PIK Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 All we hear about is harper bad harper a dictator, harper talking our rights away. Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. The only PM I knew about that actually threw innocent people in jail or put soldiers on the street with guns was Trudeau SR. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 All we hear about is harper bad harper a dictator, harper talking our rights away. Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. The only PM I knew about that actually threw innocent people in jail or put soldiers on the street with guns was Trudeau SR. Harper is being sucked into reacting to a threat that doesnt factually exist. Again its a transparent attempt to garner votes from people who get caught up in the news cycle and begin to Jihadists in every tree. His new bill says the police can arrest someone who MIGHT be contemplating becoming one of those tree ghosts. Thats one place right off the bat where your rights could be trod on. Again we will have to rely on the SCC to set things straight, but all that justs wastes more of our money. Quote
Shady Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Harper is being sucked into reacting to a threat that doesnt factually exist. You're clearly in denial. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Harper is being sucked into reacting to a threat that doesnt factually exist. Again its a transparent attempt to garner votes from people who get caught up in the news cycle and begin to Jihadists in every tree. His new bill says the police can arrest someone who MIGHT be contemplating becoming one of those tree ghosts. Thats one place right off the bat where your rights could be trod on. Again we will have to rely on the SCC to set things straight, but all that justs wastes more of our money. Can't see how that affects any of my freedom - or anyone that I've ever known. How about you - I mean - have you ever known anybody who would fall into the category of "maybe contemplating terrorism"? How does that really affect your "rights"? Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Can't see how that affects any of my freedom - or anyone that I've ever known. How about you - I mean - have you ever known anybody who would fall into the category of "maybe contemplating terrorism"? How does that really affect your "rights"? Well to put it simply, who decides who MIGHT. Essentilly it is an erosion of your charter freedom of speech, or it certainly could be in the wrong hands. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 You're clearly in denial. Denial of what. Or have you already seen those jihadis in the tree tops. Quote
eyeball Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 My right to safety has been compromised because Harper has strengthened our alliance with a Coalition of fanatic's war against people's of the ME region. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 My right to safety has been compromised Canadians have the "right to safety" ? Please explain this novel concept. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Canadians have the "right to safety" ? Please explain this novel concept. Maybe ask Harper, he is the one purporting to protect it. You know like you guys do, with bombs and restrictive laws. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Well to put it simply, who decides who MIGHT. Essentilly it is an erosion of your charter freedom of speech, or it certainly could be in the wrong hands. Doesn't erode my rights at all. Perhaps you could give me a realistic example of how this would affect you since you seem to have a fear of some sort. FYI.....it's in the hands of judges. In order to investigate someone who MIGHT.....you need a judicial review and a warrant. How does this affect my rights - or yours? Really. Quote Back to Basics
Michael Hardner Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. PIK - can you perhaps provide a link as a starting point, such as somebody saying they're rights are compromised. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Doesn't erode my rights at all. Perhaps you could give me a realistic example of how this would affect you since you seem to have a fear of some sort. FYI.....it's in the hands of judges. In order to investigate someone who MIGHT.....you need a judicial review and a warrant. How does this affect my rights - or yours? Really. FYI, the new law is still in the hands of parliament. As I say, it may well end up in the hands of SC judges. Its early days yet, but some of the language that has been currently reported is worrisome. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 FYI, the new law is still in the hands of parliament. As I say, it may well end up in the hands of SC judges. Its early days yet, but some of the language that has been currently reported is worrisome. I was addressing your concern as to who decides who "might". As the law is currently written, authorities must get a warrant to investigate who "might". So how does that impact my rights - or yours? Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 I was addressing your concern as to who decides who "might". As the law is currently written, authorities must get a warrant to investigate who "might". So how does that impact my rights - or yours? The point of the warrant system is to force law enforcement to prove theres a reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity. Its a much lower burden of proof than whats required to convict, but at least the police have to have SOME evidence. Now I havent read any legislation on this yet, but since police can ALREADY get a warrant when theres reasonable suspicion and they can explain to a judge why its necessary, my assumption here is that the burden required is going to be much lower. Otherwise, why bother with legislating anything at all. And if the burden IS much lower... If this turns the courts into a rubber stamp like what we have in the FISA courts in the US (where only one request out 20 or so thousand has ever been denied), then it will basically remove any real judicial oversight and give law enforcement agencies carteblanch to surveille anyone they choose, and rubber stamp warrants could be used to strip people of their rights in Section 8 of the charter. Besides all that its such a massive overreaction, and it seems like maybe this is a direct results of the disasterous decision to enter the 2002 Iraq war 12 years later. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Besides all that its such a massive overreaction, and it seems like maybe this is a direct results of the disasterous decision to enter the 2002 Iraq war 12 years later. Balderdash. Clearly this is a perfectly reasonable reaction to the demands of Canadians that we right the wrongs done to our children and communities back in the 7th century, or was it the 11th? In any case...balderdash. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
