Keepitsimple Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 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. . It actually seems to be "pandering" to the vast majority of Canadians - including 74% in Quebec. Probably because it's reasonably balanced and makes sense. Mean-spirited?...LOL Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 The only fear being expressed is from those few who are screaming about "losing their rights". Politicians are facing an election coming up - if they're not full of fear one moment they're busy trying to exploit it the next, it's the nature of the beast. As for screaming in fear you must still be hearing the echos of Canada's 9/11 a few months ago. I seem to recall a fair bit of stridency around the forum here too. 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..... Oh bullshit they are, they're just taking advantage of a galvanizing event to look tough and leveraging the opposition's fear of looking soft. I mean, its such an easy gimmie....it's such good politics it's almost right up there with nation building. 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. No. We stop doing the things that are cause people to hate us first of all. That's how you prevent terrorism and we can start doing this anytime. Of course you guys ignored the root-cause/blow- back prevention program memo so we're left with having to protect ourselves from the assholes you went and invited into our lives anyway, but like I said there's no time like the present for disengaging from the idiocy that keeps producing them. Short question though - how many people have to die before you would agree to make a few changes? Excuse me but that's the long question people have been asking you for almost the last 15 years now. So you first. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Huh? They too? Where? in there lies the problem. The police officers in the cited examples being charged for breaking the laws..........What's the problem? If police officers, like any other citizen, breaks the law, they are held to account........hardly the makings of a Fascist Police State Quote
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 No to make a proper police state you prevent having to hold police to account, and the best way to do that is give them more powers while making everyone else more subject to them. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 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. Which of my rights was he trying to take away when the SC stopped him? 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 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. What's funnier is how many people on the wings are adamant that they're in the center. I would certainly not put dre in the center, but as most definitely left wing. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 They were wrong way before they assaulted someone, and they got no discipline for attempting to incite violence. . Yes, but that was in Quebec. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 No to make a proper police state you prevent having to hold police to account, and the best way to do that is give them more powers while making everyone else more subject to them. And C-51 does that how? Quote
Argus Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 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? The discipline was inadequate in Toronto. I doubt it was much in Montreal. Cops in Quebec basically have a free reign to do anything they want. 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
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Which of my rights was he trying to take away when the SC stopped him? Your right to die and cover your face come to mind. Edited February 13, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 The discipline was inadequate in Toronto. I doubt it was much in Montreal. Cops in Quebec basically have a free reign to do anything they want. Yet one in Quebec was charged for assaulting a protester......With Toronto, wasn't a senior officer charged for implementing illegal tactics? Quote
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 And C-51 does that how? Very sneakily. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Very sneakily. So you have said.......so sneakily those fearful of it can't point as to why, but they got a hunch that it is. Quote
Argus Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 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? Which typical democracy is this. You can be detained without charge for two weeks in the UK, for years in France, forever in the US. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 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* If you mean the internet predators bill it was dropped by the government in the face of public criticisms. The courts had nothing to do with it. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Your right to die and cover your face come to mind. So you got nothing!? 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
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 IN THE HOUSE ~ What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Date: Friday, February 6, 2015 41st Parliament, 2nd Session ~ Context : Question ... Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. This is a very important question. In fact, there has been some erroneous and some inaccurate reporting around this subject. CSIS' mandate to disrupt threats will be based on the definition of “threats to the security of Canada”. It is found in section 2 of the CSIS act. It has been based on CSIS' primary investigative mandate since 1984. The definition includes espionage, sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, terrorism, subversion; and it explicitly excludes lawful advocacy, protest or dissent. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it seems the more questions we ask on this, the fewer answers we are actually getting. Canadians deserve better. They actually deserve concrete and fulsome answers to the questions we are asking. Allowing CSIS to go beyond the collection of intelligence and into the business of enforcement and the disruption of threats is a major shift. It is the duty of the government to clearly explain what is meant by this change and why it is necessary. What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Who will determine when Charter rights—Canadians' rights and freedoms—are threatened and judicial oversight is required? Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): The short answer, Mr. Speaker, would be, of course, a judge, but I will point out that the powers being granted to CSIS will be subject to strict limits. CSIS will be forbidden from taking any measures that cause, intentionally or by negligence, death or bodily harm, violate the sexual integrity of an individual or willfully obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. CSIS will not become a law enforcement agency. CSIS employees would not be given powers of peace officers, such as the ability to arrest or imprison individuals. CSIS has always been and will continue to be required to seek a warrant. In The House So instead of a secret law enforcement agency we'll have a secret disruption agency with no powers. Is there any wonder there are no specifics for anyone to chew on? Nope, I'm quite content to let my gut instincts and the sorts of experts usually kicking the shit out of the Harper Government's bills in the SC inform my opinions on this. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 So you got nothing!? I've got the same thing you've got. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted 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? I want convictions, prison time and badges lost. 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 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 I've got the same thing you've got. Yeah but I'm not complaining about Harper's "fascism" and the destruction of our rights. You guys are decrying the loss of rights but can't come up with anything lost! 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
Bonam Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 What's funnier is how many people on the wings are adamant that they're in the center. I would certainly not put dre in the center, but as most definitely left wing. He's a lot less left wing than a lot of people here. Quote
Argus Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 He's a lot less left wing than a lot of people here. That's not saying much. You have a lot of people here on the fringes. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Which typical democracy is this. You can be detained without charge for two weeks in the UK, for years in France, forever in the US. Under C 51 we are catching up. Quote
eyeball Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 Yeah but I'm not complaining about Harper's "fascism" and the destruction of our rights. You guys are decrying the loss of rights but can't come up with anything lost! We're decrying the increase of the power of the state to push harder against our rights. Of course you're not complaining, you're cheering. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
poochy Posted February 13, 2015 Report Posted February 13, 2015 I've got the same thing you've got. Perhaps you should use, I'm rubber, you're glue, the next time you can't defend your opinions. Just to mix it up a little. 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.