wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) At least somebody is protecting us from these vermin since the Liberals wouldn't........well actually they introduced it then withdrew support for their own Legislation..........lol http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9009123.html Edited October 29, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
William Ashley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 At least somebody is protecting us from these vermin since the Liberals wouldn't!http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9009123.html What does Harper have to do with this? Is Mr. Harper Suddently the Ontario Superior Court? There was something in the crimional code called the crime of "terrorism" before all the other terrorist stuff and secret trials came into play. I'm still wondering what the link to Harper is on this one? Quote I was here.
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Posted October 29, 2008 What does Harper have to do with this? Is Mr. Harper Suddently the Ontario Superior Court?There was something in the crimional code called the crime of "terrorism" before all the other terrorist stuff and secret trials came into play. I'm still wondering what the link to Harper is on this one? Well ..........there is this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061601450.html Quote
William Ashley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 Well ..........there is this.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061601450.html I miss your logic.. spending $224000000 to stop a bomb that didn't go off, that was discovered by the British before Canada.. is not Mr. Harper "helping". It is Mr Harper flushing $224000000 down the drain when MI5 could do it for us. Also he was convicted under the CCC (Criminal Code of Canada - not the antiterrorism act) so once again.. harper didn't help with this one.. the british were the ones who discovered the plot.. not the RCMP. Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 I miss your logic.. spending $224000000 to stop a bomb that didn't go off, that was discovered by the British before Canada.. is not Mr. Harper "helping". It is Mr Harper flushing $224000000 down the drain when MI5 could do it for us.Also he was convicted under the CCC (Criminal Code of Canada - not the antiterrorism act) so once again.. harper didn't help with this one.. the british were the ones who discovered the plot.. not the RCMP. Also the Toronto attack was tipped off by an informant (so said) Not some dragnet in operation. Actually one of the cops who was training them was on government payroll. So oddly the government actually sponsered that group (there is more to it than that.. but I can't say more as i have no evidence to present beyond that point) Quote I was here.
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Posted October 29, 2008 Also he was convicted under the CCC (Criminal Code of Canada - not the antiterrorism act) This is the opening line in the Article. OTTAWA — Ottawa software developer Momin Khawaja has been found guilty of several counts under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 At least somebody is protecting us from these vermin since the Liberals wouldn't........well actually they introduced it then withdrew support for their own Legislation..........lolhttp://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9009123.html I see it as a non partisan issue. To me it doesn't matter who came up with it or enacted it. The important bit is that it is in fact in place to help protect the Canadian public. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Posted October 29, 2008 I see it as a non partisan issue. To me it doesn't matter who came up with it or enacted it. The important bit is that it is in fact in place to help protect the Canadian public. Some see as a infringement on civil rights......but hey if your not doing anything that your not supposed to be doing....why worry? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 Some see as a infringement on civil rights......but hey if your not doing anything that your not supposed to be doing....why worry? Yep, precisely. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
William Ashley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 This is the opening line in the Article.OTTAWA — Ottawa software developer Momin Khawaja has been found guilty of several counts under the Anti-Terrorism Act. e was also found guilty of two Criminal Code offences related to building a remote-control device, known as the Hi-Fi Digimonster The ATA is not Criminal Justice oriented. It is national security. I therefore dismiss the ability of the Ontario Court of Justice to make renderings on it within a criminal trial. It shold not have been the same trial. Can you list these "charges" that were within the ATA that he was found guilty of. I'm geussing it was ignorance on the part of the reporter who doesn't understand what the ATA is, that stated they were found guilding of charges in the ATA. Quote I was here.
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Posted October 29, 2008 e was also found guilty of two Criminal Code offences related to building a remote-control device, known as the Hi-Fi DigimonsterThe ATA is not Criminal Justice oriented. It is national security. I therefore dismiss the ability of the Ontario Court of Justice to make renderings on it within a criminal trial. It shold not have been the same trial. Can you list these "charges" that were within the ATA that he was found guilty of. I'm geussing it was ignorance on the part of the reporter who doesn't understand what the ATA is, that stated they were found guilding of charges in the ATA. I am going by the article...did the reporter make a mistake? to be honest i can't say............but the Terrorism Act gives the Government much more authority than it once had to deal with these people...similiar to what the Americans are doing maybe not to the same extreme. Quote
William Ashley Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 e was also found guilty of two Criminal Code offences related to building a remote-control device, known as the Hi-Fi DigimonsterThe ATA is not Criminal Justice oriented. It is national security. I therefore dismiss the ability of the Ontario Court of Justice to make renderings on it within a criminal trial. It shold not have been the same trial. Can you list these "charges" that were within the ATA that he was found guilty of. I'm geussing it was ignorance on the part of the reporter who doesn't understand what the ATA is, that stated they were found guilding of charges in the ATA. I also gotta ask.. how does Mr. Harper have anything to do with the 2001 drafted Anti Terrorism Act? What does harper have anything to do with this? Quote I was here.
