Loading...
The Brussels Post, 1976-07-07, Page 11FOR THAT SUMMER LEISURE LOOK VISIT George of Brussels Hairstylists 887-6751 Haircutting is a -Specialty THE WEDGE Three Stylists. To Serve Yoo. George Debbie-a Pauline STILL SMILING— It may have been ?8 years ago that Mr. and Mrs. Ivan Wightman said their vows in Brucefield United Church, but they still had a smile for each other Sunday at Brucefield's special wedding service. Mr. and Mrs. Wightman came from Belgrave to renew their vows. (Staff Photo) THE BRUSSELS POST, ,JULY 7,, 1976 it item nugh and nited trip leet• to of :man Fusin nited 'is of last Mrs, of Scott relay, .rong kend nwer ng a Mrs. view Mr. ce Gaines were enjoyed by all pups and their leaders. A delicious barbecue, of hamhurgs, hot dogs and pop were served by Mr. Don Blenkhorn. A special thanks goes out to all leaders, mothers and Mr 131e mothers who helped in the event. The y oung child death rate in developing nations iS 8 titteS higher than in industrialized countries, Girl Guides hold closing barbecue rest of the population. It has been long established that,' if justice is to be done, then the offender should not reap the benefits of an illegal activity. If this piece of legislatifin passes in its presesnt form then it would mean that the police can illegally conduct electronic surveillance and can reap the benefits of that illegal activity in court. Such a double standard is not acceptable even in the name of law enforcement. The' most serious change proposed is the removal of the requirement to notify the subject of police surveillance. Under Section 178.23 (b) of the criminal code it is already possible to obtdin from a jduge, permission to delay disclosure .for a reasonable length of time if such disclosure would seriously effect the police investigation. Experience shows that the police have not been making extensive use of this provision and in spite of ifs lack of use are asking that the restriction be lifted altogether. Why should anyone worry? If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't care if the police have listened in on their conversations. Do not forget that everything that you may talk about that you do not want others to hear is not necessarily illegal. Your personal finances may often be the subject of telephone conversations.The side romange that your wife doesn't know about (immoral perhaps, but not illegal), medical problems you may have, your daughter's fight with her boyfriend, and pending business deals. All of these subjects are ve/ry personal and you have the right to privacy "of converstion about them. In a very large city chances of the policeman or any of the technicians, secretaries and others that work in the police station knowing you personally may be small. However, as the size of the city decreases the possibility of them knowing you personally and hay ing some social or business contacts with you increases quickly ,. How private would such information remain if this were intercepted in Brussels or Seaforth ? Too .frequently your business becomes everybody's business, now! I have. heard the police argue that they could not possibly find the time nor the money to conduct frivolous electronic surveillances. That may be true under current conditions and using the conventional wiretap equipment. However, electronic surveillance covers far more than placing interceptions on your telephone lines. It includes the old movie trick of using the water glass against the wall to hear a conversation from the other side. It also includes the more sophisticated techniques of sitting in a room and tuning in to a normal conversation in some building two blocks away, without any connecting wires, "bugs" planted in the room, or hidden microphones. Such equipment is now available and in use by police forces as well as other persons involved in espionage of various kinds. Our right to privacy is an important and basic right a While it is important that we provide the police with every up-to-date means of combating crime, it is essential that we do not remove those safeguards which guard against their misuse. VIM& LET US MAKE YOUR OLD FURNITURE BETTER THAN NEW ! For a free estimate and a look at our newest samples of materials COOK UPHOLSTERY Ph. 523-4272 R. Cook, Prop. Blyth, Ont. HA YVVARD S Discount -- Variety Privacy and crime detection (By David Kennedy) In 1974 the parliament of Canada participated in a considerable amount of discussion before approving the wiretap legislation. This gave the police forces of the country an opportunity to legally intercept communications between personS in order to improve their fight against crime. During that discussion members of parliament spent a great deal of time talking about the right to privacy of all individuals ,and means by which this right to privacy could be protected without hampering police too much. In its final form the wiretap bill of 1974 gave the police permission to use an electronic surveillance and inserted three main safeguards. The first required police to gain court authorization for such surveillance. This would be given if the police could show just cause for wanting such authorization. This safeguard remains, but based on experience such authorization will be valid for sixty days and can be renewed beyond that as opposed to a thirty day period of time in the original legislation. The second required the police to disclose to anyone who had been under surveillance, the fact of that surveillance. Clear time limits within which . this must be done were established: This is a rather" important and unique safeguard. It is based on the theory that the police will not indiscriminately make use of electronic surveillance if they know that their activities will become known to the person being watched. The new proposals are. removing this requirement of disclosure. The police argue that telling an individual that he has been under surveillance can often completely' blow their investigation. This is particularly true as it relates to organized crime. Many of their investigations extend over many months and even years sometimes before .sufficient evidence is gained to lay' a charge. The third safeguard was the inadmissibility of evidence gained from an illegal electronic surveillance whether that evidence is direct evidence or indirect evidence gained as as result of that surveillance. The new legislation wants to change this to allow any indirect evidence gained to be admissable in. court. In other words, if the police - have d telephone tap on your line without receiving prior authorization from the courts then they could not use any of the tapes of your conversation as. evidence against you in court.. However, if they heard about other activities that might be illegal and in following up discovered that you, or someone else, had committed other offences, then any of the information gained in this manner could be used in court. On the surface there would seem that there is little problem with this change in the regulations. It really means that if Someone has committed an offence and the police find out about it, no matter how they find out, then they, can use that evidence in court. Unfortunately, it establishes a double standard, one for the police and one for the Brussels Girl Guides and Brownies held their closing of the season barbecue at the Lion's 'WI Yew Uphoistibrin. Park, Monday, July 4, 1976. The Needs to bur Miisde Guides and Brownies invited the Brussels Cub Pack along with their leader Mrs. Price Jones WE HAVE FREE PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE — CALL Patent Medicines COSMetitt tobitittd* Groceries an .d Stationa-ry Weekdays Holidays &Sundt:0 1.2.6.