Video: Freemen Movement Captures Canadian Police Attention

[T.G.]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... anada.html

Freemen movement captures Canadian police attention
CBC News
Posted: Feb 29, 2012 10:39 PM ET
Last Updated: Mar 1, 2012 6:48 AM ET

A new but expanding group called the Freeman-on-the-Land has caught the attention of Canadian police because of the violent activity of associated groups in other countries.

Some call the Freemen a harmless fringe movement. However, as The National's Adrienne Arsenault reports, the group may be larger and, for some, more worrying than it appears.

[Julian]

They appear to be extremist libertarians but I didn't see anything that indicated that they are a violent organization.

[Machiaveli]

Just a bunch of ignorant yahoos who twist and manipulate legal concepts, confusing police officers and Judges in the process.. Their tricks WON'T work. Nevertheless their videos are entertaining to watch on youtube.

[free_life2]

They sure have been growing in number on Canada, well anyone who stands up to our corrupt courts can't be all bad.

[ccurrie]

If our good Comrades at the CBC are agin it....

[Red Green]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

[Machiaveli]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

[Connie Fournier]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

Let's just put them all in jail to be in the safe side.

[ccurrie]

Whatsamatter M? Forgot to sign up for your friendly neighbourhood state-run health insurance monopoly?

[wildernessvoice]

Guess I am a Freeman.
I consider myself to be a sovereign individual. I have never gave my permission to any level of government to act on my behalf or to enter into some merchant marine contract where others decide what I can and can't do.

Out of common curtsey I accept the role of a policeman to enforce laws. It is a covenant I happen to agree to. If somebody wrongs me I allow the police to handle the matter. I don't take a gun and right the wrong. Their part of the covenant is that they would deal with respect to all they come in contact with. They would apply the law in an equal and unbiased manner.

I have never ever gave permission to have somebody place me into bondage to the government or to those they would assign my body and soul to.
There is no political hack, commission or quasi-legal group in Kingston, Toronto or Ottawa that can force me to do what I don't want to do.
In the extreme if I choose to violate another's freedom then I accept the fact that I will suffer as the result of my own actions.

[wildernessvoice]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

I could care less. My wife was a PASSENGER in a car that was hit from behind. Did the owner of the car she was in have her insurance coverage? Nope!
Did the young driver of the car that hit her from behind have her insurance company cover my wife's injuries? Nope!

The put it on MY insurance company- RBC. My damm car was parked in the lane.
The result? My wife has had to deal the the crookedest insurance company I have ever heard of. So bad that I told Royal Bank Insurance to pisss off.
So, don't worry about the guy that hits you having insurance. Worry about having isurance with the likes of the crooks I had. RBC Insurance could write a chapter on insurance fraud- the company accepting premiums on a policy they have no intent on honoring!

[Machiaveli]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

Let's just put them all in jail to be in the safe side.

Getting caught driving without valid insurance usually results in a fine. Although I would push it to potential jail sentences.

There is a clear reason as to why motorists are required by law to have third-party liability insurance.

If you wanna play hippy, and be a freeman so you can screw the system and not have to pay taxes, or to avoid being monitored by the government. You are of course free to take the public transit.

[Connie Fournier]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

Let's just put them all in jail to be in the safe side.

Getting caught driving without valid insurance usually results in a fine. Although I would push it to potential jail sentences.

There is a clear reason as to why motorists are required by law to have third-party liability insurance.

If you wanna play hippy, and be a freeman so you can screw the system and not have to pay taxes, or to avoid being monitored by the government. You are of course free to take the public transit.

I'm speechless.

[Peter O'Donnell]

These are tricky questions regardless of your political leanings.

Some believe that under common law, the public roads are free to be used by anyone for travelling. However, the bulk of actual case law probably invalidates that concept "de jure" so that people who decide to assert that right without qualifications (e.g. no valid plates, no insurance) are in essence making a counter-claim against the state, with both parties asserting ownership of the public roads. Since the state builds and maintains the public roads, and the dissenting individual does not, the legal validity of the counter-claim seems pretty weak to me. Of course I have that streak in me too that says, hit the open road and go where you wish. If only life were that simple.

I think it is reasonable to expect people to have paid-up insurance on the road. Not sure how it works in other places, but in B.C., you can't get plates without proof of insurance. More to the point, you can't get a valid sticker for your plates without the insurance. But some people then lapse on agreed payments and so technically they have the plates but no insurance. The state (meaning the province) factors this into rates and more or less agrees to be the minimal insurer of record in such cases, while at the same time asserting a right rather feebly followed up, to take away the plates (usually by towing away the vehicle). This forces the lapsed driver to renegotiate the insurance by paying it all in advance (as well as other penalties). That's probably enough penalty without tossing them in jail as well.

In other cases, perhaps people are out there with no insurance. That's not right. I don't see the public highways as open property to be used in any way seen fit by various individuals. You could view your own driveway or farm lane that way, I suppose, but once on the shared public road, you have both rights and responsibilities. People who don't accept this are basically in a state of social revolution. When leftists make social revolution, they get shot for their troubles, and have we suddenly decided that's a bad thing? I don't quite get this extreme libertarian culture, while I do understand the concept of being left alone by the nanny state, there are other considerations where citizens have responsibilities to each other and to the society. Isn't this why we criticize unlimited immigration? Otherwise the criticism is merely racism.

Some of this really is just citizenship 101 to me, I feel that going to extremes on some of these questions just allows various forms of mental illness and paranoia to rise to the surface, often with violent consequences. Getting the right balance is difficult. This is probably why Jesus took the time to toss Caesar the bone, I can't imagine that He was a big admirer of Roman government otherwise.

[Hodgson]

How dare they propose that they should be able to peacefully live their lives without the helpful meddling of the govt! Ugh, a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists I am sure!

I only hope you never get into a serious car accident with one of those idiots who decides they're too ''Free'' to have to have insurance.

Let's just put them all in jail to be in the safe side.

Getting caught driving without valid insurance usually results in a fine. Although I would push it to potential jail sentences.

There is a clear reason as to why motorists are required by law to have third-party liability insurance.

If you wanna play hippy, and be a freeman so you can screw the system and not have to pay taxes, or to avoid being monitored by the government. You are of course free to take the public transit.

If you caused an accident and didn't have insurance i'd say jail is acceptable.