Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 And as a for instance of that, which has already been mentioned previously, the threshold for getting a warrant has been lowered to where CSIS or police have only to convince a judge that their snooping has shown a crime MAY BE committed from WILL BE, and then they can arrest and detain without even any charge being laid. Within C-51, where are the "thresholds for getting warrants lowered"? Of course, police can already arrest and detain people, sans a warrant, if said person is suspected of committing or about to commit a serious crime.......what changes with C-51? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 People need to read past the headlines. Indeed.......19 pages and people fearful/opposed to the C-51, can't point out why they are. Quote
eyeball Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 Here's the legislation, if rights are not being taken away, which ones are being weakened by C-51?Any that stand in the way of a suspicious cop. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 Any that stand in the way of a suspicious cop. Which one(s)? All the changes are outlined here........which specific changes take away or weaken your rights? I'm curious that you oppose the legislation, but can't point out why...... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 Within C-51, where are the "thresholds for getting warrants lowered"? Of course, police can already arrest and detain people, sans a warrant, if said person is suspected of committing or about to commit a serious crime.......what changes with C-51? You sort of answered your own question, about to commit a crime is a bit different than might commit a crime. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 You sort of answered your own question, about to commit a crime is a bit different than might commit a crime. No, not even close.........so, which parts of C-51 weakens the threshold for warrants? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 No, not even close.........so, which parts of C-51 weakens the threshold for warrants? If you dont get the significance of the language change, I cant help you. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 If you dont get the significance of the language change, I cant help you. I do, and that is why I have no concerns..........so please explain the significance and how, in your words, the: thresholds for getting warrants lowered By all means point it out. Quote
eyeball Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 I'm curious that you oppose the legislation, but can't point out why...... Gut instinct and the opinions of the sorts of lawyers that keep pantsing Harper's along with his bills at the SCC. ...our first read indicates that the new anti-terror legislation does create serious civil liberties concerns, and as such it is difficult to forecast concrete security gains. CCLA We expect to provide more detailed analysis of Bill C-51 as this debate continues. However, we are confident in saying that Bill C-51’s radical expansion of national security powers is not sound security policy and presents a real danger to Canadians. BCCLA ...serious concerns...real danger... Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Gut instinct and the opinions of the sorts of lawyers that keep pantsing Harper's along with his bills at the SCC. Neither of your links though refer to any specific wording within the legislation to support their opinions....... Edited February 11, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 I do, and that is why I have no concerns..........so please explain the significance and how, in your words, the: By all means point it out. (i) an investigation of whether the activity of any person may constitute threats to the security of Canada, as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 (i) an investigation of whether the activity of any person may constitute threats to the security of Canada, as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or And that means what to you? The wording as current 21. (1) Where the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16, the Director or employee may, after having obtained the approval of the Minister, make an application in accordance with subsection (2) to a judge for a warrant under this section.Likewise: (i) an investigation by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of whether the activity of any person may constitute threats to the security of Canada, as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Looks like lots of rights being taken away there!!!! Do you even understand what you're quoting? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 And that means what to you? The wording as current Likewise: Looks like lots of rights being taken away there!!!! Do you even understand what you're quoting? I certainly do. Quote
eyeball Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 Neither of your links though refer to any specific wording within the legislation to support their opinions....... It sounds like that's the beauty of the legislation, it's deliberately unspecific. In typical omnibus fashion it's a sweeping set of measures that amends previous pieces of legislation that civil liberties experts also determined weakened our right's. Bill C-51 just pushes harder against them, so will the next C-51 and the next one after that and so and so on until the day comes when you or your kids will be duty bound to report people like me to the authorities for having the temerity to diss your beloved state and Dear Leader. I can't help but note the CCLA mentions our freedom of speech; The Bill also threatens freedom of expression as it would criminalize ‘advocating’ terrorism. The CCLA finds the wording overbroad and is concerned the provision could be triggered even where the speaker has no intention of committing a terrorist act. The danger here is clearly to freedom of speech, and the criminalization of legitimate speech. The potential chilling effect on academics and journalists and bloggers is easily imagined, and the loss would be to a free exchange of ideas so necessary in the pursuit of truth and in combatting radicalization. It was only a few weeks before C-51 was announced that I was listening to Conservative commentators on the news calling for legislation criminalizing inflammatory rhetoric... whatever the f*^k that means is probably buried deep in a government Bill or Act or the fervid imagination of a suspicious government agent left trying to figure it all out too and who'll just surveil/shoot/arrest/detain/disrupt/ etc etc first and ask questions later. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 I certainly do. So you're fearful the CRA will share your information with CSIS and/or the RCMP? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Posted February 11, 2015 It sounds like that's the beauty of the legislation, it's deliberately unspecific. In typical omnibus fashion it's a sweeping set of measures that amends previous pieces of legislation that civil liberties experts also determined weakened our right's. Bill C-51 just pushes harder against them, so will the next C-51 and the next one after that and so and so on until the day comes when you or your kids will be duty bound to report people like me to the authorities for having the temerity to diss your beloved state and Dear Leader. I can't help but note the CCLA mentions our freedom of speech; So you’re not sure which Rights are threatened because the legislation tabled is unspecific, likewise your opinion is further compounded by an additional unspecific opinion piece by the CCLA…..which does not explain/highlight C-51 in such a way to demonstrate how it will remove/curtail Canadians Freedom of Speech........... Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The CCLA seemed pretty specific about its concerns to me. In any case my own certainty that my rights are under threat is simply due of the number of times the government has tried to push bad laws down our throats down already. But thank our lucky stars for the SCC...so far. But that's the trouble with luck, it never holds up does it? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 No, not even close.........so, which parts of C-51 weakens the threshold for warrants? I think Ghosthacked had pointed a few things out on this thread or another one ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I do, and that is why I have no concerns........ No concerns ? You should already have concerns with the existing legislation... as police and government in Canada take rights away at will. If you're not at all concerned by that then fair enough, but I don't like the idea of people being persecuted for their beliefs, of being entrapped or incited into violence by agent provocateurs and so on... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 You should have spoke up when they came for the fishermen. Now they're coming for you. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The CCLA seemed pretty specific about its concerns to me. In any case my own certainty that my rights are under threat is simply due of the number of times the government has tried to push bad laws down our throats down already. But thank our lucky stars for the SCC...so far. But that's the trouble with luck, it never holds up does it? I disagree, your CCLA author simply offered his uncited opinion…….with regards to Freedom of Speech he refrained from even citing where in the C-51 (or quoting the actual wording) this would occur……. The SCC? The same court with 7 of 9 Judges appointed by the current Government? (The other two appointed by the previous Liberals, which now also support the legislation) So you oppose legislation from the current Government, but consider yourself lucky with their selection of judges? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I think Ghosthacked had pointed a few things out on this thread or another one ? Did he? I tend not to read his posts, do you have a cite? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 No concerns ? You should already have concerns with the existing legislation... as police and government in Canada take rights away at will. If you're not at all concerned by that then fair enough, but I don't like the idea of people being persecuted for their beliefs, of being entrapped or incited into violence by agent provocateurs and so on... Sarcasm? Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The SCC? The same court with 7 of 9 Judges appointed by the current Government? (The other two appointed by the previous Liberals, which now also support the legislation) So you oppose legislation from the current Government, but consider yourself lucky with their selection of judges? I should have said I consider myself lucky that despite Harper's intent to stack the SC it still wasn't enough to overcome the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But as I already said about luck... Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Sarcasm? Not at all - are you ok with police doing these things to innocent people ? 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.