What right have you lost.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2015

It's amzing how often tou resort to this type of rebuttal when you're cornered, yes, yes, we get it, only you really understand what it all means!

Wow, isn't it something that we already have exactly the right laws and police powers to capture or prevent all terrorist attacks, it does seems little too convenient that we were so forward thinking and anticipated every situation so well. But unlike you i am not so convinced, i believe that we could have caught all of those we have already caught, and maybe all those yet to come perhaps without any laws of any kind. I believe your complete devotion to the current law is misplaced, you clearly have a fetish for government control and police powers.

The new laws are just attempts at getting votes from people who are already wearing tin hats. They wont have a lot of effect on metnally disturbed drug addicts which who most of our terrorists have turned out to be.

cybercoma · February 13, 2015

I don’t see how posing as protestors is any different than police posing as would “Johns”, drug users, black market firearms buyers/sellers or would be terrorists etc……..There are distinctions on what can and cannot be done by undercover officers (likewise intelligence officers) so I fail to see the cause of concern………

You don't see the difference between protests and people buying sex, drugs, or black market firearms? Are you serious?

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

The new laws are just attempts at getting votes from people who are already wearing tin hats. They wont have a lot of effect on metnally disturbed drug addicts which who most of our terrorists have turned out to be.

You’re suggesting the 60-70% of the polled population that are supportive of the new anti-terror legislation are wearing tin-foil hats? That’s odd, I’d have thought those scared of the legislation, despite not actually being able to demonstrate why when presented with the actual Bill, are the ones adorning ALCAN………

cybercoma · February 13, 2015

The police officers in the cited examples being charged for breaking the laws...

And the ones who weren't caught/charged?

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

You don't see the difference between protests and people buying sex, drugs, or black market firearms? Are you serious?

That’s dependant on the actual behaviour of the protestors…….those that stage a rally in a public square or camp in a city park, for the most part, no, not at all. Inversely those that smash storefronts and torch police cars, most certainly, and in my opinion, are far more deserved of the State’s attention and finite resources than drug addicts or “Johns”.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

And the ones who weren't caught/charged?

There were ones not caught or charged involved in the cited examples? Clearly like any crime (if that be the case), they too should be held to account.

cybercoma · February 13, 2015

That’s dependant on the actual behaviour of the protestors…….those that stage a rally in a public square or camp in a city park, for the most part, no, not at all. Inversely those that smash storefronts and torch police cars, most certainly, and in my opinion, are far more deserved of the State’s attention and finite resources than drug addicts or “Johns”.

That's not who has been targeted by police in the past. They stood back and allowed protesters to smash windows and torch cars at the G20. It wasn't until the next day that they started kettling, pepper spraying, and detaining innocent and peaceful protesters, as well as people who happened to be walking home from work or going to the grocery store in those neighbourhoods.

cybercoma · February 13, 2015

That's under the current laws. No changes.

Mind you the new laws speak to "terrorism" and the Harper government and its supporters have described environmentalists with the same language they use to describe ISIS.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

That's not who has been targeted by police in the past. They stood back and allowed protesters to smash windows and torch cars at the G20. It wasn't until the next day that they started kettling, pepper spraying, and detaining innocent and peaceful protesters, as well as people who happened to be walking home from work or going to the grocery store in those neighbourhoods.

If thats the actual case, then those officers involved, indirectly and directly, should be held to account........AFAIK, only two officers have been charged with any wrong doing.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

That's under the current laws. No changes.

Mind you the new laws speak to "terrorism" and the Harper government and its supporters have described environmentalists with the same language they use to describe ISIS.

And of course a small percentage of said groups, those for example that spike trees or blow-up pipelines, should be treated as terrorists......fore that is the clear intent of their crimes.

jacee · February 13, 2015

Yet one in Quebec was charged for assaulting a protester......With Toronto, wasn't a senior officer charged for implementing illegal tactics?

MARK FENTON

He of noo discretion

Yet to be disciplined:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/crime/2015/01/15/emails-to-g20-police-officer-indicated-superiors-support-for-kettling-disciplinary-tribunal-hears.html

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

MARK FENTON

He of noo discretion

Yet to be disciplined:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/crime/2015/01/15/emails-to-g20-police-officer-indicated-superiors-support-for-kettling-disciplinary-tribunal-hears.html

If proven to be true, then good......a clear indication that are laws work.

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

Great, thanks........I’m confused though of the point………It illustrates that during the mentioned Quebec protest, three officers were dressed as protestors, and of the three, the one that got into an altercation with another protestor was charged………doesn’t this illustrate the laws, and in turn the Rights of Canadians, are being upheld when wronged by officers of the State?

The laws were upheld by the courts because police were found to have conspired to reduce peoples' rights, yes. Again, under current laws. Are you ok with how the police acted here ? This is important to the debate, although probably in a way that would help your argument: these security laws don't actually change the ability for police to misbehave. My point is that we shouldn't overstate the impact they will have.

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

If proven to be true, then good......a clear indication that are laws work.

even when the police work against you...

