CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:09 pm
 


Is Bill C 51 overly broad?
From what I see it is using a shotgun to kill a fly.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27 ... r-kill-it/

Accordingly, we urge all MPs to vote against Bill C-51 for the following reasons:

Bill C-51 enacts a new security-intelligence information-sharing statute of vast scope with no enhanced protections for privacy and from abuse. The law defines “activities that undermine the security of Canada” in such an exceptionally broad way that “terrorism” is simply one example of nine examples, and only “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression” is excluded.

Finally, the defects noted in points 1, 2 and 3 (information-sharing, criminalizing expression, and disruption) are magnified by the overarching lack of anything approaching adequate oversight and review functions, at the same time as existing accountability mechanisms have been weakened and in some cases eliminated in recent years. Quite simply, Bill C-51 continues the government’s resolute refusal to respond to 10 years of calls for adequate and integrated review of intelligence and related security-state activities, which was first (and perhaps best) articulated by Justice O’Connor in a dedicated volume in his report on what had happened to Maher Arar. Only last week, former prime ministers and premiers wrote an open letter saying that a bill like C-51 cannot be enacted absent the kind of accountability processes and mechanisms that will catch and hopefully prevent abuses of the wide new powers CSIS and a large number of partner agencies will now have (note that CSIS can enlist other agencies and any person in its disruption activities and the information-sharing law concerns over a dozen other government agencies besides CSIS). Even if one judged all the new CSIS powers in C-51 to be justified, they must not be enacted without proper accountability.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:12 pm
 


I think the main issue is that the process lacks oversight mechanisms. Even the US does better there.

Also, we don't need new laws as much as we need resources put towards enforcing the laws we already have. How often do we hear the jihadi was on the security services radar, but the left the country or did their heinous deed here anyway? Shows that we just don't have the resources to properly keep tabs on these guys.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:28 pm
 


That you even question it tells me that you must be with the terrorists and therefore you need to be investigated. This law is just broad enough to fill up all of that extra prison space that the government has built in recent years with evil doers a lot like you that ask way too many questions.

Don't trouble yourself with questions like that. You know that your government knows what best for you.


Run along now and no more of your silly questions.


Last edited by Jabberwalker on Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:32 pm
 


andyt andyt:
I think the main issue is that the process lacks oversight mechanisms. Even the US does better there.

Also, we don't need new laws as much as we need resources put towards enforcing the laws we already have. How often do we hear the jihadi was on the security services radar, but the left the country or did their heinous deed here anyway? Shows that we just don't have the resources to properly keep tabs on these guys.


We have little oversight of the RCMP, CSIS. And what there is well, it is severely lacking.
The terms used are overly broad and wide ranging.
It is a bad bill, rushed to pass. Dollars to donuts a good portion will be thrown out when challenges reach the SCoC.

We can have the resources, the Govt is balancing their budget, election coming up.
Promises to keep.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:30 am
 


Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
That you even question it tells me that you must be with the terrorists and therefore you need to be investigated. This law is just broad enough to fill up all of that extra prison space that the government has built in recent years with evil doers a lot like you that ask way too many questions.

Don't trouble yourself with questions like that. You know that your government knows what best for you.


Run along now and no more of your silly questions.



R=UP

Exactly. It's not like our anti-terror laws are horribly outdated. How often do we have to keep expanding the powers of the security and surveillance state?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:47 am
 


Yeah, because there's never been any terrorists in Canada and there never will be. Right?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Nope, same as usual. No need for caution here in Canada. Can't you see how safe, non-offensive, and cuddly we all are up here?

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:02 am
 


Thanos, I guess you didn't bother to read the article.

Are you trying to say that if only these new terror laws had already been in place then we would have caught all of those terrorists? Because the precise point is that it wouldn't.

And in fact it never will. You're just going to have to accept that all the laws in the world won't completely eliminate crimes. For example, we have murder despite having laws against murder. And that will always be true, even if we expand the definition of "murder" to include all sorts of vaguely defined things that are not actually murder.

More laws does not necessarily mean you'll have more security, but it does mean you'll have less freedom.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:03 am
 


Idiot. How do you know about those terrorists - because of existing terror laws. Or are you suggesting that bill C51 will prevent all future terrorists from even thinking about or engaging in attacks?

What's needed is better enforcement of current laws (that of course would cost actual money, can't have that when trying to balance the budget while having spend any surplus chickens before they hatched), maybe fill in some holes with new legislation. And having new legislation doesn't argue against having strong oversight of how it's used - that's only common sense. But noooooooooo.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:51 am
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Thanos, I guess you didn't bother to read the article.

Are you trying to say that if only these new terror laws had already been in place then we would have caught all of those terrorists? Because the precise point is that it wouldn't.

