GostHacked Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=35#2Skip skip skip.. (2) Subsection 83.3(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:Arrest without warrant(4) Despite subsections (2) and (3), a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant and cause the person to be detained in custody, in order to bring them before a provincial court judge in accordance with subsection (6), if(a) either(i) the grounds for laying an information referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and ( exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would be impracticable to lay an information under subsection (2), or(ii) an information has been laid under subsection (2) and a summons has been issued; and( the peace officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the detention of the person in custody is likely to prevent a terrorist activity. This means the peace officer needs to prove his case (within 48 hours) to KEEP the person detained. (reading the following sections). So before you needed a warrant, now you don't even need to lay any charges in any official way. If these knuckleheads were doing their job, they'd have the information at the time of arrest to prove the case. This leaves things open for abuse by authorities. Now to say that the laws need to be improved or changed, let's take the plots that our police and intelligence services have managed to break up in the years past. IN most cases the police already had informants withion those groups. Meaning they already have the power to do all what they need to do to prevent terrorism. I'm not agreeing with the Harper approach to fight terrorism but I will say that many of us have been affected by terrorism.For instance, a trial is starting very soon this spring regarding the couple who had placed pressure cooker bombs on the property of the legislative building on Canada Day in 2013. Thankfully they were not real (thanks to undercover agents). This could have killed hundreds of people gathered there. They called themselves 'al Qaida Canada'. What new laws would have changed that situation? And what does that mean 'thanks to undercover agents' ???? Think about it. Edited February 6, 2015 by GostHacked Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=35#2 Love this bit. That generality can be applied to half of our federal members in Parliament. Economic sanctions against Russia come to mind. The interference with Haiti also pops into memory. But again these rules apply to you and me, not govermnent officials. So....you have to go half way around the world and use your interpretation of a multi-country effort to find something wrong with the legislation? How about a more specific interpretation - even hypothetical - but at least plausible.....something that in reality would be acted upon. Show us the injustice - the stripping of the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Quote Back to Basics
GostHacked Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 So....you have to go half way around the world and use your interpretation of a multi-country effort to find something wrong with the legislation? How about a more specific interpretation - even hypothetical - but at least plausible.....something that in reality would be acted upon. Show us the injustice - the stripping of the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Slow down Tex, takes some time to read through things. Unlike the people who passed these laws. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 All we hear about is harper bad harper a dictator, harper talking our rights away. Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. The only PM I knew about that actually threw innocent people in jail or put soldiers on the street with guns was Trudeau SR.Have you not followed all of the SCC decisions that have overturned Harper legislation? You want to know what rights we have lost? Go look at the list. Thankfully, we have a safety mechanism for dangerous leaders like Harper. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Slow down Tex, takes some time to read through things. Unlike the people who passed these laws. I agree with you, and I thank you for looking through this legislation and pointing those things out. The more I read, though, the more confused I am. It seems to me that the paired challenges of guaranteeing rights and protecting people can't be met by our legal system. The terrorists are looking intently for loopholes and ways around our legal and security systems, and the responses are written too hastily and broadly to create laws that guarantee rights. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Keepitsimple Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The Star is all over the map in their coverage of the Terrorism legislation. In today's Saturday edition, the Letters section was boldly headlined with "Anti-Terror Bill Terrifying". But what will the impact of the legislation really be? Well - on page12 of the same edition, a lengthy article says it's pretty much a big ado about nothing - another tempest in a teapot: New laws to jail promoters of terrorism and seize or silence jihadi propaganda have stirred up controversy but led to few actual convictions in a country that served as one of the models for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s latest salvo against the Islamic State.But in the eight years since Britain’s laws came into force, just six people have been convicted of encouraging terrorism or disseminating terror publications. Additional powers that allowed authorities to order incendiary material to be removed from Internet sites have never been invoked, said Clive Walker, a law professor and terrorism expert at Leeds University in England.The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Units, as they are called, have been able to informally convince website owners and Internet companies to remove 72,000 pieces of material deemed to glorify or encourage terrorism from the web. “I’ve been told by people who attend extremist meetings that (the laws) have had effect in terms of the people who might be viewed as extremists,” said Walker, who is the special adviser to Britain’s terrorism legislation watchdog.He said radical Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom like Anjem Choudary, an activist who has praised the Sept. 11 terror attacks and has advocated for sharia law, have “toned down” their arguments in the wake of the legislation passing into law.“I think that is the purpose of the legislation. We don’t want to see a lot of people caught. We want to change the culture,” Walker said. 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.” Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/06/few-convictions-under-uk-terror-law-that-served-as-model-for-canada.html# Edited February 7, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
GostHacked Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 I agree with you, and I thank you for looking through this legislation and pointing those things out. The more I read, though, the more confused I am. It seems to me that the paired challenges of guaranteeing rights and protecting people can't be met by our legal system. The terrorists are looking intently for loopholes and ways around our legal and security systems, and the responses are written too hastily and broadly to create laws that guarantee rights. Legislation is all in legalese english and not every day english. So some words that we take as one meaning seem to have a different meaning with regards to legalese. It's not terrorists that find the loopholes, it's our government. Terrorsits will do what they want when they want, with no regard for law. Laws need to have a clearer language so there is no room for interpretation (which happens a lot and lawyers LOVE finding those loopholes in the law). They can always claim they misinterpreted the rules. And we can laugh at it because we seem to be overall conditioned to accept and love incompetent people. Plots like the one in Toronto where 17 people were charged all while under the close eye of police and intelligence services. It was eluded to they were going to do bombs, but since the RCMP had people on the inside, there was no risk of a real attack (bombs were duds). It was more to go through the motions to make charges stick to these invividuals (could be construded as entrapment). New laws would not make this process any better, as the current methods seem to work just fine. The police and intelligence agencies want to make their investigations easier by blanket surveillance and new laws that restrict the rights of Canadians all to combat terrorism because they hate us for our freedoms. Does that make any sense to any critically and logically thinking person? Looks like our government is complying with the terrorists by stripping my rights away while blaming terrorism that is a result of our foriegn policies abroad. And I will stand by my statement that the politicians do not read these new laws before they are put into place. I'll take a queue from Ron Paul in the USA. His response to opposing the PATRIOT ACT was because he read the bill. Quote
