Icebound

For those who support the intrusive provisions of c-51 because...." they apply only to terrorists, and would never be used against normal protesters..."... here is an example as to how the application of laws morph into something totally unintended by the original drafters.... .. A law which was intended to prevent companies-under-investigation from shredding documents.... is now being used against individuals who delete their browser history... http://m.thenation.com/article/208593-you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history Also, it not so much that deleting your browser history may be illegal.... its that the penalty is 20 years! ....

Well I didn't mean to cause an argument about the NAME of this thread.... I did, however, want to address the content. The OP made two particular assertions: 1...Basic serve-and-protect police work can't be done, and arrests are way down, 2...crime is way up. The implication being that, with all the negative media attention, policing is becoming less aggressive, and thus crime is increasing. ...and the rest of the thread, instead of addressing the OP argument.... deteriorated into yet another unhelpful generalization pro- or anti- police. While the OP assertions above may be true in some local areas, there is absolutely no evidence that it is a systemic country-wide phenomena. Baltimore and New York may show fewer arrests, but Denver is in the middle of an offensive and arrests are way up. If one was to use country-wide fatal police interactions as a measure of aggressive policing, then this year is actually trending UP over last, and WAY up over two years ago (wikipedia numbers). New York's murder rate is up in 2015, but all other crime is down. (New York Daily News numbers) There is also absolutely no evidence that any of this is because of less-aggressive policing. My previous post has the summary of crime expert's thinking on the relationship between certain type of crime, and the financial and psychological health and outlook for the population. How is YOUR financial and psychological outlook trending? Are the law-abiding buying more stuff on the grey market? Finally, the media's part in all this. The media's JOB is primarily to report wrong-doing, and especially when nobody else is. Of COURSE, there are thousands of police forces with hundreds of thousands of police WHO NEVER GET MENTIONED in the media... exactly because they are doing their jobs well.... and when they do get mentioned, their heroism tends to be deemed of local interest and doesn't make the national news. That may be too bad, but it can be mitigated by social media like youtube and twitter. Activists use it to show the individual incidents of wrong-doing.... supporters can use it to highlight individual incidents of heroism.

Based on the topic title, this thread has lost its way. Policing per se, was being discussed in another thread nearby. But to get back to the crime wave. Scientific American has this take: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-recessions-increase-crime/ Some findings: 1. "young males with no more than a high school education—the demographic group that commits the most crime—they found that average wages and unemployment rates were directly linked to the incidence of property crimes. ....Hard times also lead to more domestic abuse." 2. "[they]....traced murder rates against the Consumer Sentiment Index—a survey of how people view their current financial situation and how hopeful they are about the future. They found that lower index scores strongly correlate with higher murder rates." 3. ".... but “marginal consumers—the shopper who goes to discount stores—many of those consumers turn to street markets during an economic downturn. These are often markets for used goods, but some are stolen goods. As demand increases, incentives for criminals to commit crimes expand.” 4. "... a direct economic stimulus can act as a salve. Communities in the 1930s that spent more on public works programs had lower crime rates than other communities,..." Is it just possible that, these are factors that are really coming into play. In particular, in what direction is the "Consumer Sentiment Index" trending these days? Has the post-recession recovery reached everybody? ...

Here is an. Interesting body-cam video http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/03/1390285/-Shocking-new-video-shows-unarmed-Utah-man-was-listening-to-headphones-when-killed-by-police The video is near bottom of the page.... The district attorney ruled the killing justified. Moral:... Do not listen to music on earphones in public, it could be fatal.

4 million social insurance numbers hacked?Time to resurrect this thread... ...

Those examples are more a highlight of the inertia of our law profession, rather than of ills in the CRF. Our legal and justice systems need to evolve to handle trivial slights, differently than serious abuses. Not sure of the answer, but I am sure brilliant legal minds could work it out. If there were any incentive to do so.

Not sure why the hostility, because I actually agree with most of your post... It IS Canada, other party CAN fix it, served us well, etc. etc.. Which is why I am concerned that we are trying to change it. As for respect for government, I approach government the way you approach any transaction between parties... a certain amount of trust and a certain amount of skepticism: is that cantaloupe he is trying to sell me REALLY fresh? is that used car REALLY been checked out thoroughly? Is that new law REALLY going to improve my life? You can appreciate that the skepticism becomes more intense when one party to the transaction says, "Oh, by the way... here are all the things about this transaction that YOU CAN NOT KNOW or do.... . Just trust me." The Snowden reference was just a hilarious side-bar. That the government should be so afraid, speaks to the power of that one individual. Why should someone deemed a criminal have such power? Because skepticism has reached the tipping point. I HOPE Canada does not want to get there, but that is the direction where some provisions of C-51 lead us. ...

