eyeball Posted January 30, 2015 Author Report Posted January 30, 2015 No, you should be detaining and disrupting anyone from doing what you've suggested....before the fact. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Big Guy Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 The problem that I have with this bill is the power that these government pinheads are given. To this point their mistakes are only costing the taxpayer money; http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/bungled-arms-case-results-in-multi-million-dollar-secret-settlement-by-federal-government-1.2214061 Now they will be given the power to arrest, detain in secret and prosecute in secret. If they had that power to-day, Steve de Jaray and his daughter would still be in some dungeon somewhere charged with treason and terrorism. Do you really trust these guys to play games with your liberty? We need an impartial, 4 party overview parliamentary committee sworn to secrecy, to keep an eye on these guys. Right now there is almost no regulation or oversight. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted January 31, 2015 Author Report Posted January 31, 2015 Maybe the thought of this sort of power falling into JT or Mulcair's hands will cause them to think twice. I mean righties would normally be referring to people like Stalin or Places like North Korea when they're worried about excessive state power. Am I supposed to believe righties are above this sort of thing or better able to control themselves? That still begs the question why would they leave something so potentially dangerous laying around where a lefty can get their hands on it? Maybe the righties have a plan to ensure lefties never assume power again. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 I don't come on to this forum to watch television. That's not how the forum works. If you post something, you're suppose to provide a link. Why is this such a difficult concept for some of you to understand? If I had a dollar for everytime you failed to provide a cite. I would not need to look for a job. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 Canada is mimicing what we see in the USA after 9/11. Police and the RCMP can now do indefinate incarceration without a charge. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 Canada is mimicing what we see in the USA after 9/11. Police and the RCMP can now do indefinate incarceration without a charge. Not really - the US is usually a bad model. I think it's more correct to say we've moved relatively slowly - on the trailing edge - and are learning pros and cons from what Australia, the UK and others have tried. I like the fact that we haven't moved in a kneejerk way. That's why the media has reported this legislation as being "long awaited". Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 Seriously though, I wonder how many Canadians will take up the challenge to push the envelope on what constitutes radicalizing language? I suspect some of the stuff that gets said around here and on other forums is certainly regarded as support for terror simply because it mocks the state and it's efforts and even accuses it's efforts as being the cause of terror. It will wind up being something like hate speech. That is to say, you can say nasty things about various ethnic groups if you want to. There is no law that says you have to like gays or blacks or Jews. What you cannot do is, in effect, campaign against them, call for action against them, do your best to make people hate them and discriminate against them. So no, nothing here is likely to be impacted by this new legislation. People can go on wallowing in white liberal guilt and presuming that anything done by a brown man is ultimately excused and caused by the evil behaviour of a White man somewhere if they so choose. So yer good! Stop worrying! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 If I say "Canada has it coming", is that promotion or just an opinion? Just an expression of ones own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The more and more security then the less and less privacy and freedom. The question becomes, when is the proper balance reached. Those on the far right feel it has yet to be achieved for Canada with more security yet required. Those on the far left feel that we have enough security and that freedoms and privacy have already been breached. Bet you can't say how. There is nothing in this legislation which will harm our privacy. By the way, has it ever occurred to you that 'far right' is actually the wrong term for everyone to the right of centre? You ought to use the term 'intelligent people' instead. Then again, as you are on the far Left, I suppose anyone in the centre seems 'far right' to you. Edited January 31, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 31, 2015 Report Posted January 31, 2015 Now they will be given the power to arrest, detain in secret and prosecute in secret. Scary stuff! Not true, of course, but Scary Stuff! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Topaz Posted February 1, 2015 Report Posted February 1, 2015 The Safety Minister was on TV and said something about the parent of the kids that become radicalized, about talking to them, I wonder if there going to be jail time for them. Also, why not let these guys leave Canada and not allowed back in, rather than keeping them here in jail. Quote
Wilber Posted February 1, 2015 Report Posted February 1, 2015 The Safety Minister was on TV and said something about the parent of the kids that become radicalized, about talking to them, I wonder if there going to be jail time for them. Also, why not let these guys leave Canada and not allowed back in, rather than keeping them here in jail. One more time. Canadian citizens can not be refused entry into Canada. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted February 1, 2015 Author Report Posted February 1, 2015 The Safety Minister was on TV and said something about the parent of the kids that become radicalized, about talking to them, I wonder if there going to be jail time for them. I suggest he start with Omar Khadr's mom. