C-51 RCMP/Harper Anti-fossil fuels lobby = Terrorism?

[jacee]

Still a denier huh?

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=7629950

No Canadian incidents there.

Interesting expose of the RCMP'S sources used for their report ssupporting Bill C-51: 'Turning ordinary Canadians into terrorists'

9-weirdest-things-about-rcmp-intelligence-report-anti-petroleum-movement

Toronto Sun opinionator...

a source used by the RCMP to demand more invasive powers?

:/

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[BubberMiley]

They used to try to claim it was hyperbole that Harper had a *scary* agenda.

[jacee]

They used to try to claim it was hyperbole that Harper had a *scary* agenda.

I predict he's going to dye his hair, grow a moustache and get a mistress named Eva.

His creeping fascism is about to run amok.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

It was the lead off today in QP for those who may not have tuned in. Once again Harper flailed around and answered virtually nothing as Mulcair pinned his ears to the wall. One other thing in this bill I find scary, aside from the (will commit to may commit) is the part about you can be labelled a terrorist if it is deemed you somehow interfere with the economic progress of Canada. Whatever the hell that means.

[jacee]

It was the lead off today in QP for those who may not have tuned in. Once again Harper flailed around and answered virtually nothing as Mulcair pinned his ears to the wall. One other thing in this bill I find scary, aside from the (will commit to may commit) is the part about you can be labelled a terrorist if it is deemed you somehow interfere with the economic progress of Canada. Whatever the hell that means.

That means you are blocking the pipeline workers, walking in a street protest, flipping the bird at the banks,

It also means you are "promoting an anti-petroleum" agenda online, by handing out flyers, speaking at a rally, etc.

And it could also mean you are calling the RCMP "dumb as posts".

Come and get me ****er!!!

.

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

That means you are blocking the pipeline workers, walking in a street protest, flipping the bird at the banks,

It also means you are "promoting an anti-petroleum" agenda online, by handing out flyers, speaking at a rally, etc.

And it could also mean you are calling the RCMP "dumb as posts".

Come and get me ****er!!!

.

.

C 51 was of course the topic of debate in the house today. Peter Mackay stumbled over the language at least a couple of times I heard which were telling. Of course Harper will, as usual, invoke closure and then ram it through. So much for the democratic process.

[jacee]

C 51 was of course the topic of debate in the house today. Peter Mackay stumbled over the language at least a couple of times I heard which were telling. Of course Harper will, as usual, invoke closure and then ram it through. So much for the democratic process.

There's the Senate.

And I think the Supreme Court better have a boo at it.

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[poochy]

her reality

Only exists in one place.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/17/new-brunswick-shale-gas-protesters-pepper-sprayed-police-cars-reportedly-set-on-fire/

Now follow the formula and tell us the police torched their own cars.

Edited February 19, 2015 by poochy

[On Guard for Thee]

There's the Senate.

And I think the Supreme Court better have a boo at it.

.

My guess is the senate may suggest amendments such as parliamentary oversight at least. But failing that I imagine it will once again waste more of the SCs time as they shake their heads. Of course they are all seasoned judges and who of them would want to see a colleague in the position of pondering a decision to issue a warrant against someone who a nosy cop thinks MAY commit a crime or heaven forbid, plan to protest a pipeline through their backyard.

[kimmy]

Why do we even need a new law? I mean, obviously I disagree with people who want to blow up pipelines and oil wells and powerlines and things like that, but that stuff is already illegal.

While Prime Minister Harper assures as that this bill would not be used to prevent Canadians from protesting (of course he said that. what else is he going to say?) the text of the law doesn't guarantee that it can't be used that way:

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the bill aims at “any activity that undermines the security of Canada (which) does not include lawful advocacy, protests, dissent and artistic expression.”

However, University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese and the University of Toronto’s Kent Roach have conducted a lengthy analysis of the bill and concluded it is overbroad in many aspects, including by potentially capturing protests that don’t have proper municipal permits for example.

Peter MacKay himself won't make that guarantee either:

VICE asked MacKay whether the protesters on Burnaby Mountain—which is located just a few kilometers from Young's riding—would have been arrested under this law. MacKay said that it "would have to be examined in the formulation and the interpretation of the bill, and it would be up to a judge to interpret if it would become law."

More lawyers agree:

Mr. Prutschi said the fact that energy infrastructure was included has one obvious purpose.

“It would have application for pipeline protests,” he said, noting that the legislation doesn’t require damage to be done — to be convicted, you would just need to be in the way of critical infrastructure.

He said the bill could almost certainly be applied to the current protests on Burnaby Mountain blocking Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Ms. Young’s Vancouver South riding is adjacent to the mountain.

Ottawa lawyer Michael Spratt agrees with Mr. Prutschi.

“It’s unnecessary, it stifles expression and it’s really just puffery,” said Mr. Spratt, pointing out that tampering with rail lines is already a specific crime in the Criminal Code.

Even an industry group that requested stronger penalties for tampering with infrastructure was surprised by what's in the bill:

The Canadian Electricity Association supports the changes, saying the current law doesn’t take into account the seriousness of this sort of theft. Though it notes that this bill goes well beyond what it was seeking.

Geoff Smith, director of government relations for the group, said the current law treats stealing a bike the same way it punishes stealing critical infrastructure that could damage power facilities — like one substation in Hamilton that “flashed over” after $1,800 worth of wire was stolen. He said the association wanted to address that gap in the law.

“We were never calling for a mandatory minimum, throw-the-book-at-them approach,” said Mr. Smith.

