Federal Election Polls

On Guard for Thee · July 11, 2015

No C-51 connection, never was one. The only people who think so are the ones who didn't understand C-51 in the first place, and were blatantly misinforming others about it.

The connection is is that in a different context the ad could be seen as promoting terrorism, which is dealt with in C 51s broad reaching language. But even as an attack ad it has achieved an all time low, and I think turned a lot of people off and will backfire on Harper.

Vancouver King · July 11, 2015

Agree with most of this. Anyone who thinks there is some sort of alliance between the Liberals and NDP is deluding themselves imo.

No alliance, just an appreciation of the over-arching sentiment within the electorate - 7 in 10 voters want Harper gone.

Shady · July 11, 2015

No alliance, just an appreciation of the over-arching sentiment within the electorate - 7 in 10 voters want Harper gone.

7 in 10 don't want Justin as PM. And 7 in 10 don't want Tom. That's the deal when there are more than 2 parties running.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

7 in 10 don't want Justin as PM. And 7 in 10 don't want Tom. That's the deal when there are more than 2 parties running.

The idea that many are perpetuating, that those voting for the Liberals and those voting for the NDP are voting in unison against the Conservatives is nonsense. If it weren't, the Liberals and NDP would be the same party.

Keepitsimple · July 11, 2015

So I guess you are under some illusion as to where that news video came from. It came from ISIS hence the C 51 connection.

Now you're saying the CBC might also be charged under C-51 for showing still images of ISIS propaganda? That's just paranoid! You should spend more time trying to say some good things about your idol, Rock Star Justin and his LIberals......instead of perpetuating your anti-Harper, drive-by smears, over and over and over. It's tiresome - but still a little bit comical.

On Guard for Thee · July 11, 2015

Now you're saying the CBC might also be charged under C-51 for showing still images of ISIS propaganda? That's just paranoid! You should spend more time trying to say some good things about your idol, Rock Star Justin and his LIberals......instead of perpetuating your anti-Harper, drive-by smears, over and over and over. It's tiresome - but still a little bit comical.

They could well be under C 51.

WWWTT · July 11, 2015

Wrong again. The images were taken from standard Canadian network news coverage. But at least you're now admitting it's not a video. You're making progress.

Did Canadian network news coverage PRODUCE the video the images are cropped from?

WWWTT

Keepitsimple · July 11, 2015

Did Canadian network news coverage PRODUCE the video the images are cropped from?

WWWTT

Are you jumping on board On Guard's bus to Paranoia - and saying that the CBC and other networks would be charged under C51?

PrimeNumber · July 12, 2015

Are you jumping on board On Guard's bus to Paranoia - and saying that the CBC and other networks would be charged under C51?

Technically if they wanted to, they could charge them under C51. Same as The Conservatives.

The way the bill is worded you could without a doubt charge a lot of people, probably a fair portion of the country if they so wanted to. Hence the problem with the bill.

Keepitsimple · July 12, 2015

Technically if they wanted to, they could charge them under C51. Same as The Conservatives.

Says who?

Derek 2.0 · July 12, 2015

Agree with most of this. Anyone who thinks there is some sort of alliance between the Liberals and NDP is deluding themselves imo.

Exactly, the Liberal (maybe not Trudeau) Party understands that entering into a formal alliance with the NDP, as a junior partner, will be the end of them as a relevant political party........likewise, there are segments of the Liberal party that find the NDP's brand of fiscal Socialism to be abhorrent.....the two parties might have some common ground with various social polices, but in other keys areas are miles apart (hence why they are two different parties).

PrimeNumber · July 12, 2015

Says who?

Says the bill.

Derek 2.0 · July 12, 2015

Says the bill.

Where? Here is the Bill, feel free to outline the passage that supports your claim........I wait in angst.

PrimeNumber · July 12, 2015

Where? Here is the Bill, feel free to outline the passage that supports your claim........I wait in angst.

Writings, signs, visible representations or audio recordings that constitute terrorist propaganda within the meaning of subsection 83.222(8) of the Criminal Code;” as a separate provision before the provision “Posters and handbills depicting scenes of crime or violence; or”.
83.223 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is material — that is terrorist propaganda or computer data that makes terrorist propaganda available — stored on and made available to the public through a computer system that is within the court’s jurisdiction, the judge may...

It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.

Maybe you should read it. Within that wording you could easily stretch it to include both broadcasts and attack ads. It's this kind of loose wording that makes people uncomfortable with this bill.

