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

[LemonPureLeaf]

Then why not allow all party parliamentary oversight...

I don't think its really practical to have a meeting anytime the police want to detain someone of intrest. Is that what youre talking about?

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think its really practical to have a meeting anytime the police want to detain someone of intrest. Is that what youre talking about?

Somebody of interest. Ever heard of 1984...

[LemonPureLeaf]

Somebody of interest. Ever heard of 1984...

explain your idea of oversight please. How would it work?

[On Guard for Thee]

explain your idea of oversight please. How would it work?

All party committee that controls ISIS. Especially since Harper has gutted SIRC which was initially created to do just that.

[jacee]

CSIS?

[LemonPureLeaf]

All party committee that controls ISIS. Especially since Harper has gutted SIRC which was initially created to do just that.

Ok I need to see a source that proves your claim that an all party committee in Canada controls ISIS.

[jacee]

I'm a Mom and I'm anti-pipeline.

Am I a terrorist now?

I have a child. We bake muffins and paint pictures together, go skating and swimming and enjoy things that most families do together.

...

There are a lot of parents in the anti-pipeline movement. There are also a lot of students...

if the government is threatening to lock up parents and youth ... how is that responsible spending of our tax dollars?

...

This legislation serves to protect the interests of a very elite few who are invested in the oilsands and pipeline expansion.

...

If we protest pipelines non-violently, as all anti-pipeline demonstrations have been in this country, then we are engaging in our right to protest. If we lose the right to protest environmental destruction in this country, we are losing our democratic freedoms.

Lastly, this bill will disproportionately impact indigenous communities who are engaging in their legal right to their lands.

The government has, time and again, approved development on unceded indigenous lands or treaty lands without adequate consultation with the First Nations communities of these lands.

Bill C-51 is a bill designed to scare people into silence and inaction.

I, for one, will not be silenced.

By Amelia Meister

You GO girl!!

Harper has no idea of the strength and courage of Moms protecting their kids.

He thinks he's unleashing his goons on radical anarchist and warrior ... men.

Wait til the real truth sinks in, who the really determined protesters are:

MOMS AND GRANDMAS!

<grabs popcorn...>

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

All party committee that controls CSIS. Especially since Harper has gutted SIRC which was initially created to do just that.

(edited to correct CSIS)

And report publicly via Parliament.

SIRC only reviews well after the fact, and CSIS doesn't cooperate with them anyway - doesn't provide the necessary reports and documentation because there is no public oversight, no recourse.

Perhaps we should also have a civilian oversight body, the way the police operate.

The fact of a need for public oversight and accountability has been clearly identified. I'm willing to leave the details to an all party committee with equal representation.

.

[Keepitsimple]

All party committee that controls ISIS. Especially since Harper has gutted SIRC which was initially created to do just that.

Could you please provide a link that explains how Harper "gutted" the SIRC? I was not aware that any changes were made to the SIRC mandate.

[jacee]

Could you please provide a link that explains how Harper "gutted" the SIRC? I was not aware that any changes were made to the SIRC mandate.

Bill C51 changes their mandate.

Gutted their budget already.

So ... we will have a review body with a fancy-schmancy paper mandate, not enough funds to do it properly, and CSIS won't cooperate with SIRC anyway because there is no public accountability pressuring them to do so. (Do we look stupid?)

Do CSIS agents have badge numbers?

That would be critically important for accountability. Without proper oversight, Moms and Grandmas interrogated for anti-pipeline protests must be able to identify who assaulted them and hold them publicly accountable - ie prosecute them and hold them individually liable.

I hope they've budgeted for child care facilities, change tables & diapers, etc. in the secret jails.

And for trauma lawsuits for the kids who have to watch their Moms and Grandmas be tortured ... interrogated in the secret jails.

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[cybercoma]

In recent history it hasn't. Also, you very much seem to support it as a way of getting things done. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it.

It has and it continues to do so all over the world. You keep moving those goalposts to fit your completely wrong assertions if that makes you sleep better at night.

[cybercoma]

How is that relevant to today?

How are the rebellions of 1837 relevant today? Really?

[Smallc]

It has and it continues to do so all over the world. You keep moving those goalposts to fit your completely wrong assertions if that makes you sleep better at night.

You're the one condoning and promoting violence in a democratic society. Seems that you're the one with wrong assertions. it has been my contention all along that violent or lawbreaking protest has no place in Canada's recent history post Charter...

How are the rebellions of 1837 relevant today? Really?

