What JB did or didn't do two years ago is neither here nor there. Comparing the profile you attract on a forum such as this vs what would inevitably be attracted as a result of a feature item on the national (government-owned, I might add) broadcaster is a bit of a non-starter.
Perhaps you're intentionally putting the CRA's crosshairs on yourself because you fancy yourself a Gandhi or a Mandela. Dunno, don't care; it's ill-conceived in any case.
Nope, just figured that since I was a vocal advocate of these beliefs, the right thing to do was to not hide, but instead accept the invitation to share and clarify our beliefs. I felt refusing their offer would be cowardly.
Hmmm....a "vocal advocate". But one whose advocacy extends not so far as the scruple but rather only so far as the specie. Speaks volumes that.
You make all sorts of claims and challenge all and sundry to disprove them. That's not how real intercourse works. You provide the independently verifiable proof of your claims. You can claim that you talked to someone named "Allan Tocher (?)". There may be someone of that name working for CRA; there might not. It's your assertion and yours to prove factual. It also falls to you to provide the proof that he said what you claimed, not for anyone else to go digging for some passing reference in a post that might or might not support your assertion.
I know he is no longer working for CRA; he suicided.
Operative phrase? "I know". More accurately, you claim. Proof, Rob. It's all about proof (of which you've provided none).
As for making claims the people in the government do that all the time, and then I ask them to do exactly what you are asking of me, provide proof of their claim, and guess what? THEY COULD NEVER DO IT!
You claim.....again. Claim≠proof.
The difference is, I am not making a claim UPON you. I do not seek to govern you. I have no obligation to prove my claims to you, as I demand nothing of you.
You make claims that beggar belief and for those claims to be accepted,
you have an obligation to prove them. Sure, you can find some trusting flathead that will accept your claims at face value (absent his having any life experience for him to recognise snake oil when presented to him) and then the poor feckless soul finds himself beneath the wheels of the bus right quick when your 'advice' goes south on him
You claim. Another bare assertion supported by nothing of substance.
There are pictures available if you want to see them...
Serve it up. Locations. Date. Compensation. Client. Contact information for the client.
'Course, I'm pretty sure that you'll not rise to the challenge with verifiable info. That'd be just too unlike the sort of response that you only seem capable of.
You had one as a member of the CF (assuming you actually were a member of the CF) and if you've lost/disposed of/whatever your SIN card, that doesn't mean that you are without a SIN.
It is not only the SIN card I do not have, I no longer willingly and voluntarily associate with one in any fashion. What obligation do I have to do so? I claim I do not need to, AFTER others try to claim I must. Clearly the onus is on them to provide proof of their claim. Something the people in HRC and CRA were incapable of doing.
They have the ability to compell as granted them by the people of Canada. And as per HRC and CRA? You claim....again. Claim≠proof.
You just let everyone know when you get into a conversation with a number. I don't think anyone would gainsay you not talking to a number; certainly, I wouldn't. That doesn't remove its association with you, like it or not.
Um, associating yourself with something is not ONLY accomplished by conversing with it nor did I even imply such a thing.
Animate things are the only things that are capable of association for the purposes of the "right of association" is concerned. I guess I was bieng to flippant or subtle for you. I shall heretofore endeavour to drive points home with mallet-like subtlely
It is incapable of associating, for that requires a conscious choice, and it is not conscious, and incapable of choice.
It isn't choosing to be associated with you; it's a thing. The other vector in this equation is the government, representative of the people.
Like it or not, we actually have the right to choose our associations. Sorry to see you are the type of human being who refuses to accept that level of power over your own life.
I recognise that nobody will associate me with a tree (except perhaps in a metaphorical sense). So me hypothetically choosing to associate with a tree is a one-way vector where "right of association" is right up there with being formed.
Like it or not, I am not associated with a SIN, and neither you nor anyone in the government can force me to do so.
You can claim it all you like but the fact is that (you say) for a part of your life you DID accept being associated with a SIN (perhaps as a temporary means to an end but that's neither here nor there) and that assignation requires agreement from both parties to break it, something you have not provided a stick of proof of.
As for the government's ability to force you to do something against your will, I'm sure you'd find there's perfectly good societal abilities to compel you to part with monies and/or your freedom to hither and night when the spirit moves you.
If you gainsay that, do make sure that someone has a camera rolling and feel free to provide fulsome evidence of your 'triumph'.
Fitz
p.s. Do learn how to use the "Quote" function. If you're having trouble with the subtlety of that, it really doesn't bode well for your ability to parse subtle regions of law in the manner you claim.