Mr.Canada Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 I therefore dismiss the ability of the Ontario Court of Justice to make renderings on it within a criminal trial. It shold not have been the same trial. Well, thankfully that's not up to you to decide and another terrorist will not be bringing harm to the Canadian people. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
guyser Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 ......but hey if your not doing anything that your not supposed to be doing....why worry? Wonderful logic. I am going to be the new Police Chief in your town next year. Please provide me your address and telephone number. I will , at my whim, send Police through your front doors at all hours of the day and night.Roust you out of bed,put you in handcuffs and search the entire house. When my boys find nothing, they will leave. On their way out I will have instructed them to say.. "Dont worry,you werent doing anything that your not supposed to be doing I know you'll love it. Right? Quote
wulf42 Posted October 29, 2008 Author Report Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) Wonderful logic.I am going to be the new Police Chief in your town next year. Please provide me your address and telephone number. I will , at my whim, send Police through your front doors at all hours of the day and night.Roust you out of bed,put you in handcuffs and search the entire house. When my boys find nothing, they will leave. On their way out I will have instructed them to say.. "Dont worry,you werent doing anything that your not supposed to be doing I know you'll love it. Right? You know they (CSIS,RCMP) go after people who they know are terrorist's..........the anti terrorist Act doesn't worry me in the least................and unless your a terrorist it shouldn't worry you either.....the only people who would have a problem with the Terrorist Act are terrorists......PERIOD...........and i fully support anything that will stop them! Edited October 30, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
guyser Posted October 29, 2008 Report Posted October 29, 2008 Don't be fucking stupid.... I'm not. Follow your own advice. .the only people who would have a problem with the Terrorist Act are terrorists......PERIOD...........and i fully support anything that will stop them! So you have no problem with my scenario. How cute! I too support measures that can stop terrorism, but never at the repeal of rights. You on the other hand......... Quote
William Ashley Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 Well, thankfully that's not up to you to decide and another terrorist will not be bringing harm to the Canadian people. "British People British people.. he was implicted in a BRITISH terror plot NOT canadian......" Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) "British People British people.. he was implicted in a BRITISH terror plot NOT canadian......" I don't like anything that gives the government arbitrary powers to remove constitutional rights, habeas corpus and other legal protections british common law espoused for several centuries. This is a reason why I don't support the mental health act of ontario - because it overrides the right to self representation and creates arbitrary practices that strip constituional rights to conscience and freedom of movement - where no laws have been broken, and removes the premise of innocent until proven guilty - and notions of fair trial. With are cornerstones to "humane justice". Living in a police state that supports cruel and unusual punishment is not my choice of somewhere I'd like to live. Terrorism seems much less dispicable when the authorities use just as inhumane practices on their own public otherwise contrary to their own laws. I'm very much against secret trials because I feel the right to a fair trial under the watch of ones peers, re trail by jury is very important as an option for indictable (that is serious crimes) this is to put in check state powers over the law. If the state can override the law, what use is the legistlature. IF the legislature is unable to be effective.. where is democracy? If there is no democracy.. that is a police state. There was a "terrorism" charge in the criminal code, there was no need to revise the criminal code. I don't see how it has been needed yet.. unless there have been thousands of "secret trials" we havn't heard about.. and the only publicized ones are shows put on by CSIS to gather more intelligence. Edited October 30, 2008 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Mr.Canada Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) wulf42, don't play their game. This is what they want. To get a rise out of you. If you notice I'm usually trying to get a rise out of them by saying inflammatory things that are sure to get a reaction. Take it for what it is, entertainment. Don't get me wrong there are people here who will engage in useful conversation from all stripes. M.Dancer and jdobbin come to mind. As these two are definitely more left leaning then we are but they will add something useful when properly motivated. They pretty much see me as an idiot, which I'm not but hey, look at what I've been giving them to work with..hahaha. I'd most likely think me an idiot too if I read what I typed from their side if the fence. Try to stay smart and keep it context. This forum is run out of the UoA political Science dept. This is probably an ongoing pet project of theirs and is bound to get some more left wing answers than others. Many of the profs nowadays have more socialist leanings than in the past but most people here are fairly bright. Try not to get caught up in the inflammatory stuff, hey I do too. Nobodies perfect Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Hcheh Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 so once again.. harper didn't help with this one.. the british were the ones who discovered the plot.. not the RCMP. you mean not the CSIS lol Quote