... You would like to think so. I would like to think so. But here is a case in a "Democracy" (not sure if you call it "Canadian-style").... .... where the prosecutors are asking of the court:: The defendant should be precluded from arguing or suggesting that the undercover technique the government used in the underlying investigation was improper. Any argument attacking the government’s investigative techniques would not only be improper, but it should also trigger an instruction that such investigative techniques are entirely proper. In other words, the defendant can't question the government's methods, or the legality of those methods. Now.... I did not read the court's ruling on this request, but we kind of know of the general relationship between courts and prosecutors. And just for icing on the cake, the defendant cannot mention Snowden, or the existence of the NSA, because it is going to prejudice the jury. This kind of BS is already creeping into our courts, and we better stamp it out now. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/04/mention-snowdens-name-makes-prosecutors-fear/

+1 There has been a lot of argument in this thread that use of the provisions of C-51 against law-abiding citizens is "hypothetical". But are not the the scenarios which require all these extra powers also somewhat "hypothetical"? We look upon the disappearance and/or murders of a thousand women as being "crimes" that require no special inquiry. 7 RCMP officers were killed by gunfire in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, but nowhere can I find the label "terrorist" associated with Bourque or Roszko. Surely the killing of 7 officers is quite a bit of terror. ( By the way, police used to be called "peace officers"....what happened to that?... but I digress) What makes one particular gun crime on parliament hill... heinous as it is.... any more horrible?... , such that it requires this knee-jerk repressive legislation? Did it kill more people? Inflict more damage? NO... It is because we are concerned about what, hypothetically, COULD happen. Well, LOTS of things could happen, hypothetically. Are we so afraid that our open democracy cannot handle some criminals... even organized criminals...that we have to shut ourselves off into a voluntary jail patrolled by "the authorities" who are privy to secret information about the terrible state of the world outside our prison? If this is what we have come to, then our democracy experiment failed badly, and I don't believe that to be the case. Openness, such as it is, is the reason this society thrives as it does. Free exchange of ideas pushes people to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions that pushes our social progress forward. Someone mentioned in this thread that the Charter of Rights is dangerous. It is... It is meant to be dangerous.... to governments! To keep them from overstepping their authority. To remind them that they serve at the will of the people and not the other way around. Democratic governments must remember that their mandate is not only to prevent their citizens from harm from crime. They must also protect citizens from creeping facism in the future.

... After a little research on the web, I was wondering if Harper's frequent visits to Ukraine have influenced him: https://maidantranslations.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/screen-shot-2014-05-09-at-2-43-22-pm.png

WTF is this? http://i.cbc.ca/1.3088978.1432723107!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/mother-canada.jpg The USSR was full of these self-aggrandizing behemoths towering over the landscape. Is this what we are trying to emulate??? The people over there are trying to tear these things DOWN! Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-highlands-war-memorial-opposed-by-new-group-1.3096705

The latest example why civilized nations have eliminated the death penalty is here https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/01/lesterbowertodie For 30 years they could not figure out whether to execute this guy, but now they are going to kill him, anyway

Exactly: ... if our governments do nothing else....the one thing they are supposed to do is "protect" us. And that includes protection from the misuse of personal information. they should be mandating much tighter limits on how personal information is held and used by corporations, and NOT be part of the misuse problem. Even so, as has been repeatedly said: the difference between Walmart misusing my information and Governments doing it, is that Walmart can't put me in jail. They are also supposed to "protect" us from future governments that might not be quite as benevolent as our present company. That's what constitutions are for. Forgive a government for eroding democracy and for lying about it... at your peril.

Yeah, except that a decade on, they find the tools are being used illegally, and are not all that useful for connecting the dots anyway. Not to mention being lied to about it, as well. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul's performance this week resonates with the American electorate. On this issue, he is sounding a lot like the Obama of 2008.

EXACTLY! ! ! These are exactly the sort of privacy invasions that governments should be protecting its citizens from, not adding to them. That.... and bank fraud... and... computer security.... and the hundreds of other scams that plague MOST of the American and Canadian people every day.... But no, on the issues that cost us the most money and effort every day, they leave us to our own devices... but billions are spent on illegal systems of dubious worth to save us from a terror which might be more spectacular, but way, way, less probable for the average citizen..