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 You're clearly in denial. Nonsense. Bad things don't really happen, you know. It's all just a vast conspiracy by an international cabal of Jooos! 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Well to put it simply, who decides who MIGHT. Essentilly it is an erosion of your charter freedom of speech, or it certainly could be in the wrong hands. So could hate speech laws. Just about everyone on the Left seems to embrace those. How about you? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Denial of what. Or have you already seen those jihadis in the tree tops. One of those fanatics shot up parliament. He was also within about three blocks of where I live when he went to try to transfer a car into his name. Another of the fanatics was arrested two blocks away and fighting with police and being shot at. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Maybe ask Harper, he is the one purporting to protect it. You know like you guys do, with bombs and restrictive laws. Yet for all your bluster and paranoia you haven't been able to answer the question of the OP. How has your life been restricted? What right have you 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 The point of the warrant system is to force law enforcement to prove theres a reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity. You are being so vague I have no idea what you're protesting against. Police still have to obtain a warrant for the same things they used to. What in the new legislation detracts from our current rights? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) But what I think is more important is that we try to figure out why these threats are increasing. I see reference to the "Toronto 18". Would the Toronto 18 and the other crazies who run down and/or assassinate Canadian military personnel be terrorists in Canada if we had not gotten involved in Afghanistan, Libya and now Iraq and Syria? I doubt it. So now we continue on a unilateral political foreign policy that is creating more and more terrorists. If I understand our position correctly you believe that we should not engage in foreign policy activities with our allies if Canadian Muslims will be unhappy about those activities. Do I have that basically correct? The government should avoid doing anything which offends Islam or Muslims? And yet, Muslims are all peaceful people! Edited February 8, 2015 by Argus 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Have you been reading the news or the Supreme Court rulings the last 10 years? I'm disgusted at some of the Harper-supporting sheep in this thread....following their beloved leader off a cliff like lemmings. Anti terrorism legislation is a cliff? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Currently written is what you need to focus on. Harper wants to change that. Thats the concern. And yet you are completely inarticulate in your attempt to explain how he wants to change it. Furthermore, the question was 'what rights have you lost'. You seem to be suggesting, if it's possible to understand what you're trying to convey, that although he's been in power for many years now Harper has actually done nothing which detracts from our rights. You're just frightened he will -- eventually. Because he's a bad man! 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) 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. You don't have to be very old to remember how Chretien abused the RCMP. Not only at the asia summit, where his own hatchet man, Jean Carle was on site giving orders to the RCMP, but in his abuse of François Beaudoin who he tried to have arrested when the man made public how Chretien had pressured him to give money to his business partner. The RCMP raided his home on more than one occasion, and tried to get the SDP to arrest and charge him - even though there was zero evidence of wrongdoing. Edited February 8, 2015 by Argus 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 The folly of your concern is trying to take these isolated incidents, carried out by a couple of crackpots and fashion it into some major conspiracy theory which has no basis in fact nor statistic. Oh, I see! It's the lack of statistics which is bothering you! These cases are not isolated. Right now two guys are on trial for trying to blow up a train south of Toronto. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Now there is a tin hat response if ever I heard one. A meteorite could strike earth and do the same thing. What to do about that. More to the point, read BGs stats. Terrorists 2. This is utterly inane. Because a meteor could hit the earth we should ignore people who are supporting and planning terrorist acts? Did you really post that? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Large scale terror attacks like the kind you describe aren't the concern as those are complex and difficult to carry out. Not really. Hell, find a big crowd at an outdoor concert and drive a semi through them. You'd kill hundreds. Blow it up using homemade explosives like that clown in Oklahoma and you'll kill thousands. Edited February 8, 2015 by Argus 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Why not just say millions or billion or TRILLIONS??? Maybe because he, like the rest of us, is grounded in reality. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 And you were never going to vote for him not matter what he does. So your opinion is irrelevant. BTW Chretien also introduced Anti-Terrorism laws, was he killing our democracy too? No, because he was a Liberal. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Let's look back on the other times the government tried to ram through new policies in which the SCC ruled it was not constitutional. If that had gone through, your rights would be affected. How? Name a case and tell me how my rights would be affected. Or yours. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 I think Moonlight Graham's post really tells us what the deal is. Page 2, Post #23. I wonder when people will draw a line and start to push back. How much is too much? We could start with an indication of the harm or damage done which so far, after six pages, appears to be ZERO. So why exactly would you expect people other than the paranoid loonies of the Harper Hate Squad, to be pushing back? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 People are more upset by deflated footballs and other non-issues compared to their rights being stripped away. Which rights? 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Not really. I'll be weeping at the spectacle of the last nails being driven into the coffin that holds what remains of the Canada I grew up in. I really do think the push Harper would get from dead soldiers will be a disaster for the left in Canada. And it's why I think Harper is probably the most despicably Machiavellian right wing leader on the planet. /facepalm 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
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.