= new reply since forum marked as read
Police internal oversight and no accountability (a very small percentage). Police are the judge jury and executioners, frightening revelations to be honest. The very word of an undercover officer is enough to ruin your life. The discretion about how to handle someone is solely their own and the evidence might be extremely shoddy, hypothetical and even vindictive (all which I experienced).
Furthermore, through such loaded infrastructure terms as "integrated _______ units" (security, intelligence, policing etc"
, there is a great deal of assistance provided from one agency to the next, noone checking out the logistics of how the intel was obtained in the first place, nor the reliability and/or validity of such accusations. A police agency can tell the RCMP or CSIS "this person is a threat" (as that which occurred against me) and they will rely on a very flimsy and narrow methodology to re-confirm this initial assertion, or, just take it at face value. So in effect; rather than someone being investigated at the start of any suspected ideology issues by a more competent and seemingly accurate agency such as CSIS, they will be investigated and labelled by a less competent, more career-driven agency such as an undercover police force.
Not only do police forces rely on their own undercover agents, but they rely on C.I's, or confidential informants which even FURTHER waters down accuracy of information. You see where this is going? A citizen can in effect have his entire life ruined, his mobility rights, his right to education and a career, his right to due process and basic rule of law tenets disregarded at the behest of a "friend" (the CI), who may or may not have their own ass to protect in the case of pending charges for which they offer their services to avoid jailtime as an example. As in my case when I was targetted by undercover police as a teenager in high school, you might have your life ruined by someone with very little life experience (they were only a couple of years older than I was) and simply want to move forward their career and impress their handlers or management.
If I am an ally country; one that relies heavily on real democracy, process and the citizens of other nations supporting the activities that enhance democracy how do I view Canada in this particular objective? If I were, say a British, French or American employee in the Security Apparatus, would I consider Canada an ally to democracy, transparency and citizens freedoms or a suppressor of it? Would I look at Canada's laws and security operations as being in line with my own or against them? Would I view Canada as a legitimate and upstanding member of the fight for freedom and security, or a nation of cowboys who have their own personal agendas?