If they are sincere in saying that they don't want this law to be used in the way the critics are saying it could be used, then they should withdraw it, and bring it back when it is fixed so that it matches their intentions.

-k

[TimG]

Why do we even need a new law? I mean, obviously I disagree with people who want to blow up pipelines and oil wells and powerlines and things like that, but that stuff is already illegal.

The biggest problem with the media and politicians is that no one ever gets credit for doing nothing. This puts enormous pressure on politicians to "do something" that makes the base happy even if they academically know it is useless. Left leaning politicians suffer more from this disease than right leaning politicians because left leaning politicians tend to believe that bigger government is better government. Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

I doubt it's "the base" that's asking for this, I suspect it's industry groups that can donate to campaigns.

-k

Edited February 19, 2015 by kimmy

[On Guard for Thee]

The biggest problem with the media and politicians is that no one ever gets credit for doing nothing. This puts enormous pressure on politicians to "do something" that makes the base happy even if they academically know it is useless. Left leaning politicians suffer more from this disease than right leaning politicians because left leaning politicians tend to believe that bigger government is better government.

Then why does Harper have the biggest gov in our history. That theory sounds just as empty as one of his PMO talking points.

[TimG]

I doubt it's "the base" that's asking for this, I suspect it's industry groups that can donate to campaigns.

Does not really make sense for this to be "driven by industry" especially since the Conservatives depend on collecting a lot of small donations from individuals. This seems to be a classic "score points with base by being seen to do something" strategy. The Liberals/NDP would do the same but their "score points with useless policies" strategies focus on anti-CO2 measures or perhaps by throwing money at natives.

I can't see this changing because to few people are willing to reward politicians with the courage to say that nothing can/should be done.

Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Does not really make sense for this to be "driven by industry" especially since the Conservatives depend on collecting a lot of small donations from individuals.

Don't be naive or misleading, Tim: Of course it's about industry - fossil fuels industry.

In particular, it's about Indigenous communities asserting their right to have a say in such developments on their traditional lands, and the environmentalists who annoy the oil boys so much.

Harper thought he could ignore the 'duty to consult'. The courts say he can't. So he's trying this end run around the Supreme Court by criminalizing protest.

If the feds and provinces fulfilled their legal responsibilities to address Aboriginal rights effectively, there wouldn't be protests and blockades.

This has very little to do with 'terrorism'.

That's just the fearmongering hook that Harper is using to dupe the public and slide through draconian measures against domestic protest.

With this act, Harper becomes all powerful in directing the operations of the RCMP & CSIS against his enemies.

Unlike other police forces, the RCMP has no explicit duty to uphold the rights of Canadians under the Constitution. Their oath is to OBEY lawful ORDERS.

They are Harper's attack dogs.

Public oversight is definitely lacking from Bill C51. What does that tell us?

.

Edited February 19, 2015 by jacee

[PIK]

Unlawful is unlawful no matter how you look at it. Break the law ,you will pay.

[TimG]

Don't be naive or misleading, Tim: Of course it's about industry - fossil fuels industry.

Only if you agree that environmental groups are paid mouth pieces of foreign interests seeking to limit competition for their products.

It is a mystery to me why so many people think that their personal positions are driven by belief in doing the right thing yet all who disagree are motivated by by self interest. It is hypocritical nonsense.

If conservatives favor the resource industry it is because they recognize that Canadians need to develop resources if we are going to have any chance of paying for the social services that we have come to expect. It is a POV that is as noble a motive as any NGO believing they are trying to 'save the planet'. At least with the conservative view there is a rational connection between their actions and the objectives.

Edited February 19, 2015 by TimG

[hitops]

Only exists in one place.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/17/new-brunswick-shale-gas-protesters-pepper-sprayed-police-cars-reportedly-set-on-fire/

Now follow the formula and tell us the police torched their own cars.

Obviously a conspiracy by the police to make the protesters look bad. Nope, no reason at all to keep tabs on those type of folks.

[jacee]

Only if you agree that environmental groups are paid mouth pieces of foreign interests seeking to limit competition for their products.

I've heard that allegation, never seen any proof.

You got some?

.

[jacee]

Obviously a conspiracy by the police to make the protesters look bad. Nope, no reason at all to keep tabs on those type of folks.

Notice little mention of police actions:

She wouldnt reveal what tactics police were using to contain the crowd and refused to comment on reports that officers had fired rubber bullets.

[Topaz]

The media is saying once the Bill is passed, no government can change it, so the only thing Canadians can do is CHANGE the government!

[jacee]

The media is saying once the Bill is passed, no government can change it, so the only thing Canadians can do is CHANGE the government!

I think they can change it, but they seldom do. Changing the government won't come soon enough to stop this law.

.

[Moonlight Graham]

This anti-terror bill is evil. Far too vague, gives government authorities too much power, especially the power to interpret the bill in ways that fit whatever agendas they have.

[jacee]

This anti-terror bill is evil. Far too vague, gives government authorities too much power, especially the power to interpret the bill in ways that fit whatever agendas they have.

Agreed.

.

[eyeball]

Only if you agree that environmental groups are paid mouth pieces of foreign interests seeking to limit competition for their products.

It is hypocritical nonsense.

If conservatives favor the resource industry it is because they recognize that Canadians need to develop resources if we are going to have any chance of paying for the social services that we have come to expect.

If Conservative supporters only had a clue. Of course I have to listen to this shite as I sit surrounded by natural resources to which access had been denied local residents and in many cases in favor of foreign owners that now import foreign labour to exploit their possessions.