Derek 2.0 · July 12, 2015

Maybe you should read it. Within that wording you could easily stretch it to include both broadcasts and attack ads. It's this kind of loose wording that makes people uncomfortable with this bill.

I have read it, and no, you're wrong........as the CPC's political add, nor the countless reports by Canadian MSM, are advocating terrorism :rolleyes:

83.221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

Care to demonstrate how you feel the CPC is advocating or promoting ISIS?

Keepitsimple · July 13, 2015

Maybe you should read it. Within that wording you could easily stretch it to include both broadcasts and attack ads. It's this kind of loose wording that makes people uncomfortable with this bill.

You guys are hilarious - and hypocritical. On one hand, you cheer when Judges accuse the Harper government of over-reaching with their Law & Order agenda. But now - you're saying those same judges would over-reach and allow the CBC and other networks to be charged and jailed under C51. Surely you can see the hypocricy in your argument. No? didn't think so......that Harper-hating mentality gets in the way.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Keepitsimple

Bob Macadoo · July 13, 2015

You guys are hilarious - and hypocritical. On one hand, you cheer when Judges accuse the Harper government of over-reaching with their Law & Order agenda. But now - you're saying those same judges would over-reach and allow the CBC and other networks to be charged and jailed under C51. Surely you can see the hypocricy in your argument. No? didn't think so......that Harper-hating mentality gets in the way.

I think your understanding/logic are fatally flawed.

Judges, especialy SC ones, don't charge people under ridiculously broad statutes......that's the crown at the behest of governing circle. The absurdity was not that the CPC would be charged....yet they craft such poor legislation that if this was batshitcrazyland they "could" be charged......its strawmen on both sides.....light the match and burn it all....whoo-hoo.

On Guard for Thee · July 13, 2015

I have read it, and no, you're wrong........as the CPC's political add, nor the countless reports by Canadian MSM, are advocating terrorism

Care to demonstrate how you feel the CPC is advocating or promoting ISIS?

By using shots from ISIS own promo videos perhaps?

blueblood · July 13, 2015

By using shots from ISIS own promo videos perhaps?

You Better mosey on down to the court house and see about laying a charge then...

On Guard for Thee · July 13, 2015

You Better mosey on down to the court house and see about laying a charge then...

You go ahead with that. I'm busy.

PrimeNumber · July 13, 2015

You guys are hilarious - and hypocritical. On one hand, you cheer when Judges accuse the Harper government of over-reaching with their Law & Order agenda. But now - you're saying those same judges would over-reach and allow the CBC and other networks to be charged and jailed under C51. Surely you can see the hypocrisy in your argument. No? didn't think so......that Harper-hating mentality gets in the way.

What's hilarious is that the CPC writes legislation that they themselves can be charged under.

Thankfully we have supreme court judges in this country that are reasonable beyond what the CPC tries to pass through parliament.

There is no hypocrisy in my argument, just hypocrisy in your unending support for a government that cares nothing for you.

If all you guys want is security, just go to prison. You get a bed, fed and will be guarded around the clock. The only thing you will be giving up is your personal freedom, although you CPC supporters don't seem to care much for that anyways.

PrimeNumber · July 13, 2015

I have read it, and no, you're wrong........as the CPC's political add, nor the countless reports by Canadian MSM, are advocating terrorism

Care to demonstrate how you feel the CPC is advocating or promoting ISIS?

I don't have to demonstrate anything, The bill leaves it up to a judges personal interpretation. Luckily for the CPC we have judges in this country who think things through more so than Harper and his cronies in Parliament.

I mean it's so bad even Justin Trudeau will support it.

blueblood · July 13, 2015

You go ahead with that. I'm busy.

Your the one wanting charges. Section 504 of the Criminal Code says you can.

Vancouver King · July 13, 2015

What's hilarious is that the CPC writes legislation that they themselves can be charged under.

Thankfully we have supreme court judges in this country that are reasonable beyond what the CPC tries to pass through parliament.

There is no hypocrisy in my argument, just hypocrisy in your unending support for a government that cares nothing for you.

If all you guys want is security, just go to prison. You get a bed, fed and will be guarded around the clock. The only thing you will be giving up is your personal freedom, although you CPC supporters don't seem to care much for that anyways.

Or they could rewrite the legislation retroactively to get themselves off the hook. It worked for the gun registry, why not beheading ads?

On Guard for Thee · July 13, 2015

Your the one wanting charges. Section 504 of the Criminal Code says you can.

Another righty who doesn't read well. I haven't said I want charges. I, like may others on this thread, have pointed out how easy there could be under this bill. Try and keep that straight.