Keepitsimple · February 13, 2015

Excuse me but that's the long question people have been asking you for almost the last 15 years now. So you first.

After everything that Western countries have already faced? Zero - that's the acceptable number of deaths before we do something. But zero is probably naïve - certainly unrealistic. Like any enemy, the forces that hate the West and all it stands for will continue to poke and prod our "defences" - looking for weaknesses - and we will have to adapt. It's a thankless job - trying to find that balance that keeps us safe. It's a crappy job being a policeman - trying to find that balance between de-escalating situations and protecting person and public. Law Enforcement has become a no-win crappy job (nobody likes a Cop until you need one attitude) - especially with all the armchair quarterbacks who sit back and take pot-shots as if our protective institutions - institutions that have evolved within one of the world's most free, democratic countries - are going to turn into the KGB. Sure, we have to be careful that our security "incrementalism" is used appropriately.....but to bury your head in the sand and do nothing - or constantly spew garbage that if we start being nice to these people and leave them alone, they won't bother us? That, my friend will doom literally millions to either death or subjugation. Granted, most of those unfortunates will be in the Middle East "Caliphate" - at least to start.......sure, just leave them alone. Smart.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2015

You’re suggesting the 60-70% of the polled population that are supportive of the new anti-terror legislation are wearing tin-foil hats? That’s odd, I’d have thought those scared of the legislation, despite not actually being able to demonstrate why when presented with the actual Bill, are the ones adorning ALCAN………

And you would be wrong.

guyser · February 13, 2015

The police officers in the cited examples being charged for breaking the laws......

How many other examples you want where they arent charged?

....What's the problem? If police officers, like any other citizen, breaks the law, they are held to account........

Except they arent for the most part.

Ever seen an MVR of a Cop? They get away with more shit than anyone on the planet.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Guyser2

eyeball · February 13, 2015

..but to bury your head in the sand and do nothing - or constantly spew garbage that if we start being nice to these people and leave them alone, they won't bother us? That, my friend will doom literally millions to either death or subjugation. Granted, most of those unfortunates will be in the Middle East "Caliphate" - at least to start.......sure, just leave them alone. Smart.

Sure...keep doing the same things that make them bother us. Smert. Those millions will still be just as doomed. The difference is they'll have a reason to hate us.

In any case, no ones said we should do nothing. I've certainly argued for a truth, reconciliation and reparation process, expanding the scope and use of the Hague, human aid etc.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

The laws were upheld by the courts because police were found to have conspired to reduce peoples' rights, yes. Again, under current laws. Are you ok with how the police acted here ? This is important to the debate, although probably in a way that would help your argument: these security laws don't actually change the ability for police to misbehave. My point is that we shouldn't overstate the impact they will have.

I don’t see it like that……with the several cited examples, we have several police officers charged with breaking the law during policing actions comprised of tens, hundreds and thousands of other police officers, as such, I can differentiate the actions of the majority of the officers and those that broke the law…….

With additional measures brought forth, I would fully expect a minority of officers to continue to break current or future laws as it happens presently and in turn, those officers to also face legal repercussions……hardly the makings of a fascist police state, but a realization that police are not infallible and that some individual members will break laws, be it by mistake or malfeasance.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

even when the police work against you...

Certainly..........Of course the key is to ensure that the police have no requirement to work against you.

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

Certainly..........Of course the key is to ensure that the police have no requirement to work against you.

Oh... I assume you mean crush all dissent and sublimate the masses with mind control ?

Michael Hardner · February 13, 2015

I don’t see it like that……with the several cited examples, we have several police officers charged with breaking the law during policing actions comprised of tens, hundreds and thousands of other police officers, as such, I can differentiate the actions of the majority of the officers and those that broke the law…….

You're framing the questions improperly. This isn't about the individuals involved, or choices that individuals make. Nor is it about generalizing personal choices to all police.

This is about a system that allows such things to happen. That allows illegal wiretapes, mail opening and so on.

With additional measures brought forth, I would fully expect a minority of officers to continue to break current or future laws as it happens presently and in turn, those officers to also face legal repercussions……hardly the makings of a fascist police state, but a realization that police are not infallible and that some individual members will break laws, be it by mistake or malfeasance.

Yeah, no. It's part of the system. It's not call fascism, but peace, ORDER, and good government.

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

How many other examples you want where they arent charged?

A more apt statistic would be a citation of what percent of police officers break the law…… until then, the presumption of innocence is King.

Except they arent for the most part.
Ever seen an MVR of a Cop? They get away with more shit than anyone on the planet.

I don't suppose you can prove that....

Derek 2.0 · February 13, 2015

Oh... I assume you mean crush all dissent and sublimate the masses with mind control ?

No, again it’s a case of differentiating actions and accountability……Case in point, Occupy Vancouver, little to none of the protestors were detained, let alone charged, by police over several months, though they might have ruined a City square, they didn’t torch police cars nor smash windows at Starbucks ……..versus the Toronto G20.