....and this is pre Charter. Of course, it has shaped our lives today, but it shouldn't serve as an example of how to achieve political change in modern Canada.

[cybercoma]

I didn't condone nor promote violence. You keep saying that and not once have I done so. What I've said repeatedly is that it affects political change successfully and continuous to do so today. You say it has no place in this country, but people continue to break the law with respect to pot legislation. We're almost to the point where there's serious consideration for legalization and that's only as a result of persistent lawbreaking which diminishes the validity of the law.

[cybercoma]

And quit speaking for me. You're either not smart enough to understand what I'm saying (which I Don't believe) or you're intentionally being dishonest about my point, which just makes you an asshole instead.

[Smallc]

You say it has no place in this country, but people continue to break the law with respect to pot legislation. We're almost to the point where there's serious consideration for legalization and that's only as a result of persistent lawbreaking which diminishes the validity of the law.

So back to the original point of this thread, the bill - do you think that smoking pot will illicit terrorism charges? Further, outdated laws become just that - outdated. People break those laws all of the time, but they aren't doing it as some form of protest generally. 4/20 isn't what is going to push the legalization of pot, but rather the pervasive use of it as a recreational substance. Yes, laws are being broken, and I don't condone that in general (nor in this case - I support the legalization of the substance mostly as way to free up money and generate revenue. Pot, like alcohol, is a negative drain on society in general, especially right now) but it's mostly because the laws haven't kept up with the time. Protest generally only makes a difference when it has public sentiment and support. Violence and disobedience don't generally get much sympathy today.

[jacee]

lawbreaking protest has no place in Canada's recent history post Charter...

Protest always breaks laws, is always unlawful.

We're walking in the street.

.

[Smallc]

Protest always breaks laws, is always unlawful.

We're walking in the street.

Which they have permits for. Further, peaceful protest is protected and doesn't need to go down the street as a rule.

[jacee]

Which they have permits for.

No they don't.

Protesters don't ask for permission.

Further, peaceful protest is protected and doesn't need to go down the street as a rule.

Yes it does.

Obstructing sidewalks is illegal too and more importantly, you might whack shoppers with your signs.

Protesters walk in the streets ... unlawfully.

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

No they don't.

Protesters don't ask for permission.

Because you're too cool?

Yes it does.

Obstructing sidewalks is illegal too and more importantly, you might whack shoppers with your signs.

Protesters walk in the streets ... unlawfully.

Public land. Protesters breaking the law actually should be arrested. I have no sympathy.

[Black Dog]

In recent history it hasn't. Also, you very much seem to support it as a way of getting things done. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it.

How recent are we talking?

It's interesting to me that the right to violent resistance is essentially codified in law in the States. But here such things are apparently passe.

[Smallc]

It's interesting to me that the right to violent resistance is essentially codified in law in the States. But here such things are apparently passe.

I don't think that has resulted in much positive change in the US.

[On Guard for Thee]

CSIS?

Oops. Thank you. I guess we already have an all party committee trying to control ISIS...... in the form of 6 F 18s.

[Black Dog]

I don't think that has resulted in much positive change in the US.

Outside of the actual founding of the nation and the elimination of slavery, you mean?

[Big Guy]

Peaceful protests occur all the time. Strikes are legal protests. They get violent only when those on the picket line choose do go outside of their instructions and confront either police or replacement workers. Ghandi changed the world with his non-violent protests by using the population to exert their buying power and labour force as a bargaining tool.

I understand the need for protest and agree with the principle of publicly showing your disagreement with something. I also support the reaction of the public to these protests. I have had protestors try to keep me from entering a building into which I was heading and had full legal access to. I was involved in a physical confrontations of which I am not proud BUT I'll be damned if someone screaming slogans and carrying a sign is going to keep me from going where I want to go.

The question is how far do you go with a protest? It can vary from writing a letter to the editor to shooting a doctor who performs abortions. I will leave it to the law to decide at which point a person crosses the line from protest to criminal behaviour.

I do not think we need this legislation to make that line more definitive. On the other hand, if there are groups who wish to do our country ill, perhaps we need to give our law enforcement extra tools - as long as we also create a public body to overview and trigger the conditions and point at which these extra tools are to be used.

At this time we have a very weak, underfunded and impotent oversight whose mandate is to deal with special circumstances AFTER these unique tools are used. We need an all-party committee of elected officials, sworn to secrecy, whose mandate is to trigger the use of these special tools BEFORE they are used by overly enthusiastic law enforcement.