poochy Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 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. 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! 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. 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. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Your link is broken...... http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 And maybe in doing so they learn that some of their equally educated fellow students came from difficult and disadvantaged homes, but still made it. The normal human reaction to that is to think, well, they came from a poor background and they had no rouble making it. What's wrong with those other lazy bastards? It tends to humble people to realize that both strength and intelligence can come from poverty and abuse and succeed, makes one more respectful and supportive of social programs and 'a hand up' ... perhaps? I remember when I was lugging my heavy bag out the door to catch the bus to my midnight shift as a security guard feeling no sympathy or support for the lazy bastards sitting on their balconies drinking and enjoying life because they didn't have jobs and just collected welfare cheques. Maybe the closer acquaintance a lot of lower and lower middle class people have with those on social benefits breeds something less than unvarnished respect for their hard work and industriousness. 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 February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 It's the rights Bill C-51 will allow police and the state to take away as they see fit in the future. C-51 doesn't have to take any particular fundamental right away per se instead it goes a lot farther than that by weakening them all. You're saying Mister Harper the dictator and fascist has done nothing so far in all his years in power to take away any of your rights!? I'm shocked! Shocked! 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 February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 You are catching on now. God bless the SCC, no matter who appointed them. They seem to understand our law. I've asked before just what the SCC has done to protect my rights and nobody seems to have any idea, just a sort of pleasant delight whenever they say no to Harper -- for anything. 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 February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The idea, as has actually already been stated, is that they can pose as protesters, provoke violence and cause the police to shut down the protest under false pretenses. Any police chief in Canada, excluding Quebec, caught doing that would be out on his butt. 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
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919 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? Quote
jacee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10985542_839094342832518_6299439858251586954_n.jpg?oh=bf8af6d919838809605ecfcb1639edc1&oe=555B8EAF Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 You're saying Mister Harper the dictator and fascist has done nothing so far in all his years in power to take away any of your rights!? I'm shocked! Shocked! Not for a lack of trying, Allah be with the SC - and you're pissed off that he hasn't succeeded, not shocked. You're not fooling anyone here. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
jacee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Great, thanks........Im confused though of the pointIt 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 chargeddoesnt this illustrate the laws, and in turn the Rights of Canadians, are being upheld when wronged by officers of the State? It shows that police will try to incite riots so they can arrest people, and when caught and called out they will get violent. . Quote
dre Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 It's because people still buy into the whole left/right paradigm. We can look at many members of this board that fit that description. Yup... people at both ends of the spectrum are like that, and this forum is chalked full them. The political spectrum really looks something like this... STUPID - NOT STUPID - STUPID Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 And you just happen to put yourself in not stupid. Funny how some are so convinced of their rightness that they see everyone else as simply being stupid. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) It shows that police will try to incite riots so they can arrest people, and when caught and called out they will get violent. . Right, if police break the laws, like any other Canadians, they too will be held to account.......that's a good thing. Edited February 12, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
jacee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Right, if police break the laws, like any other Canadians, they too will be held to account.......that's a good thing. They were wrong way before they assaulted someone, and they got no discipline for attempting to incite violence. . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Still waiting to hear how this legislation takes away rights from law-abiding, everyday Canadians.......the complaints seem to focus on what might happen - just as they complained in the UK (as I've posted before).... In Canada, academics and advocacy groups are warning about threats to freedom of speech from a law that would put people in jail for five years for the advocacy or promotion of “the commission of terrorism offences in general” whether such acts are done intentionally or recklessly. Liberty, a British human rights group, presented the same arguments in 2006. It argued that an overly broad definition of “terrorism” might lead to passionate expression of a political view being interpreted as the reckless encouragement of a crime that could turn those calling for the overthrow of repressive regimes such as North Korea and Zimbabwe into terror advocates. Walker said much of the controversy has blown over, primarily because there have been so few charges. “Police are being very cautious about the use of these powers and these offences,” he said. “They realize that they will always be viewed as controversial or infringements of free speech and so they seem to be very reluctant to use these powers except against blatant and repeated cases.” Quote Back to Basics