Hcheh Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 Wonderful logic.I am going to be the new Police Chief in your town next year. Please provide me your address and telephone number. I will , at my whim, send Police through your front doors at all hours of the day and night.Roust you out of bed,put you in handcuffs and search the entire house. When my boys find nothing, they will leave. On their way out I will have instructed them to say.. "Dont worry,you werent doing anything that your not supposed to be doing I know you'll love it. Right? that is wayy too hypothetical. I am just going to take that as an exaggeration. Anyhow , at least we don't have shit like the patriot act. There is a fine line between investigation and an invasion of privacy/rights. An average citizen would be at no fault if he/she felt uneasy about an invasion of rights. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 that is wayy too hypothetical. I am just going to take that as an exaggeration. Anyhow , at least we don't have shit like the patriot act. There is a fine line between investigation and an invasion of privacy/rights. An average citizen would be at no fault if he/she felt uneasy about an invasion of rights. I think guyse watched "V for Vendetta" this evening anf thinks we'e all about to be put into one of "Creddies" black bags. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
wulf42 Posted October 30, 2008 Author Report Posted October 30, 2008 (edited) wulf42, don't play their game. This is what they want. To get a rise out of you. If you notice I'm usually trying to get a rise out of them by saying inflammatory things that are sure to get a reaction. Take it for what it is, entertainment.Don't get me wrong there are people here who will engage in useful conversation from all stripes. M.Dancer and jdobbin come to mind. As these two are definitely more left leaning then we are but they will add something useful when properly motivated. They pretty much see me as an idiot, which I'm not but hey, look at what I've been giving them to work with..hahaha. I'd most likely think me an idiot too if I read what I typed from their side if the fence. Try to stay smart and keep it context. This forum is run out of the UoA political Science dept. This is probably an ongoing pet project of theirs and is bound to get some more left wing answers than others. Many of the profs nowadays have more socialist leanings than in the past but most people here are fairly bright. Try not to get caught up in the inflammatory stuff, hey I do too. Nobodies perfect I agree Mr Canada.............i will certainly watch my language................i guess it isn't good to come on this forum........when your tired and cranky.....lol...my views tend to lean to the right .........! Edited October 30, 2008 by wulf42 Quote
guyser Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 that is wayy too hypothetical. I am just going to take that as an exaggeration. There is a fine line between investigation and an invasion of privacy/rights. An average citizen would be at no fault if he/she felt uneasy about an invasion of rights. An exaggeration, yes. But the point is the erosion of rights will occur if we do not have them enforced.Like anyone else on this forum, I dont want terrorists in this country, I dont want harm to come to this country. When, or if, the police are given specific powers that override our rights in specific situations, then the slippery slope has started. This country makes laws, and at times , even with the best of intentions, those laws get used in ways we could never have imagined. Unintended consequences. An example would be pedophile laws. The fact that this happened in the US , is to me, immaterial. A 15 yr old girl took naked photos of herself. The police found her photos on her phone.They charged her pedophilia. Does that make sense? The fatc that we have laws on the books, old laws that have been proven to work , is enough. We dont need these new laws. Institute new rules for sentencing if need be. The "racing law" is one of those dumb ones. 2/3rds of all those cases are thrown out. Want to bet careless driving would have stuck? And had that charge stuck, what would the Crown/Prov of Ont gained or lost? The money for the impoundment is all I can see. The ticket would have been expensive, the guys renewal on his insurance would have been horrible , and the overall effect would have been justice, not the mockery they have now. About the only new laws we should have are electronic laws covering the new communication ways we have, and medical / ethical laws. Quote
guyser Posted October 30, 2008 Report Posted October 30, 2008 wulf42, don't play their game. This is what they want. To get a rise out of you Perhaps the fact that you and wulf dont look beyond your collective noses is what I am attempting to get across. I pretty much know that none of the scenarios I laid out will happen to you or wulf. But they very likely will happen somewhere in this country if we are not careful. People, collectively, are vindictive pricks. If wulf's son pisses off the right person, and that person invites attention to his son, just what do you expect will happen? I am not trying to get a rise out of wulf nor you. Hopefully you stop and think about something you wrote that was shallow or not thought out. Ever see me in historical debates around here? Nope, and thats because I learn a shitload more about history reading from those that know, than from my posting ignorance for all to see. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.