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Big Guy Posted February 1, 2015 Report Posted February 1, 2015 Looks like the new legislation is being examined and it looks a lot like the War Measures Act of Pierre Trudeau's time. I hope that similar checks and balances are instituted to keep an eye on the newly empowered CSIS. Some bright lights on this opinion board see no problems with the current oversights. Right now the Security Intelligence Review Committee is the only body which can question what CSIS is doing. In 2008, Stephen Harper appointed Arthur Porter as head of that committee. To-day Arthur is in jail in Panama looking fro extradition back to Canada. OOPS! I guess (if) after he comes back he can supervise how our freedoms will be impacted by the new legislation. Great choice!! You want these guys deciding on what is terrorist and what is not? Oh BTW - When the White House was asked yesterday about hostages and negotiations it replied it would never negotiate. When pointed out that last year it traded a few Taliban fighters for an American soldier captive, it replied; Get this - "The Taliban tactics are akin to terrorism" Yes folks - "Akin". It was explained that it put the Taliban into a different category. OK - Now we will have legislation under which somebody will have to decide who are good terrorists and who are bad terrorists and who are using tactics AKIN to terrorism. Somebody will judge the extent of involvement by the Canadian citizen to be thrown into jail without trial. But these layman judges will be supervised by an organization headed by a guy in jail in Panama. Oh Canada! Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2015 Author Report Posted February 1, 2015 Looks like the new legislation is being examined and it looks a lot like the War Measures Act of Pierre Trudeau's time. I hope that similar checks and balances are instituted to keep an eye on the newly empowered CSIS. Some bright lights on this opinion board see no problems with the current oversights. I'm pretty sure those dim-bulbs regard oversight as being akin to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 I'm pretty sure those dim-bulbs regard oversight as being akin to providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Im sure thats the pablum Harper and co. will try to feed us. I see he kinda flubbed again last week when he pointed a accusatory finger at mosques. Quote
eyeball Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Posted February 2, 2015 I think that pales in comparison to basically accusing people who oppose him as standing with the terrorists. Millions of other Canadians should be looking for an apology along with Muslims. We're governed by a political fanatic who just happens to be religious. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
jacee Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 canadian-special-forces-train-iraqis-in-how-to-camouflage-combat-operations-as-training-missions /satire Quote
eyeball Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Posted February 3, 2015 Seriously though, I trust our higher learning institutions are sending over historians to ensure our junior allies are able to frame things in the correct right perspective. It's important they know where we say they're coming from. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Big Guy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 There still appear to be a few posters on this board who feel that the blame for these problems in Canada is Islam and the Muslim fanatics desire to take over the world. The latest terrorists in Canada are now in court and more information is coming out as to what they planned and why they planned it. In an intercepted communication by Chiheb Esseghaier (one of the defendants) he was quoted as stating; "If the non-believers are killing women and children in our land it was permissible to kill the non-believers women and children in their own land." Sound familiar? The other defendant, Raed Jaser, indicated that it was his desire to conduct multiple missions so that people in Canada would realize that they would not be safe until they left the lands overseas. Sounds to me like a more rational reason why someone radicalized would be targeting Canadians. What do you think came first; Islamic terrorism in Canada or Canadian intervention in Middle East civil wars? Why are we in the Middle East dropping bombs and creating more terrorists? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 There is nothing in this legislation which will harm our privacy. It's a pretty sweeping statement. Having looked at it, I think it could be interpreted in such a way as to remove all of our freedoms, or having no effect at all - depending on your politics. There are some extra powers given to the security department, I think. The details... well it's political, and intentionally so. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
jacee Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) It's a pretty sweeping statement. Having looked at it, I think it could be interpreted in such a way as to remove all of our freedoms, or having no effect at all - depending on your politics. There are some extra powers given to the security department, I think. The details... well it's political, and intentionally so. It all depends on who they define as terrorists and what acts of terrorism are, what is "reasonable suspicion'.At the Toronto G20, a lot of innocent people were jailed on vague 'suspicions' because of the way they dressed - a bandana around the neck & a backpack - or where they were - on the street. All protesters can be targeted. Freedom of expression and association can be criminalized, people can be held without charges or access to legal aid. Let's not forget this: ottawas-new-anti-terrorism-strategy-lists-eco-extremists-as-threats "eco-extremists" ? People who protest pipelines. . Edited February 8, 2015 by jacee Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 All protesters can be targeted. Yes, "can be"... I can see that. But also, without specifics in the bill, the idea that "radicalization" (whatever that is) is increasing in scope seems to ring true and the bill is supposed to address that, right ? I think we've arrived at the limits of what legislation can do. If that's true, we will now just have to trust people we don't know to do what's right... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
jacee Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Yes, "can be"... I can see that. But also, without specifics in the bill, the idea that "radicalization" (whatever that is) is increasing in scope seems to ring true and the bill is supposed to address that, right ? I think we've arrived at the limits of what legislation can do. If that's true, we will now just have to trust people we don't know to do what's right... We can trust that Harper will target all protest and police/CSIS will gleefully arrest dissenters. . Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 We can trust that Harper will target all protest and police/CSIS will gleefully arrest dissenters. That is complete hyperbole. Saying that he will target "all" protest is saying that he's about to bring real fascism to Canada. Conservatives wouldn't put up with it. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
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.