GostHacked Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 No, it's because most people don't give a damn about politics, and don't bother to keep informed. Like some members here. You could consider yourself informed, but you still buy into the whole left/right paradigm. You don't seem to understand that there is no right, and there is no left. You say you give a damn? Then get informed on how both sides are screwing you everytime they get to the podium. As long as you like to put yourself into one of those camps, you are open to manipulation via groupthink instead of actually dealing with the issues one on one. They see a skit Brian Mercer did or catch a few glimpses of the occasional TV news spot before switching the channel. They don't put thought into the complexities of taxation, economics and spending. Throw in the Daily Show, or Colbert Report, or any of those. Still buying into this whole war on terror? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 They were wrong way before they assaulted someone, and they got no discipline for attempting to incite violence. . Didn't one officer in the Montreal case, and two in the Toronto G20 case, get charged? That's no discipline in your view? Quote
GostHacked 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. I believe I already pointed that out. You can be detained up to 48 hours without charge. To detain you longer the arresting officer needs to present the case to keep you there. Typically in a democracy with rights you are charged at the time of arrest. Arrest first , hope to gather evidence later? Quote
GostHacked Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I've asked before just what the SCC has done to protect my rights and nobody seems to have any idea, just a sort of pleasant delight whenever they say no to Harper -- for anything. Striking down parts of bill C-30 that was introduced a couple years back. This goes back to your notion of keeping oneself informed. Parts were deemed to go against the charter of rights and freedoms. *drops mic* Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Still waiting to hear how this legislation takes away rights from law-abiding, everyday Canadians.......the complaints seem to focus on what might happen - just as they complained in the UK (as I've posted before).... Exactly, or would have happened already if not for the (Harper appointed) SCC……….seems rather irrational……..and now they point to examples of officers that did break the law as examples of their Right being repressed by the State, even though the State is punishing those officers for trampling upon their Rights...... Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Still waiting to hear how this legislation takes away rights from law-abiding, everyday Canadians.......the complaints seem to focus on what might happen - Probably because the focus of the legislation is also on the fear of what might happen. No specifics, no reasons, no evidence, just fear. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Didn't one officer in the Montreal case, and two in the Toronto G20 case, get charged? That's no discipline in your view? it is a rare occasion when an officer gets charged when on duty. Most cases they have 'acted within the confined of their duties'. Quote
guyser Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Right, if police break the laws, like any other Canadians, they too will be held to account.......that's a good thing.Huh? They too? Where? in there lies the problem. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Probably because the focus of the legislation is also on the fear of what might happen. No specifics, no reasons, no evidence, just fear. The only fear being expressed is from those few who are screaming about "losing their rights". Proponents of this legislation are concerned about keeping people safe - I don't see anybody running around "scared" - if anything, we're angry that people would abuse our freedom.....but I see your point....wait until someone blows up a subway or derails a train......wait until an acceptable number of people die.....then do something. It's certainly a different approach and is certainly offside with public opinion - but of course you are entitled to your opinion. Short question though - how many people have to die before you would agree to make a few changes? Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The only fear being expressed is from those few who are screaming about "losing their rights". Proponents of this legislation are concerned about keeping people safe - I don't see anybody running around "scared" - if anything, we're angry that people would abuse our freedom.....but I see your point....wait until someone blows up a subway or derails a train......wait until an acceptable number of people die.....then do something. It's certainly a different approach and is certainly offside with public opinion - but of course you are entitled to your opinion. Short question though - how many people have to die before you would agree to make a few changes? This legislation would not have prevented the deaths of Cirillo and Vincente. It would allow police to round up and incarcerate thousands of innocent people (eg g20) without charges. I doubt it will survive constitutional challenges. Like much of Harper's legislation it's smoke and mirrors to pander to his mean spirited base, a waste of our money. . 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.