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

[LemonPureLeaf]

Thats pretty much what happened at the G 20 and that was without C 51.

Don't disobey the police and you won't be detained. Quite simple.

[Black Dog]

Exactly, so you are making a value judgement on the basis of your beleifs, well here is a news flash, most Canadians dont want to see roads blocked or store windows smashed and they would be more than happy to see anyone who does those things arrested and locked up for a time.

I thought we were talking about moral issues, not what's popular.

Contrary to the opinions of some most of us live perfectly good lives and don't think the government is out to get us for some reason or another, that's the reality.

And who said otherwise? Not me at least.

So if anti abortionists can't burn down clinics because that's 'wrong', and most Canadians think that smashing store windows in a protest against some imagined new world order adversary is also wrong, where does that leave us?

Thing is, anti-abortionists burning down clinics isn't wrong just because it's violent. Intent matters.

You can choose anarchy or the rule of law, where violence isn't acceptable, picking and choosing when it's ok to burn police cars or what not just can't work.

Actually, I think picking and choosing when it's acceptable is exactly right. We're lucky that we don't have to resort to that here to effect change, but I can't say I'm particularly comfortable with the idea of it never being an option should the circumstances require it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't disobey the police and you won't be detained. Quite simple.

Dont waste time with that old saw. Maybe go read 1984 instead. Or read the bill, doesnt say I have to disobey police to get arrested. Far from it.

Edited February 26, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[LemonPureLeaf]

Dont waste time with that old saw. Maybe go read 1984 instead.

So you refuse to obey police orders then complain that you get detained. I just want to make sure I have this correct. This is what you're saying right?

[On Guard for Thee]

So you refuse to obey police orders then complain that you get detained. I just want to make sure I have this correct. This is what you're saying right?

You didnt read my last post I guess, but in any case, what if those police orders happen to be illegal, such as at the G20.

[Black Dog]

Very good column here.

There is a reason terrorists spend so much time making threats. Hiding in the Somali desert or Syrian ruins, they are separated from the West by armies, oceans and a trillion-dollar security industry. The only thing that can reliably reach us from there is menacing email. This is why terrorists mostly trade in fear.

The truth is that they simply are not very good at actually killing people. There were approximately 18,000 people killed by terrorists globally in 2013. Car accidents killed 70 times more. In Canada, only two people have died in terrorism attacks over the last decade. Moose are far more likely to kill you.

Unable to compete with moose, terrorists try to scare us instead. Islamic State recently announced it would send half a million migrants from Libya to conquer Rome. And al-Shabaab has threatened to attack shopping centres such as the West Edmonton Mall and London’s Oxford Street.

These are the threats of the powerless, exaggerated to extremes so we will not grow bored and forget them. Exaggerated to attract supporters. Exaggerated to give hope to their bloodied followers retreating from Mogadishu and Kobane.
...
The next time a politician claims that removing privacy is the only way to keep us safe, or the news breathlessly reports on a suspicious package, or a security expert explains we need to be concerned, respond the only way we should. Remember that terrorism is literally the least of our worries, and laugh at them.

[poochy]

I thought we were talking about moral issues, not what's popular.

And who said otherwise? Not me at least.

Thing is, anti-abortionists burning down clinics isn't wrong just because it's violent. Intent matters.

Actually, I think picking and choosing when it's acceptable is exactly right. We're lucky that we don't have to resort to that here to effect change, but I can't say I'm particularly comfortable with the idea of it never being an option should the circumstances require it.

Morality doesn't exist until we draw the lines, morality is only enoforced as a set of societal standards because the majority chooses to support those standards. Most of us think violence protests over fracking for example, is immoral, the science simply does not support the outrage. I don't beleive that violent protest is acceptable for any cause or ideology, it is by and large the more left leaning among us who do, most protests are for what most would classify as left leaning causes. Those of you who support this sort of, violence is ok if i agree with the cause, had better hope that the general attitudes of the country don't change a great deal.

Edited February 26, 2015 by poochy

[guyser]

So you refuse to obey police orders then complain that you get detained.