I've been sitting here for the last hour or so, watching on C-SPAN... the Senate debating NSA's data collection programs pending tonight's Patriot Act deadline. Whether Snowden is a hero or not... it seem pretty apparent that a large number of Senators... led by Rand Paul... have been unhappy with the Government's intelligence services' illegal bulk-data collection (and their lies about the same).... for a long time. But over the years, their efforts to have the issue addressed, came to nothing... until Snowden blew the lid off.

Maybe. And maybe countries are getting pissed off enough at USA to grant him asylum just for the hell of it. Switzerland has already toyed with the idea. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-could-grant-edward-snowden-asylum-if-he-testifies-against-nsa-9718462.html ... .

Yes, all that secret surveillance is really important to the control and capture of Al Quaeda.... except that when the Americans found out that it was costing them up to 180 billion in lost foreign business, then suddenly it became less important.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/what-happens-to-collection-of-phone-records-if-law-expires/2015/05/22/3250c4a2-00f2-11e5-8c77-bf274685e1df_story.html https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140726/19022728022/report-says-backlash-nsas-surveillance-programs-will-cost-private-sector-billions-dollars.shtml

Snowden was pilloried in this any many forums in the past two years. Many in the world, including the United States... are finally coming around to recognize the importance and significance of his actions: 1. This report from a "secret" global conference on security:... http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/talking-gchq-interception-not-required..., ...indicate that the security and intelligence establishment acknowledges that: ""cold winds of transparency" had arrived and were here to stay.... " "Snowden's actions were an inevitable and perhaps necessary counterbalance to admitted excesses of intelligence collection after 9/11, " 2. Provisions in the Patriot Act are about to expire: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/24/patriot-act-nsa-phone-snooping-likely-to-expire-af/?page=all "The NSA program has been controversial since even before it was publicly revealed by former government contractor Edward Snowden." "Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper seemed to mislead the country when, in open testimony to Congress, he denied the government was scooping up any kinds of records on millions of Americans. In the two years since Mr. Snowden revealed the program, repeated reviews have found it to be ineffective. In the latest audit by the Justice Department Inspector General, FBI agents couldn’t point to a single plot that has been foiled thanks to bulk data collection." 3. The Wall Street Journal estimates that NSA activities have cost the US economy as much as 180 billion in lost business because of erosion of trust: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/30/new-report-snowden-revelations-hurt-u-s-companies/ "A more recent survey of 300 British and Canadian multinational companies found that a quarter of respondents were moving their data outside the U.S., and the overwhelming majority was willing to sacrifice access speed for security." Once again, knee-jerk legislation and "security" programs which erode democracy are proving not only ineffective, but actually detrimental.... and not only detrimental to the so-called left's love of privacy, human rights, etc... but also detrimental to the right's love of the economic bottom line. If the US can pardon Scooter Libby for his part in exposing the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, they can certainly pardon Snowden

The USA transferred Khadr back to Canada, because they knew that the whole case was an embarrassment to them.

Sure, I accept that.... although "just as often" is probably a stretch, though I freely admit that I have no numbers.

... We forget that the specific phrase is somewhat peripheral to the fact that these women are being hampered from carrying our their jobs with a reasonable expectation of not being harassed. Remember that this happens to them pretty much every work day, and sometimes more than once per day. This is NOT a "...one-off, ho hum, ignore and carry on...".... How would you like somebody pulling your chair out from under you at least once a day at work?.... every day?... sometimes twice a day?... especially during your important presentations to clients?... After two years of that, would that be rage-inducing? ...

None of the above. The number one issue is the erosion of freedoms, including freedom of speech: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-threatening-hate-charges-against-those-who-boycott-israel-1.3067497 ...

It is precisely C-B shopping and O-L shopping that WOULD be affected. In order to accomplish your CB or OL transaction, you will need to move money out from your bank account... either by withdrawing cash, or by credit card, etc. And that is a transaction and that will be taxed at the 1/100 of a penny per dollar rate, or whatever... Banks would be required to charge it, just as retailers are required to charge GST.

... ... all of which just goes to show that all personal income tax should be abolished, and the revenue recovered by means of a GST-like consumption tax. The bigger house, car, yacht you buy, the more tax you pay. An automatic "tax the rich" scheme. Exempt home-consumption food, kids clothing, school expenses, whatever basics.... I would also like a financial transaction tax.... 1/100 of a penny on every dollar moved.... or whatever value the accountants work out to be correct.... possibly with a lifetime limit of free moves. So someone who invests and retrieves a few hundred thousand will not pay nearly as much as someone who moves millions. Think how much bureaucracy that would save, just trying to decipher the tax code.