Derek 2.0

If thats the actual case, then those officers involved, indirectly and directly, should be held to account........AFAIK, only two officers have been charged with any wrong doing.

There were ones not caught or charged involved in the cited examples? Clearly like any crime (if that be the case), they too should be held to account.

That’s dependant on the actual behaviour of the protestors…….those that stage a rally in a public square or camp in a city park, for the most part, no, not at all. Inversely those that smash storefronts and torch police cars, most certainly, and in my opinion, are far more deserved of the State’s attention and finite resources than drug addicts or “Johns”.

You’re suggesting the 60-70% of the polled population that are supportive of the new anti-terror legislation are wearing tin-foil hats? That’s odd, I’d have thought those scared of the legislation, despite not actually being able to demonstrate why when presented with the actual Bill, are the ones adorning ALCAN………

So you have said.......so sneakily those fearful of it can't point as to why, but they got a hunch that it is.

Yet one in Quebec was charged for assaulting a protester......With Toronto, wasn't a senior officer charged for implementing illegal tactics?

And C-51 does that how?

The police officers in the cited examples being charged for breaking the laws..........What's the problem? If police officers, like any other citizen, breaks the law, they are held to account........hardly the makings of a Fascist Police State

Exactly, or would have happened already if not for the (Harper appointed) SCC……….seems rather irrational……..and now they point to examples of officers that did break the law as examples of their Right being repressed by the State, even though the State is punishing those officers for trampling upon their Rights......

Didn't one officer in the Montreal case, and two in the Toronto G20 case, get charged? That's no discipline in your view?

Right, if police break the laws, like any other Canadians, they too will be held to account.......that's a good thing.

Great, thanks........I’m confused though of the point………It illustrates that during the mentioned Quebec protest, three officers were dressed as protestors, and of the three, the one that got into an altercation with another protestor was charged………doesn’t this illustrate the laws, and in turn the Rights of Canadians, are being upheld when wronged by officers of the State?

Ahh no, you didn't.......anyways, I'll await for you to do so. Good luck.

For you? I'd say so, I'm certain "they" already have the bed springs and car batteries with your name on it

I never suggested there was a difference.......the onus is on you, likewise illustrating how "thresholds for warrants are to be lowered".....those are your baseless claims used to support your position that C-51 will strip Canadians of their rights and freedoms.

I suppose you'd better change your tune prior to that

Explain the legal difference and where the distinction is made......

The SCC? The definitions from the Act referenced in the changes you quoted is ~30 years old: What exactly do you think the SCC is going to strike down?

Don't worry, Tory and Liberal appointed Judges at the SCC will protect your rights

Right and the same wording is found, yet again, in the portion pertaining to the Income Tax Act.......Who governs Federal Tax policy within Canada? As I said, under current laws, the CRA can share personal info with both the RCMP and ISIS.....

No it hasn't......you quoted a passage relating to changes in the Income Tax Act (in relation to personal information disclosure between Government departments) that already exists with present laws........

I'm not flailing the slightest, you proved my point........Canadian laws currently uphold Canadians Rights and Freedoms, those that run counter to those laws, including police (as in your G20 example), can and will be held to account. No, it has not been duly explained how C-51 "lowers the threshold for a warrant"......I asked you this several times and you've yet to answer the question......if you have, and I missed the post, by all means repost it. Thanks in advance.

So that would counter Micheal's suggestion that our current laws can violate Canadian's Rights.....That the two officers were charged is a demonstration that our current laws work as advertised........so, what changes with C-51?

Were they both charged because they conducted lawful or unlawful acts?

Your link is broken......