You forgot the word lawful.

As in obey a lawful Police order .

[guyser]

Morality doesn't exist until we draw the lines,

My morality may differ from yours or the next guys.

Now what?

[jacee]

Because you're too cool?

I can't speak for others but to me, asking 'permission' to protest is ridiculous.

We have the right to protest.

.

[Smallc]

I can't speak for others but to me, asking 'permission' to protest is ridiculous.

We have the right to protest.

Not if it breaks the law you don't.

[Smallc]

My morality may differ from yours or the next guys.

Now what?

That's exactly his point. Breaking the law in the name of our own morality isn't right.

[guyser]

That's exactly his point. Breaking the law in the name of our own morality isn't right.

errr....no it wasnt. But you are right in thelatter part.

[On Guard for Thee]

What if Rosa Parks had waited for.....permission....

[Black Dog]

Morality doesn't exist until we draw the lines, morality is only enoforced as a set of societal standards because the majority chooses to support those standards.

So anything popular is ipso facto morally correct?

I don't beleive that violent protest is acceptable for any cause or ideology, it is by and large the more left leaning among us who do, most protests are for what most would classify as left leaning causes.

So no violent revolutions to overthrow dictators then. OK.

Those of you who support this sort of, violence is ok if i agree with the cause, had better hope that the general attitudes of the country don't change a great deal.

That doesn't really make much sense.

[Smallc]

errr....no it wasnt. But you are right in thelatter part.

If you look back the post preceding the one you responded to, yes, it was.

[jacee]

In actual fact, and in spite of the Charter and the desire of lefties to be governed mainly by unelected and unaccountable SCC judges interpreting the Charter as they decree seems fitting at the moment, current security law enables suspects to be held for up to 3 days without charges and the new anti-terrorism law will lengthen that to 7 days. This compares rather benignly with recent UK anti-terrorist legislation enabling the holding of suspects without charges for up to 28 days and with other Western jurisdictions, for example Australia whose recent anti-terror legislation makes Bill 51 seem pretty much toothless.

Do you agree with the provisions for oversight in those countries?

Do you think Bill C51 should include similar oversight to ensure that

- detention and imprisonment are not arbitrary and

- reasons for same can be demonstrably justified?

.

[nerve]

Yes, of course it is. The police are able to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours. The police have 24 hours to put you in front of a judge or release you. Simple as that. That is just how it is.

No. Unlawful Arrest detention and forcible confinement or use of force are crimes and police are accountable at law.

They must have reasonable grounds that a crime has or will occur and only hold people for indictable offence or where continuous, or to prevent furtherance or breach of the peace.

Any other use is unlawful, as it would be an arbitrary arrest and arbitrary detention.

C51 allows for suspicion to be used. This is the difference

Grounds are like finding a key of coke in someone's car.

Suspicion would be smelling pot while doing a check.

Suspicion allows for investigation but not charter violations or criminal acts to be committed against suspects.

C51 let's non police civilians commit crime such as harassment, forcible confinement and assault,and criminal defamation.

It is a really bad law and massive civil rights and human rights violator.

How this plays is what, stops terrorism, must be good.

In reality, what anyone can arrest me if the think I might be up to something without enough evidence to prove a crime is involved, lie to people I know about me, and ruin my life? Hope its not me.

But it will only be used on Muslims right, so if I am not Muslim then no need to fear the furnace.

This paired with the secret trials, and secret indisputable testimony is pretty creepy, a very very bad standard.

Should people loose their license if their car smells like pot?

Should parents loose their kids if it has a bruise?

This is the same logic.

Edited February 26, 2015 by nerve

[jacee]

Exactly, so you are making a value judgement on the basis of your beleifs,

It's a discussion board. We express opinions freely here.

well here is a news flash, most Canadians dont want to see roads blocked or store windows smashed and they would be more than happy to see anyone who does those things arrested and locked up for a time.

Those doing vandalism know the consequencs if caught.

Contrary to the opinions of some most of us live perfectly good lives and don't think the government is out to get us for some reason or another, that's the reality.