poochy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) How many people need to be shot or run over before we consider this a problem? Do you think we are immune to the much worse attacks that have happened elsewhere? Are you going to completely ignore the other people who have been caught and stopped before they followed through on their plans? The Toronto 18 wasn't real? It isn't also true that after being released one of those men went to fight in Syria and died there? Was it all imaginary? Are all of those things simply not real for you, or is it that you have other boogeymen or countries to blame for the roots causes? Other conspiracy theories to believe in? Do you think the mass shooting in France can't happen here? Or if that it did, it simply wouldn't be impressive enough for you to think that we maybe should try to prevent it from happening again? What is the personal level of terrorism that you are willing to accept? Of course if we had this discussion say about our defunct gun registry most of you against new terrorism laws would happily cheer for the registry's return, but then the main target of that law was legal middle aged white male gun owners, Christians most of them, those scum, who statistically harm people with those firearms very, very rarely. Aw @#$% them, and their freedoms. The thought that we just shouldn't get involved and pretend the world outside this country doesn't exist is so silly and immoral that it isn't worth addressing, ask Japan how that worked out for them As for seeing jihadists in the tree tops, well that's just another ridiculous comment made by someone attempting to diminish real issues at hand and also not worth addressing, it's simply not a serious opinion or statement. Edited February 3, 2015 by poochy Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Balderdash.... Agreed....the Iraq War wasn't until 2003 ! But it's still fun to read how some believe U.S. foreign and domestic policy drives the narrative in Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
poochy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Balderdash. Clearly this is a perfectly reasonable reaction to the demands of Canadians that we right the wrongs done to our children and communities back in the 7th century, or was it the 11th? In any case...balderdash. Right, who exactly is arguing that? Quote
eyeball Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Right, who exactly is arguing that? Damn...forgot the [/sarcasm] tag again. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Remiel Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Can someone tell me what the difference is between advocating for terrorism and inciting terrorism? Quote
Topaz Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 We may not have lost any Rights as yet, but that doesn't mean we won't when the Tories pass their Terrorist Bill. We did have a Parliament Overseer but Harper got rid of the office. When asked by the Opposition Party to the Minister of Safety why not an Overseer, he said too much red tape. In other words, the government has no patients and want quick reaction when they needed it. In the past, both Csis and the RCMP have been caught doing unlawful things and I think Canadians would feel better, especially with THIS government, if an Independent monitored this government agencies. Quote
Big Guy Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Is there a threat to Canadians to-day from terrorists. Yes. Is this threat getting more dangerous? Probably. Is the solution to this threat to create a more vibrant anti-terrorist organization for Canadians? Maybe. But what I think is more important is that we try to figure out why these threats are increasing. I see reference to the "Toronto 18". Would the Toronto 18 and the other crazies who run down and/or assassinate Canadian military personnel be terrorists in Canada if we had not gotten involved in Afghanistan, Libya and now Iraq and Syria? I doubt it. So now we continue on a unilateral political foreign policy that is creating more and more terrorists. Our reaction is to increase the power of those who promise to protect us from terrorists. Now it will be easier to identify these terrorists that we have created by our involvement in the Middle East. Looks to me like a well meaning Harper "make work" project that is working very well. Create a problem, feed the problem then come up with a solution that will look like solving a problem but instead will guarantee that the problem will get worse. We are being played like a fine fiddle. 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.
Moonlight Graham Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) How many people need to be shot or run over before we consider this a problem? Do you think we are immune to the much worse attacks that have happened elsewhere? Are you going to completely ignore the other people who have been caught and stopped before they followed through on their plans? The Toronto 18 wasn't real? It isn't also true that after being released one of those men went to fight in Syria and died there? Was it all imaginary? Terrorism and violent extremist activity in Canada targeting Canadians and our government etc is a problem. Who is denying that? But what anyone with respect and knowledge of our constitution and the basic rule of law will argue is that any laws designed to combat terrorism need to be constitutional. The Charter of Rights says: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; © freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association and: 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. There have been several laws passed by Harper's government that have gone to the Supreme Court and have been struck down because they're unconstitutional. Harper's gov has slowly but steadily been trying to build itself a surveillance state in Canada, and has had successes such as expanding scope of CSEC and CSIS. With this new terror bill, the Harper gov is treading a very fine line constitutionally & testing its limits. Edited February 3, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 All we hear about is harper bad harper a dictator, harper talking our rights away. Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. The only PM I knew about that actually threw innocent people in jail or put soldiers on the street with guns was Trudeau SR. Have you been reading the news or the Supreme Court rulings the last 10 years? I'm disgusted at some of the Harper-supporting sheep in this thread....following their beloved leader off a cliff like lemmings. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted February 3, 2015 Report Posted February 3, 2015 Can someone tell me what the difference is between advocating for terrorism and inciting terrorism?An advocate of terror is someone who criticizes governments that incite it. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
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.