Bill C-51: Federal Anti-Terror Legislation polling results

[On Guard for Thee]

You still haven't answered the question that's been posed to you by me and others. What rights are you losing? Just give us a reasonable situation where a law-abiding citizen might get caught up in this legislation through some nefarious application? Your peaceful protest example makes no sense.

Try looking at post # 250.

[Smallc]

Yes it does.

Because the word in Bill C51 is "lawful" protest.

Protest is never lawful.

Yeah it is.

[jacee]

Yeah it is.

Civil disobedience is by definition not lawful.

.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

And then there's the surveillance and privacy thing.

Bill C-51 Will Make It Easier To Throw Canadians In Jail Without a Charge

In early February, Canada's Parliament voted down a bill to bring back the mandatory long-form census. The Conservative government's position was that the census was too intrusive. Remember that word: intrusive. Two weeks later they are arguing for the need of mass surveillance and other drastic civil liberty erosions that Bill C-51 brings.

...

Bill C-51's gives powers of "preventive detention," which means jail time for individuals even when there isn't any suspicion criminal activity has taken place.

All government agencies give all your personal information and communication to CSIS.

CSIS ... with no public/parliamentary oversight of how your information is used.

And based on your information, without any suspicion of a crime and with no public accountability or oversight, CSIS can incarcerate and interrogate you for 7 days ... without charges.

They can use all the interrogation methods Bush's CIA used.

.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

Civil disobedience is by definition not lawful.

.

Protest is very much lawful. It's even constitutionally protected.

[jacee]

Protest is very much lawful. It's even constitutionally protected.

That's a bit naive.

Freedom of expression and association are protected.

Civil disobedience - walking in the street without a permit - is "unlawful" but is usually tolerated ... until someone somewhere p's off the cops.

Then it's open season on all protesters.

.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Protest is very much lawful. It's even constitutionally protected.

Questionable under C 51. This is one of the problems the Harper supporters seem utterly happy to turn a blind eye to.

[poochy]

Perhaps you would be less confused, and repetitive, if you actually read and understood the bill. I cant do that for you. Ill give you a hint though, language in a law is extremely important.

Vague, evasive non answers whenever cornered, same pattern, every thread, you have all of the answers, and then none.

"language in law is extremely important" No! Really? Wow. thank goodness that every other law is already so perfectly written that no one could ever find reason to take offense, wow, i mean, at least now we only have to worry about this one set of new laws, phew.

[On Guard for Thee]

Vague, evasive non answers whenever cornered, same pattern, every thread, you have all of the answers, and then none.

"language in law is extremely important" No! Really? Wow. thank goodness that every other law is already so perfectly written that no one could ever find reason to take offense, wow, i mean, at least now we only have to worry about this one set of new laws, phew.

Are you done.

[Smallc]

That's a bit naive.

Freedom of expression and association are protected.

It also includes the right to peaceful assembly. You'd think if you were going to set your hair on fire, you'd at least know why.

[LemonPureLeaf]

It would appear that a great many people are supporting this current initiative by the government to help keep us safe from terror. A new law is needed and most people, it would seem don't mind giving the police expanded powers to keep us safe.

I have been reading this topic with great interest and it would seem that a large portion of posters here seem to be of the belief that once this is passed into law that we will somehow be transformed into a literal police state where any distention will be squashed almost immediately. I haven't seen any evidence for this at all. Some of the protests of late have been getting out of control and it wouldn't be hard for terrorists to blend in with the legitimate protestors to carry out a terrorist attack.

As long as a protest is peaceful and doesn't interrupt the economy I don't see it being a real problem. I don't think we'd see any heavy handed stuff from the police after the backlash of the G20.

[jacee]

It also includes the right to peaceful assembly. You'd think if you were going to set your hair on fire, you'd at least know why.

There may be some in crowds of thousands who aren't entirely peaceful.

Are we all to be punished for that?

Over a thousand people were severely punished for the actions of others at the G20.

There may be times when assembly means blocking a street, road, access, facility, business, etc (EG labour strike).

.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

It would appear that a great many people are supporting this current initiative by the government to help keep us safe from terror. A new law is needed and most people, it would seem don't mind giving the police expanded powers to keep us safe.

I have been reading this topic with great interest and it would seem that a large portion of posters here seem to be of the belief that once this is passed into law that we will somehow be transformed into a literal police state where any distention will be squashed almost immediately. I haven't seen any evidence for this at all. Some of the protests of late have been getting out of control and it wouldn't be hard for terrorists to blend in with the legitimate protestors to carry out a terrorist attack.

As long as a protest is peaceful and doesn't interrupt the economy I don't see it being a real problem. I don't think we'd see any heavy handed stuff from the police after the backlash of the G20.

It'll be much worse because everything they did at the G20 is made legal by Bill C51, and more.

.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

It also includes the right to peaceful assembly. You'd think if you were going to set your hair on fire, you'd at least know why.