Others also live good lives, have different opinions and the right to express dissent.

So if anti abortionists can't burn down clinics because that's 'wrong', and most Canadians think that smashing store windows in a protest against some imagined new world order adversary is also wrong, where does that leave us? You can choose anarchy or the rule of law, where violence isn't acceptable, picking and choosing when it's ok to burn police cars or what not just can't work.

That would all be fine if police were only arresting people who actually did commit vandalism.

However in Toronto, police arbitrarily (without reason) arrested and incarcerated over a thousand peaceful protesters, media, tourists and local residents in their own neighbourhood.

A thousand were never charged, and most of those charged had their charges dropped for lack of any 'reasonable suspicion' or evidence of any wrongdoing.

We have the right to peaceful assembly and dissent, and not to be arbitrarily manhandled, arrested and detained for doing so.

What the police do about vandalism is between them and the law, but incarcerating innocent people

BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE BROKE THE LAW

is intolerable behaviour by police.

And that egregious police behaviour is enshrined in Bill C51 to be done by CSIS with no public oversight or accountability.

Finally ... Violence has played a significant positive role in Canada's history. We have responsible government and equal rights because some Reformer farmers and others took up arms against the colonial oligarchies.

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

That is just as unacceptable. Destroying a persons livelihood is reprehensible,

Cite? Don't believe that.

as is costing the public purse untold sums of money.

No it isn't.

I would think private property damages are insured.

What is going to cost us a lot of money are the damages against police for violating the rights rights of peaceful protesters, media and local residents arbitrarily assaulted and incarcerated in inhumane conditions.

I think the class action lawsuit is for $45m.

...And that's just paranoid nonsense.

No it isn't.

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[LemonPureLeaf]

Cite? Don't believe that.

No it isn't.

I would think private property damages are insured.

What is going to cost us a lot of money are the damages against police for violating the rights rights of peaceful protesters, media and local residents arbitrarily assaulted and incarcerated in inhumane conditions.

No it isn't.

.

Uhm, destroying property isn't peacefully protesting "Jacee". That's breaking the law and people deserve to get arrested for it. Protesters have no right to destroy someone elses property.

None of the protesters were innocent in the g20. They were told to stay away and they didn't listen so they got detained. Too bad. Don't like that? Listen to the police next time then and these things won't happen.

Edited February 26, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf

[nerve]

I would beat the crap out of someone who uses force to falsely arrest me without charges.

Having unknown unaccountable people arresting and confining people is problematic because there is room for abuse.

Lucky moose allows for lawful citizens arrest.

How do I know its not a terrorist abduction plot?

Arrest on suspicion is clearly unconstitutional any idiot should see that.

Edited February 26, 2015 by nerve

[jacee]

Not if it breaks the law you don't.

Thousands of people walking peacefully in the street are breaking the law, municipal bylaws. Such a minor infraction isn't worth the police ' s time and such civil disobedience has been tolerated to respect citizens' right to protest.

However, under Bill C51, only 'lawful' protest is exempt from the anti-terror laws.

You protest in the street, you are treated as a terrorist.

Don't you think arrest and interrogation for 7 days is a bit harsh for breaking a municipal bylaw by walking in the street?

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

[LemonPureLeaf]

Thousands of people walking peacefully in the street are breaking the law, municipal bylaws. Such a minor infraction isn't worth the police ' s time and such civil disobedience has been tolerated to respect citizens' right to protest.

However, under Bill C51, only 'lawful' protest is exempt from the anti-terror laws.

You protest in the street, you are treated as a terrorist.

Don't you think arrest and interrogation for 7 days is a bit harsh for breaking a municipal bylaw by walking in the street?

.

I think we should let the police decide what's worth their time or not unless you are speaking on behalf of the police.

No one has said that walking on the street protesting will be treated like a terrorist.

NO one has said that someone will be detained for 7 days for street protesting.

Stop making things up please.

[jacee]

What if Rosa Parks had waited for.....permission....

What if William Lyon Mackenzie had waited for 'permission'.

.