Police Chiefs: Enemies of the Harper State

The War on Information rolls on.

First it was the Blitz: a "Shock and Awe" campaign to blindside policymakers, industry, churches, universities and the general public by castrating the mandatory long-form census.

As things spiraled out of control, Harper sent in the troops led by General Tony Clement. Casualties began to rise. Canada's Chief Statistician resigned. And so, Tony marched back to the House. Only a small group of Francophones found a "chink" in the chain of Tony's armor. However, the diversion was exactly what the government needed. Tony shuffled some questions to appease this group while the issues remained in silence.

All was quiet on the Western front. And the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police blasted the government opening up a second front Harper will have to fight in the War on Information.

"Our support for the long-gun registry is because we use the information contained in that registry virtually every day -- we use it over 11,000 times a day,"

"Our police officers use that information to conduct criminal investigations, they use it to keep communities safe, and they use it to keep themselves safe."

Association members voted on a resolution based on that report, calling for improved communication with police officers and the public on gun-safety issues, better information and intelligence sharing, improved training and operations, as well as the association's "support for the retention of the Canadian Firearms Program in all of its components, including the long-gun registry," Blair said.

The association voted unanimously to adopt the resolution, which calls on police officials to promote the registry's value to both politicians and the public.

The CPC drone turned libertarian will bark that regardless of the CACP's support of the registry it costs too much and that farmers are being victimized through fees and threat of jail time for non compliance. (Sound familiar?) They'll also claim that criminals do not register their guns so how useful can the registry really be?

I had an experience with these situational libertarians. You know, the type that doesn't think same-sex couples should have the ability to get married or that a mosque should be built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero - meanwhile, voter-based subsidies and long-gun registries are socialist programs designed to privilege the liberal "elite" and stomp on the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

Libertarian X feels that the gun registry is an intrusion on their life. They shouldn't have to face fees and the possibility of jail should they not tell the state if they have a gun in their house. After all, owning a gun is their business and since they are a law abiding citizen the state should have no reason to be suspicious. In fact, Libertarian X would go so far as to say that when the government starts to monitor the guns civilians have, we are witnessing the beginning of a police state.

But I ask every situational libertarian a hypothetical for their "principles": If you were a cop and were arriving on the scene of a domestic dispute, would you want want to know if there was a gun in the house?

For years I came to my mailbox and received 10-percenters exclaiming that the local Liberal MP was "soft on crime." Today, the government will dismiss the concerns of the CAPC. Conservative supporters will claim that the police are here to serve us and will do as they are told by their legislative masters.

It is clear that in the case of the gun registry and the census the government is ignorant to common sense, rational thought, practical applications. Straight up: good judgment is thrown out the window.

I want to be clear, the direction the government is leading the country in is dangerous. The origins of this War on Information are becoming clearer. Certain governance mechanisms, the long-form census and the gun-registry, are perceived by this government as Liberal institutions regardless of the universality of their application and use by both public and private sectors. Eliminating these mechanisms serves a dual purpose: I.) it affirms a base that has been largely ignored by this government since being elected in 2006; and II.) actively skews information available to ministry staff, placing greater discretion on the opinions and beliefs of elected officials in policymaking.

One of the father's of Canadian foreign policy once said, "when threatened, people in power often regard the truth to be so precious, it needs to be protected by bodyguards of lies."

I believe this ought to be the tagline for Harper's War on Information.