On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 So that would counter Micheal's suggestion that our current laws can violate Canadian's Rights.....That the two officers were charged is a demonstration that our current laws work as advertised........so, what changes with C-51? Well now you are just flailing to try ad conflate a previous situation with a possible future situation. As has been duly explained, part of what C51 does is lower the threshold for a warrant which could allow what is now an unlawful arrest ad make it lawful. It also may violate your charter rights to privacy. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Well now you are just flailing to try ad conflate a previous situation with a possible future situation. I'm not flailing the slightest, you proved my point........Canadian laws currently uphold Canadians Rights and Freedoms, those that run counter to those laws, including police (as in your G20 example), can and will be held to account. As has been duly explained, part of what C51 does is lower the threshold for a warrant which could allow what is now an unlawful arrest ad make it lawful. It also may violate your charter rights to privacy. No, it has not been duly explained how C-51 "lowers the threshold for a warrant"......I asked you this several times and you've yet to answer the question......if you have, and I missed the post, by all means repost it. Thanks in advance. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I'm not flailing the slightest, you proved my point........Canadian laws currently uphold Canadians Rights and Freedoms, those that run counter to those laws, including police (as in your G20 example), can and will be held to account. No, it has not been duly explained how C-51 "lowers the threshold for a warrant"......I asked you this several times and you've yet to answer the question......if you have, and I missed the post, by all means repost it. Thanks in advance. May, as opposed to Wiil commit a crime with regard to some cop or CSIS member listening in on what you post or chat about. But that has already been pointed out to you. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 May, as opposed to Wiil commit a crime with regard to some cop or CSIS member listening in on what you post or chat about. But that has already been pointed out to you. No it hasn't......you quoted a passage relating to changes in the Income Tax Act (in relation to personal information disclosure between Government departments) that already exists with present laws........ Threats to security(9) An official may provide, to an official of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, (a) publicly accessible charity information; (b) designated taxpayer information, if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to (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, Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 No it hasn't......you quoted a passage relating to changes in the Income Tax Act (in relation to personal information disclosure between Government departments) that already exists with present laws........ Nope. What I quoted is an amendment to the excise act. Like I say, Harper is famous for hiding shit all over the place. Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 If police infiltrate a biker gang or terror cell, are they also violating the Rights of criminals and terrorists? I expect they'll start violating thousands upon thousands of people's rights just as soon as they get their hands on the terms they'll be given to use to define the word terror - as loosie goosie a word that was ever uttered by a politician. 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 Nope. What I quoted is an amendment to the excise act. Like I say, Harper is famous for hiding shit all over the place. Right and the same wording is found, yet again, in the portion pertaining to the Income Tax Act.......Who governs Federal Tax policy within Canada? As I said, under current laws, the CRA can share personal info with both the RCMP and ISIS..... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I expect they'll start violating thousands upon thousands of people's rights just as soon as they get their hands on the terms they'll be given to use to define the word terror - as loosie goosie a word that was ever uttered by a politician. Don't worry, Tory and Liberal appointed Judges at the SCC will protect your rights Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 So that would counter Micheal's suggestion that our current laws can violate Canadian's Rights.....That the two officers were charged is a demonstration that our current laws work as advertised........so, what changes with C-51? It attempts to facilitate end runs around the sort of protections that got the police in trouble in Toronto would be my guess. 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 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Right and the same wording is found, yet again, in the portion pertaining to the Income Tax Act.......Who governs Federal Tax policy within Canada? As I said, under current laws, the CRA can share personal info with both the RCMP and ISIS..... Don't worry, Tory and Liberal appointed Judges at the SCC will protect your rights I suspect they will by striking down parts of this bill. They have done so with a number of previous ones, so Im not too worried. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 WILL commit a crime, MAY commit a crime. Big difference. Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Don't worry, Tory and Liberal appointed Judges at the SCC will protect your rights I'm not holding my breath that'll hold up long. Sooner or later there will be a galvanizing event that causes a radicalized PMO to invoke the notwithstanding clause, probably against a photo-op back-drop of police, soldiers and a small cheering throng of sycophants. 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 I suspect they will by striking down parts of this bill. They have done so with a number of previous ones, so Im not too worried. The SCC? The definitions from the Act referenced in the changes you quoted is ~30 years old: “threats to the security of Canada” means (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). What exactly do you think the SCC is going to strike down? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) WILL commit a crime, MAY commit a crime. Big difference. Explain the legal difference and where the distinction is made...... Edited February 12, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I'm not holding my breath that'll hold up long. Sooner or later there will be a galvanizing event that causes a radicalized PMO to invoke the notwithstanding clause, probably against a photo-op back-drop of police, soldiers and a small cheering throng of sycophants. Oh you had to bring that up. I can see the NW clause being used in this issue possibly. Depends on the timing of the election I guess. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I'm not holding my breath that'll hold up long. Sooner or later there will be a galvanizing event that causes a radicalized PMO to invoke the notwithstanding clause, probably against a photo-op back-drop of police, soldiers and a small cheering throng of sycophants. I suppose you'd better change your tune prior to that Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Oh you had to bring that up. I can see the NW clause being used in this issue possibly. Depends on the timing of the election I guess. And the size of the galvanizing event. Look at how far we've come in the wake of just two deaths. Imagine where hundreds or thousands will lead us. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I suppose you'd better change your tune prior to that It's probably too late for that already. 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 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Explain the legal difference and where the distinction is made...... That, my boy, is the exact problem here. Can you explain the difference. Point is it is a lowering of the threshold. Dont you think a nosy cop would have it much easier having to only provide evidence to a judge that suggests someone might commit a crime. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 That, my boy, is the exact problem here. Can you explain the difference. Point is it is a lowering of the threshold. Dont you think a nosy cop would have it much easier having to only provide evidence to a judge that suggests someone might commit a crime. I never suggested there was a difference.......the onus is on you, likewise illustrating how "thresholds for warrants are to be lowered".....those are your baseless claims used to support your position that C-51 will strip Canadians of their rights and freedoms. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 It's probably too late for that already. For you? I'd say so, I'm certain "they" already have the bed springs and car batteries with your name on it Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I never suggested there was a difference.......the onus is on you, likewise illustrating how "thresholds for warrants are to be lowered".....those are your baseless claims used to support your position that C-51 will strip Canadians of their rights and freedoms. Ive explained it, you dont get it, not my problem. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Ive explained it, you dont get it, not my problem. Ahh no, you didn't.......anyways, I'll await for you to do so. Good luck. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Ahh no, you didn't.......anyways, I'll await for you to do so. Good luck. Has to do with the change in language. But dont worry Im sure the news will be carrying it for a while so stay tuned and it may sink in. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 And the size of the galvanizing event. Look at how far we've come in the wake of just two deaths. Imagine where hundreds or thousands will lead us. As you may know there are 2 people on trial in BC for planning to plant a couple of pressure cookers with explosives near the leg. building on Canada day 2 years ago. Im expecting Harper to weigh in any time soon as one of those galvanizing events.Never could have caught them with existing laws. Oh wait a minute, they did. Quote
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.