The civilianization of police services in Canada has been a significant trend aimed at enhancing efficiency and cost-effectiveness within law enforcement agencies. This process involves assigning non-sworn (civilian) personnel to roles traditionally held by sworn police officers, thereby allowing officers to focus on duties that specifically require their training and authority. However, the integration of civilian entities, particularly those employing unconventional methods such as psychic investigation and remote viewing, raises critical legal and ethical concerns, especially concerning potential violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Understanding Civilianization in Canadian Policing
Civilianization refers to the practice of employing civilian staff to perform functions within police services that do not necessitate the authority or specialized training of sworn officers. This strategy aims to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs by reallocating resources more effectively. According to a comprehensive study by Public Safety Canada, the proportion of civilian personnel in Canadian police services increased from 26% in 2001 to 29% in 2014, indicating a growing reliance on civilian staff for various roles.
The roles assigned to civilian employees encompass administrative duties, technical support, community liaison positions, and specialized support in criminal investigations. By delegating these responsibilities to civilians, police services can allocate sworn officers to tasks that require their specific expertise and legal authority, thereby enhancing overall effectiveness.
The Emergence of Psychic Investigation Agencies Utilizing Remote Viewing
In recent years, some civilian agencies have introduced unconventional methods, such as psychic investigations and remote viewing, into their investigative processes. Remote viewing is a practice that allows individuals to perceive information about distant or unseen targets through extrasensory perception (ESP). While such methods have been explored in various contexts, including intelligence gathering, their application within law enforcement remains controversial.
Legal and Ethical Implications Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The integration of psychic investigation techniques, particularly remote viewing, into law enforcement activities raises significant legal and ethical issues, primarily concerning potential infringements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Key sections of the Charter that may be implicated include:
- Section 8 – Right to Security Against Unreasonable Search or Seizure: This section protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that any state intrusion into personal privacy is justified and lawful. The use of remote viewing as an investigative tool could be construed as a form of surveillance or search conducted without the individual's knowledge or consent, potentially violating this right.
- Section 7 – Right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person: This section guarantees the right to life, liberty, and personal security, and that these rights will not be deprived except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Employing unverified and non-transparent methods like remote viewing in investigations could lead to actions that compromise an individual's liberty or security without due process, thereby infringing upon this right.
- Section 11 – Rights in Criminal and Penal Matters: This section outlines the rights of individuals charged with an offence, including the right to be informed of the specific offence and to a fair trial. If evidence obtained through remote viewing is used in legal proceedings, it may undermine the fairness of the trial, as the accused may not have the opportunity to challenge the validity of such evidence.
Challenges in Incorporating Civilian Agencies with Unconventional Methods
The inclusion of civilian agencies employing methods like remote viewing into police investigations presents several challenges:
- Transparency and Accountability: The clandestine nature of psychic investigations can lead to a lack of transparency, making it difficult to hold practitioners accountable and to ensure that investigative processes adhere to legal standards.
- Public Trust and Perception: The use of unorthodox methods may erode public trust in law enforcement agencies, as individuals may perceive these practices as infringing upon their rights or as indicative of a lack of professionalism.
Empirical Evidence from Published Works on Remote Viewing
Remote viewing has garnered attention in various books by researchers, practitioners, and former intelligence personnel who have explored its potential applications. While anecdotal accounts and experimental studies presented in these works suggest the possibility of anomalous information transfer, the lack of rigorous scientific validation remains a point of contention.
- "Mind Reach" by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff (1977):
- In this foundational book, Targ and Puthoff, researchers at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), describe their experiments on remote viewing funded by the U.S. government. They present case studies where subjects accurately described distant locations and objects. The authors argue that the results exceeded chance levels and suggest the existence of a "nonlocal" information channel.
- "The Seventh Sense" by Lyn Buchanan (2003): Buy it on Amazon here - https://amzn.to/4f5LUqs
- Buchanan, a former remote viewer for the U.S. military’s Stargate Project, recounts his experiences and training in controlled remote viewing (CRV). He provides anecdotal evidence of successful sessions where remote viewers accurately described targets. The book emphasizes the need for structured protocols to enhance reliability.
- "Limitless Mind" by Russell Targ (2004): Buy it on Amazon here - https://amzn.to/41nIpZj
- Targ expands on the findings from the SRI studies and highlights instances of remote viewing in practical applications, including military and intelligence operations. He argues for a "scientific spirituality" approach to understanding remote viewing, suggesting that consciousness may play a role in transcending physical boundaries.
