Someday you might stop trying to make an argument through an idiotic example that’s completely irrelevant to the topic, but that you imply defines an entire society about which you obviously know nothing. And then descending into juvenile insults when called on it.
You claimed it was “smart” to answer a police officer’s question about drinking by repeatedly squawking “am I free to go?” like a deranged parrot. You at least share with sovcits the belief that hostile confrontation is the smart way to go rather than cordial cooperation. I don’t think there’s anything “smart” about a needlessly confrontational attitude that tends to escalate conflict for no good reason and often ends badly.
But since this sidetrack is irrelevant to the thread topic and seems to be driving other posters away, may I suggest again that we finally drop this.
So, when you say, “I live in a relatively peaceful society where citizens respect the police and the police respect citizens, who don’t go out of their way to antagonize them,” how is a cite to decades of Canadian cops murdering indigenous people not relevant?
I opened this thread because I find the concept of sovereign citizens fascinating in much the same way that I find random animal turds fascinating (I always wonder what said animal had been eating). I didn’t expect to walk into a virtual urinating contest, with pee splattered all over the floors, fixtures, walls, and even the ceiling. I realize this is the Pit, but holy cow.
Is your example indicative of a real societal problem? Of course it is. And there are similar problems in relation to how police have sometimes treated other minorities. Those problems are being addressed, helped along by the fact that Canada is uniquely a diverse society, with historically high rates of immigration and celebrating diversity rather than social pressure for assimilation. But that wasn’t the subject under discussion. My point was that in general, relations between police and citizens in Canada tend to be more cordial and less confrontational than what I see happening in the US.
There are many reasons for this and one can speculate about them, but I suggest that among the reasons are the absence of a gun culture, with police not in constant fear of getting shot, and, especially pertinent to the recent discussion, the absence of a subculture obsessed with “constitutional rights” and anxious to assert them at every opportunity.
Canadians are protected by a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but don’t carry it around next to their heart like a sacred text that was personally handed to them by God himself. So, when ecountering a sobriety checkpoint and asked if they’ve been drinking, the typical Canadian will reply “no”. @Saint_Cad recommends ignoring the question and repeating the magic incantation “am i free to go?” over and over again. It’s an attitude that I find to be uniquely American.
Getting back on track, here is a gentleman asserting his “rights”. Maybe not exactly a sovcit, but definitely sovcit-adjacent. Spoiler: it doesn’t end well for him.
I absolutely love the preamble – I couldn’t imagine a better summary of my position here:
This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels - there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
If you can define what a SovCit is. Because as of now, you and wolfpup seem to thing SovCit seems to be that same thing as not talking o police … which is a real right in the United States. A SovCit is a person that does not believe they have to follow laws they don’t consent o, so you two need to get your definitions right if you don’t want to look like idiots.
There is nothing needlessly confrontational about protecting your rights. Every defense attorney worth a damn will tell you not to answer questions. Those questions are designed to give them probable cause where none previously existed. For every video you’ve found, I can find 10 videos of people asserting their rights and being let go because the officers know that they can’t charge them with anything without probable cause. Here’s a good example of someone who knows their rights. The cops don’t like it, and they often get grumpy about it, but thanks to bodycams, there is less bullshit they can get away with if they don’t want a lawsuit. You have a right not to self-incriminate yourself, and being chatty and polite often leads to self-incrimination. Maybe that’s not the way it works in Canada, but it is absolutely the way it works in the states.
