What right have you lost.

On Guard for Thee · February 3, 2015

I was addressing your concern as to who decides who "might". As the law is currently written, authorities must get a warrant to investigate who "might". So how does that impact my rights - or yours?

Currently written is what you need to focus on. Harper wants to change that. Thats the concern.

On Guard for Thee · February 3, 2015

How many people need to be shot or run over before we consider this a problem? Do you think we are immune to the much worse attacks that have happened elsewhere? Are you going to completely ignore the other people who have been caught and stopped before they followed through on their plans? The Toronto 18 wasn't real? It isn't also true that after being released one of those men went to fight in Syria and died there? Was it all imaginary?

Are all of those things simply not real for you, or is it that you have other boogeymen or countries to blame for the roots causes? Other conspiracy theories to believe in? Do you think the mass shooting in France can't happen here? Or if that it did, it simply wouldn't be impressive enough for you to think that we maybe should try to prevent it from happening again? What is the personal level of terrorism that you are willing to accept?

Of course if we had this discussion say about our defunct gun registry most of you against new terrorism laws would happily cheer for the registry's return, but then the main target of that law was legal middle aged white male gun owners, Christians most of them, those scum, who statistically harm people with those firearms very, very rarely. Aw @#$% them, and their freedoms.

The thought that we just shouldn't get involved and pretend the world outside this country doesn't exist is so silly and immoral that it isn't worth addressing, ask Japan how that worked out for them As for seeing jihadists in the tree tops, well that's just another ridiculous comment made by someone attempting to diminish real issues at hand and also not worth addressing, it's simply not a serious opinion or statement.

I suggest hiding under the bed then.

Shady · February 3, 2015

Denial of what. Or have you already seen those jihadis in the tree tops.

I don't need to see them in tree tops. I've seen them shoot up the Parliament building in Ottawa, and a newspaper office in France just recently.

Big Guy · February 3, 2015

To poochy - I do understand your point of view and your concerns. What I do not share with you is that the proposed solutions are appropriate to the threat. Last year we lost two Canadians on Canadian soil to terrorism - and that is if you believe that these two individuals, who wanted to leave the country and were forced to stay here, were really "terrorists" or just deranged.

Last year 2075 Canadians were killed in traffic accidents and over 3,000 died due to obesity - yet we do not drop the speed limit or have people monitoring what other people eat.

I guess we are back to a "measured response".

Personally. what little I have read of the new legislation I have no major problems with it except for policing those folks to whom we are giving exceptional power. In a democracy our government has to have the last say on tactics and methodology. We need an all party committee, sworn to secrecy, with the power to oversee how CSIS uses these new powers. CSIS, RCMP et al have to be accountable to some impartial elected power.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Big Guy

PIK · February 3, 2015

Micheal, I have no link, it is a straight forward question.

PIK · February 3, 2015

Tell us moonlight of all these evil things he has done. I am old enough to remember trudeau forcing stuff down our throats with no say I n it and had friend rounded up in his dragnets during the FLQ days.

PIK · February 3, 2015

We have seen this denial in certain groups of people before ,thank god nobody listens to them. Just like the Nazi's in the 2nd war and how many people thought hitler was a great guy. Some people will never learn.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

Tell us moonlight of all these evil things he has done. I am old enough to remember trudeau forcing stuff down our throats with no say I n it and had friend rounded up in his dragnets during the FLQ days.

WTF does PET and the FLQ have to do with it?

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

I don't need to see them in tree tops. I've seen them shoot up the Parliament building in Ottawa, and a newspaper office in France just recently.

Always hilarious when people who claim to be opposed to big government support the expansion of the state to protect them from boogeymen.

guyser · February 3, 2015

WTF does PET and the FLQ have to do with it?

But... but... but the Liberals........

Shady · February 3, 2015

Always hilarious when people who claim to be opposed to big government support the expansion of the state to protect them from boogeymen.

So does that mean as a big government liberal you should support it? Anyways, security and defence are the primary responsibilities of a government.

PIK · February 3, 2015

PET has a lot to do with it, he actually did the stuff that people try and blame harper for. You guys are so funny at time or just plain ignorant.

Keepitsimple · February 3, 2015

Currently written is what you need to focus on. Harper wants to change that. Thats the concern.

No, he doesn't - unless you have a cite that says otherwise. The newly introduced legislation still requires judicial authorization in the form of a warrant.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

So does that mean as a big government liberal you should support it?

I`m not a big government liberal tho. I'm a "whatever size of government needed to deliver the best services" liberal. It's your "ilk" for whom small government is a core ideological tenet.

Anyways, security and defence are the primary responsibilities of a government.

Which doesn't make you enthusiasm for big government any less hypocritical.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

PET has a lot to do with it, he actually did the stuff that people try and blame harper for. You guys are so funny at time or just plain ignorant.

I'll ask again, though I don't expect a coherent response: what does a guy who was Prime Minister last in 1984 have to do with this new legislation?

eyeball · February 3, 2015

Anyways, security and defence are the primary responsibilities of a government.

Okay.

The trouble is that our government's irresponsible aggression is making us less secure.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2015

Why is PET relevant ?.....you be the judge:

Tim Ralfe: …what you're talking about to me is choices, and my choice is to live in a society that is free and democratic, which means that you don't have people with guns running around in it.

Pierre Trudeau: Correct.

Ralfe: And one of the things I have to give up for that choice is the fact that people like you may be kidnapped.

Trudeau: Sure, but this isn't my choice, obviously. You know, I think it is more important to get rid of those who are committing violence against the total society and those who are trying to run the government through a parallel power by establishing their authority by kidnapping and blackmail. And I think it is our duty as a government to protect government officials and important people in our society against being used as tools in this blackmail. Now, you don't agree to this but I am sure that once again with hindsight, you would probably have found it preferable if Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte had been protected from kidnapping, which they weren't because these steps we're taking now weren't taken. But even with your hindsight I don't see how you can deny that.

Ralfe: No, I still go back to the choice that you have to make in the kind of society that you live in.

Trudeau: Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of a soldier's helmet.

Ralfe: At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?

Trudeau: Well, just watch me.

Ralfe: At reducing civil liberties? To that extent?

Trudeau: To what extent?

Ralfe: Well, if you extend this and you say, ok, you're going to do anything to protect them, does this include wire-tapping, reducing other civil liberties in some way?

Trudeau: Yes, I think the society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think that power must be stopped and I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_watch_me

Edited February 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Shady · February 3, 2015

Okay.

The trouble is that our government's irresponsible aggression is making us less secure.

I'm not sure what aggression you're talking about.

Black Dog · February 3, 2015

Why is PET relevant ?.....you be the judge:

So the answer is: "he's not."

eyeball · February 3, 2015

I'm not sure what aggression you're talking about.

I know. Go back to sleep.

bush_cheney2004 · February 3, 2015

Lefty aggression good...righty aggression bad. Got it ?

PIK · February 3, 2015

#37 says everything and the title of the thread, either get with the program or stay out.

On Guard for Thee · February 3, 2015

No, he doesn't - unless you have a cite that says otherwise. The newly introduced legislation still requires judicial authorization in the form of a warrant.

I think you miss the point that concerns a lot of people. To start with there is significance to th language change between will be and may be. Especially when the commensurate oversight has been ignored. Harpers little speech about jihadists was something right out of the Hobbit.