them. Not only will this demonstration demand peace at home, by speaking out against expropriation of private property, but also peace around the world, by attempting to stop the Canadian government from building a training centre for military assassins on the site of the Meyers farm.

The Occupation for Peace will begin at the Meyers farm in Trenton this Sunday Morning, November 17, 2013 at 11:00 am. The address is listed below. Organizers are currently seeking donations of supplies for the occupation including items such as portable toilets, tables, coffee, food, etc. For updates on the occupation, and to coordinate with organizers, like the Facebook page.

Meyers Farm
209 Meyers Creek Road
Trenton, Ontario

Please help to make this Occupation for Peace one powerful enough to neutralize even the Canadian Military. Share with your friends!

Canadian Senator: Constitution Fails to Restrain Government

Following months of gripping political scandal* surrounding what has been widely reported in the Canadian mainstream media as wildly excessive and inappropriate spending of government funds by Conservative Party Senators Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy, members of the "upper house" debated, this week, a motion seeking the suspension of the three senators in question.

Senator Pamela Wallin wonders, if the Constitution fails to
restrain government in its treatment of politicians, what could it
"do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day"?

Photo by Sean Kilpatrick/ The Canadian Press

In response to the allegations against her, and the motion to suspend, without pay and privileges, herself and two of her colleagues, Senator Pamela Wallin delivered a scathing speech on the floor of the Senate, Wednesday. Wallin claims that both Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and her Senate colleagues' efforts to suspend her are in violation not only of standing Parliamentary rules and procedures, but also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an addendum to the Canadian Constitution.

No doubt supporters of opposition parties (Liberals, NDP and Greens), who have, for the past several months, taken every opportunity to criticize the conduct of Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy, will hail Wallin's speech as proof of the incompetence and brazen disrespect for the rule of law of the Harper Government.

Of course, critics of Harper's Conservative government will quote only the lines from Wallin's speech which malign the current Prime Minister and serve their own political agendas; lines like,

"Due process and the rule of law [which Wallin claims are being disregarded by the government, in her case] are all we have to protect us from the tyranny of those with power and from the passion of the mob."

"This process is not in the interests of an independent, functioning and effective Senate – although it is most clearly in the interests of those who want to abolish this chamber." (The Harper government)

I can only imagine that if the shoe were on the other foot - that is, if the senators in question were belonging to the Liberal Party, under the infallible leadership of the young, handsome, and shampoo-savvy Justin Trudeau - critics of today's government would jump to their defense, claiming (as Wallin has), that the expenses were justified, since they were being "activist senators" who were actually attempting to get things done, unlike their Conservative colleagues.

Ultimately, whether or not Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy spent government resources outside the scope permitted by the rules of the Senate is of little importance. The most important remark made by Wallin in her speech to the Senate is this,

"If this chamber can take this extreme action with regard to a sitting senator, imagine what it could do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day."

The bottom line is that every single member of the unelected Senate, as well as the elected members of the House of Commons, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and opposition leaders Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair, see it as their moral right to steal money and property from you and me in order to pay their salaries; first by instructing  CRA bureaucrats to pen threatening letters demanding a portion of your income and, failing that, by sending armed men to retrieve your property and throw you in a cage, should you resist.

If the "rules" outlined in the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is supposed to guarantee the fundamental rights of all people living in Canada, has been powerless to prevent these politicians from forcibly stealing from Canadians, then in what fantasy world could we expect the same politicians to reverently observe the rules that they wrote in respect to the manner in which that stolen property should be disposed of?


*This would be an appropriate place to use a sarcasm font.

BC Hells Angels Seek Judicial Arbitration with Rival Gang

Brian Hutchinson  reported, last week in the National Post, on a disturbing trend of systematic theft of private property by the state. There seems to be no end to the number of ways of which government employees can conceive to steal property by force, both threatened and enacted.

BC Hells Angels are seeking legal
remedy in a case of civil forfeiture.

Photo by Jason Payne/ Postmedia News

Similar to eminent domain, civil forfeiture is the "legal" process by which the state seizes private property which it deems to have been acquired from the results of unlawful activity, or is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity. Legislation authorizing civil forfeiture is in place in ten provinces and territories across Canada. At first pass, it doesn't seem like such a terrible concept - that criminals should be made to pay restitution to their victims, in an effort to make them whole again.

Of course, the state does not dispose of seized assets by returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or paying restitution to victims of crime. As reported by the National Post, "most civil forfeiture cases in Canada involve marijuana grow operations and drug transactions". The property seized in the majority of civil forfeiture cases in Canada involve only non-violent "crimes", which being committed, created not a single victim. Doesn't it seem counter-logical that a non-violent, victimless act, deemed esthetically and socially displeasing to legislators, should be met with theft?

British Columbia Provincial Justice Minister Suzanne Anton defends the practice of civil forfeiture, claiming that it reduces the incentive for individuals to commit illegal acts by taking away the proceeds resulting from such acts.

Civil forfeiture fails to deter criminality. Instead it increases the incentive of the state to act in a criminal manner, stealing private property. Seized property is sold off to fund various "crime prevention" bureaucracies, and in the case of British Columbia, proceeds of sold off assets are put right back into the civil forfeiture program. Theft funded by theft.

While the incentive exists for the state to continue to practice civil forfeiture against individuals, the same incentive does not often exist for victims of this legally sanctioned theft, to mount a challenge in court. The cost of challenging a civil forfeiture case is often as much as or greater than the value of the seized property, so victims just walk away. Such is not the case for the Hells Angels, who have challenged the seizure of three of their club houses by the BC government.

Isn't it ironic that the state is attempting to steal from a group which it identifies as a gang, and which it claims operates criminally with the use of violence and theft? Isn't it even more ironic that the de facto criminal gang, in this scenario, the Hells Angels, is challenging the transgressions of the de jure criminal gang, the state, by means of judicial arbitration?

So what should the Hells Angels do if they lose their appeal? There's only one "logical" thing to do in a "civil" society, and that is to seize the proceeds of the crime from the transgressors (the state), to get back what was theirs.