And in fact it never will. You're just going to have to accept that all the laws in the world won't completely eliminate crimes. For example, we have murder despite having laws against murder. And that will always be true, even if we expand the definition of "murder" to include all sorts of vaguely defined things that are not actually murder.

More laws does not necessarily mean you'll have more security, but it does mean you'll have less freedom.


More that in the wake of legitimate concern over home-grown terrorism some are going to inevitably resort to creating nonsensical Orwellian 1984 arguments against government and police efforts. Taking your shoes off at the airport when going through the scanner is not a human rights violation. At best it's an inconvenience. A system that sifts cell-phone or internet usage to look for patterns typical to terrorist communications isn't an intrusion in the slightest. In reality it's less intrusive than opening your home telephone up to endless sales calls every time you use your credit card.

What Mulcair and the others are doing is entirely typical of their worldview. Scream tyranny at the top of their lungs in order to sabotage entire legal and responsible government efforts to detect and prevent the activities of ideological-inspired murderers. Nothing more can be expected from this kind of argument. They've never lived under an actual tyranny, and have no knowledge at all of what that it's like, but that's not going to stop them from spreading their own fear that Big Brother is coming. It's bullshit. It always has been and always will be.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:27 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Thanos, I guess you didn't bother to read the article.

Are you trying to say that if only these new terror laws had already been in place then we would have caught all of those terrorists? Because the precise point is that it wouldn't.

And in fact it never will. You're just going to have to accept that all the laws in the world won't completely eliminate crimes. For example, we have murder despite having laws against murder. And that will always be true, even if we expand the definition of "murder" to include all sorts of vaguely defined things that are not actually murder.

More laws does not necessarily mean you'll have more security, but it does mean you'll have less freedom.


More that in the wake of legitimate concern over home-grown terrorism some are going to inevitably resort to creating nonsensical Orwellian 1984 arguments against government and police efforts. Taking your shoes off at the airport when going through the scanner is not a human rights violation. At best it's an inconvenience. A system that sifts cell-phone or internet usage to look for patterns typical to terrorist communications isn't an intrusion in the slightest. In reality it's less intrusive than opening your home telephone up to endless sales calls every time you use your credit card.

What Mulcair and the others are doing is entirely typical of their worldview. Scream tyranny at the top of their lungs in order to sabotage entire legal and responsible government efforts to detect and prevent the activities of ideological-inspired murderers. Nothing more can be expected from this kind of argument. They've never lived under an actual tyranny, and have no knowledge at all of what that it's like, but that's not going to stop them from spreading their own fear that Big Brother is coming. It's bullshit. It always has been and always will be.

This law is all encompassing, quite vague and a catch all. Hastily written laws are poor laws.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:31 am
 


That's up to the courts to decide, not a pack of law school professors who would make the laws so skewed towards the deviant individual that no one could be justifiably arrested for anything.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:34 am
 


Goober911 Goober911:
This law a catch all.


Seems to be working. It's caught most Canadians in the sense that this is a political ploy to act as a wedge issue. There's no reason for the govt to be ramming it thru the way it is without proper consideration. It's like their tough on crime bills that don't actually accomplish anything, but play to people's fears that want the govt to do something, anything. Compare that to the Martin govt and the care and time they took to bring in their anti-terror legislation, and their willingness to amend it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:37 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
That's up to the courts to decide, not a pack of law school professors who would make the laws so skewed towards the deviant individual that no one could be justifiably arrested for anything.


thank God for the judges that protect us from their law professors, eh!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
Profile
Posts: 1046
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:39 am
 


andyt andyt:
Goober911 Goober911:
This law a catch all.


Seems to be working. It's caught most Canadians in the sense that this is a political ploy to act as a wedge issue. There's no reason for the govt to be ramming it thru the way it is without proper consideration. It's like their tough on crime bills that don't actually accomplish anything, but play to people's fears that want the govt to do something, anything. Compare that to the Martin govt and the care and time they took to bring in their anti-terror legislation, and their willingness to amend it.

Election coming up. Hairball Trudeau supports it after getting slammed for his stance against the Govts deployment against ISIL.
He lost big time on that.
Now we have a rushed law, RCMP - CSIS oversight is bogus.
There are legitimate concerns regarding this bill but is a person questions that, omg they are hindering the Govts ability to combat homegrown terror.
Where was this law for the past number of years? Probably on the napkin it was written on.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:44 am
 


Probably no one took it seriously when it was only idiots overseas getting killed. When someone decided to shoot up Parliament Hill in the blessed name of Allah the game kind of changed.

I'd like to see a law come in where anyone joining up with a group like ISIS would be charged with treason and sentenced to life in prison with no parole, but we all know well in advance how badly the left-wingers would shit their pants over something like that. :roll:


Last edited by Thanos on Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.