Lawful assembly. Youd think if you were going to set your hair on fire you would have studied at least a little of what you are on about.

[LemonPureLeaf]

It'll be much worse because everything they did at the G20 is made legal by Bill C51, and more.

.

.

All I see is a government concerned with the safety of Canadians. I think the Liberals would put in place a very similar proposal. Even the NDP knows that we cannot simply afford to do nothing at all. That is merely wishful thinking but not really all that effective. Mulcair has also said he wouldn't scrap the bill but instead change it a bit.

Jacee, are you arguing the need for the bill at its core or are you just wanting it to be amended to remove the offending portions?

[jacee]

It's so obvious in this article that Conservative MP'S don't have a frigging clue what's in this bill ... and they don't want to know.

They just stand up to vote for this crap when they're told or risk the wrath of Harper.

Cushy job. We pay them? :/

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/c-51-confusion-abounds-as-tories-rush-anti-terrorism-bill-to-committee-1.2963569

C-51 confusion abounds as Tories rush anti-terrorism bill to committee

...

"The disruption activities only require judicial warrants if they're going to do something which CSIS judges is illegal or unconstitutional," he told CBC News.

"So all kinds of other activities can be carried out, disruptive activities, without any supervision from anyone."

...

Disruptive activities could include things like erasing information on a subject's computer, interfering with money transfers or shutting down communication services, Garrison said.

"None of those things would require a warrant ... That's why this question of oversight is so important.

Edited February 23, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

All I see is a government concerned with the safety of Canadians. I think the Liberals would put in place a very similar proposal. Even the NDP knows that we cannot simply afford to do nothing at all. That is merely wishful thinking but not really all that effective. Mulcair has also said he wouldn't scrap the bill but instead change it a bit.

Jacee, are you arguing the need for the bill at its core or are you just wanting it to be amended to remove the offending portions?

We already have an anti-terror bill.

I haven't heard any good arguments for a new one, but I'd listen.

Major amendments.

.

[eyeball]

It would appear that a great many people are supporting this current initiative by the government to help keep us safe from terror. A new law is needed and most people, it would seem don't mind giving the police expanded powers to keep us safe.

I have been reading this topic with great interest and it would seem that a large portion of posters here seem to be of the belief that once this is passed into law that we will somehow be transformed into a literal police state where any distention will be squashed almost immediately.

Howdy, welcome to the forum.

I can see why the belief would arise given how unspecific and loaded Bill C-51 is with complicated legalese. I respect the limits of my knowledge when it comes to something as complicated as C-51 and rely the opinions of legal experts which IMO have not been encouraging. That coupled with the apparent inability of the Harper Government to craft constitutionally sound legislation where our Charter rights are involved is enough to give me a lot of pause.

Speaking for myself the greater threat I see in the legislation is how and why it's being brought about. I think the real danger stems from subsequent governments tweaking and adding to and creating even more egregious legislation in the inevitable wake of more galvanizing events in the future. It's a slippery slope as they say and this legislation and the support for it is like a headlong dive towards it. As I often ask, if Conservatives hate the thought Liberals getting their hands on legislation that deals with free speech they'll probably love their Radical Speech Commissions.

Whatever disaster the Liberals make of the dictator's tool kit they'll one day inherit from the Conservatives will be passed back to the Conservatives again and in doe se doe fashion we'll continue dancing around a common centre of fear and loathing and march, on little cat's feet, straight towards a police state. I'm convinced this is inevitable because the ultimate subject of the legislation, the GWOT is almost guaranteed to spread and grow and probably last for generations. I was in the camp that predicted this would happen some 14 years ago.

What I think this Bill is actually doing is revealing to Canadians that there are probably a whole bunch of new rights that we need to define and enshrine in the Charter along with more substantial checks and balances against state power and it's ability to abuse it. It's confirming my biased belief that we have nowhere near enough rights and never did. We should be throwing this right back in the face of Parliamentarians and demanding far more rigorous right's especially as they pertain to rights surrounding good better governance.

[jacee]

I would go so far as to say that if our current system can give rise to this invasive legislation, then our system is doomed and ... <<<disruption>>>

[Smallc]

Lawful assembly. Youd think if you were going to set your hair on fire you would have studied at least a little of what you are on about.

I'm talking about the Constitution Act, 1982. Keep up.

[Smallc]

There may be some in crowds of thousands who aren't entirely peaceful.

Are we all to be punished for that?

That's what happens now.

[Smallc]

I would go so far as to say that if our current system can give rise to this invasive legislation, then our system is doomed and ... <<<disruption>>>

I would say that you're paranoid.

[jacee]

I would say that you're paranoid.

Or you are naive.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm talking about the Constitution Act, 1982. Keep up.

And the rest of us are talking about C 51 2015. Keep up.

[Smallc]

And the rest of us are talking about C 51 2015. Keep up.

Quick google for you. Which is overriding, C-51, or the Constitution Act, 1982? The right to peaceful assembly is constitutionally protected.