- "Reading the Enemy’s Mind" by Paul H. Smith (2005): Buy it on Amazon here - https://amzn.to/4g83POq
- Smith, another former participant in the Stargate Project, provides an insider’s account of remote viewing’s development and its use in intelligence work. He describes cases where remote viewing produced actionable intelligence, such as locating enemy installations or missing persons.
Parallel Construction: Concealing the Use of Remote Viewing in Investigations
Parallel construction is a controversial investigative technique wherein law enforcement agencies create an alternative explanation for how they obtained evidence to obscure the original, potentially legally questionable, investigative methods. While this practice is often used to protect sensitive intelligence sources or methods, its use in conjunction with remote viewing investigations raises serious ethical and legal concerns. By masking the true origin of evidence, parallel construction not only undermines the integrity of the justice system but also directly infringes upon the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
How Parallel Construction Works
Parallel construction involves two key steps:
- Initial Evidence Gathering: Investigators obtain information using controversial or secretive means, such as remote viewing or other psychic techniques. This step may involve activities that could violate individuals' rights, such as infringing on privacy or bypassing legal standards for obtaining evidence.
- Creation of a Legal "Parallel" Narrative: Investigators then construct a plausible alternative scenario to explain how the evidence was acquired. This may include attributing the discovery of evidence to conventional methods like tips from informants, routine surveillance, or standard police investigations.
Why Parallel Construction is Problematic
While parallel construction might appear to be a practical workaround for protecting investigative methods, it poses several risks and challenges:
- Violation of Section 7 and Section 11 of the Charter: Parallel construction can deny individuals their right to know the true source of evidence used against them, undermining their ability to mount an effective defense and violating the principles of fundamental justice.
- Evasion of Judicial Oversight: By obscuring the real methods used to gather evidence, law enforcement agencies sidestep scrutiny from courts, preventing proper evaluation of whether the original investigation adhered to legal and constitutional standards.
- Potential for Abuse: Remote viewing, as an unverified and pseudoscientific practice, lacks safeguards and accountability. Using parallel construction to conceal such methods could enable misuse of power and lead to wrongful convictions.
Remote Viewing and Parallel Construction in Practice
When remote viewing is used to gather information about an individual, it may involve highly invasive processes that breach privacy rights, even if the person is unaware of being "viewed." For example:
- A psychic investigator might claim to "view" the location of hidden evidence or observe someone's activities. If this information leads to actionable intelligence, law enforcement may use parallel construction to attribute the discovery to a more conventional source.
- In court, prosecutors could claim the evidence was obtained through an anonymous tip or during the course of unrelated surveillance, effectively hiding the role of remote viewing.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The use of parallel construction to conceal remote viewing investigations exacerbates the legal and ethical issues associated with both practices:
- Transparency and Accountability: Concealing remote viewing through parallel construction eliminates any opportunity for oversight or public accountability. Courts, defense attorneys, and the public are kept in the dark about the true methods used to gather evidence.
- Erosion of Trust in Justice: When the origins of evidence are fabricated, the justice system risks losing credibility. The perception that law enforcement engages in deceptive practices can damage public trust, particularly if individuals are prosecuted using questionable or unverifiable evidence.
- Unjust Prosecutions: Individuals targeted by investigations involving remote viewing may face legal consequences without ever knowing how the evidence against them was obtained, denying them a fair trial as guaranteed under Section 11(d) of the Charter.
For some additional information on Parallel Construction, check out this study by a human rights group - https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-evidence-us-criminal-cases
Conclusion
The civilianization of police services in Canada reflects a significant shift in law enforcement practices, aimed at improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness. While this trend has its merits, the integration of unconventional methods, such as remote viewing, and the use of parallel construction to obscure their origins, present serious legal and ethical challenges. These practices raise concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential violation of rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The use of remote viewing in investigations, while explored in various contexts, remains scientifically contentious. The lack of reproducible empirical evidence and reliance on anecdotal accounts limit its credibility as a reliable investigative tool. Coupled with parallel construction, which obscures the true origins of evidence, these practices risk undermining the integrity of the justice system and eroding public trust.
Moving forward, law enforcement agencies must critically evaluate the incorporation of civilian-led initiatives and unconventional investigative methods. This includes establishing oversight mechanisms, ensuring transparency in evidence disclosure, and upholding Charter rights to guarantee fairness in legal proceedings. A balance must be struck between innovation in policing and adherence to the principles of justice, accountability, and fundamental human rights.
