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

Smallc · February 26, 2015

Cite? Don't believe that.

How can I cite that? If you vandalize my business your costing me money. If you do enough damage, there's a good chance I'm done for good.

No it isn't.

I would think private property damages are insured.

People don't damage public property when they vandalize? They're that selective? Also, do you think insurance rates going up (and not all businesses are properly insured) is a bad thing for small business owners?

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.

No it isn't.

It has no reasonable basis.

jacee · February 26, 2015

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.

Yes they have.

That is not "lawful protest" under Bill C51 and participants are thus subject to the anti-terror act.

I can see you don't know what's in the bill.

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

Smallc · February 26, 2015

Thousands of people walking peacefully in the street are breaking the law, municipal bylaws.

So don't break the law. Do it properly and make it legal.

jacee · February 26, 2015

How can I cite that? If you vandalize my business your costing me money. If you do enough damage, there's a good chance I'm done for good.

Never happened.

People don't damage public property when they vandalize? They're that selective? Also, do you think insurance rates going up (and not all businesses are properly insured) is a bad thing for small business owners?

I think democracy is a good thing and worth protecting.

"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."

It has no reasonable basis.

Yes it does. A thousand innocent people were arbitrarily detained in inhumane conditions.

Wait for it ...

.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jacee

jacee · February 26, 2015

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.

That may apply to a handful of people out of about 10,000.

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.

Police can't order people not to protest, and they didn't.

.

jacee · February 26, 2015

So don't break the law. Do it properly and make it legal.

Thousands of protesters are going to walk in the street.

Are we terrorists?

Should we be treated like terrorists for protesting in the streets?

.

Smallc · February 26, 2015

Never happened.

Can you cite that, because I'm sure you're wrong.

I think democracy is a good thing and worth protecting.

Me too. That's why illegal and violent protests don't belong.

Smallc · February 26, 2015

Thousands of protesters are going to walk in the street.

Are we terrorists?

Should we be treated like terrorists for protesting in the streets?

you should be treated like law breakers.

jacee · February 26, 2015

you should be treated like law breakers.

Like terrorists?

.

Smallc · February 26, 2015

Like terrorists?

If you really think that people blocking streets as they march are going to be labelled as terrorists I'm not sure what to say.

LemonPureLeaf · February 26, 2015

Like terrorists?

.

Terrorists are law breakers. Terrorists are still treated with all human rights intact unfortunately. We should treat them how they would treat us in their home countries.

So "Jacee" just follow the law and you'll be ok.

Edited February 26, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf

guyser · February 27, 2015

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.

Except for the thousands that were innocent. Even the Police in the tribunal thats been running admitted that.

The Black Block? Not innocent, but there were few of those compared to innocents.

Where do you get all this wrong information? Sun News has been off the air for awhile now.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Guyser2

GostHacked · February 27, 2015

Terrorists are law breakers. Terrorists are still treated with all human rights intact unfortunately. We should treat them how they would treat us in their home countries.

So "Jacee" just follow the law and you'll be ok.

Even if you follow the law you can get treated like a terrorist.

guyser · February 27, 2015

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

I get what you want to do, but thats the wrost response you could possibly do to a Cop. The Cop only adds Assualt on a Policeman and you are screwed.

Even with the poisoned fruit theory youd likely still get hammered on the assault.

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

Whos the idiot if thats clearly not true?

Reasonble suspicion, probable cause allow the Cops to do lots of things including arrest.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Guyser2

jacee · February 27, 2015

Can you cite that, because I'm sure you're wrong.

You made the claim, you prove it.

Me too. That's why illegal

All protest is illegal, if you include municipal bylaws, and Bill C51 does.

It could be amended to say "peaceful" protest, or it could specify "non-criminal" (ie, no Criminal Code violations)

and violent protests don't belong.

Then the police can deal with that handful of people instead of assaulting innocent people.

Everybody watching TV that day wondered why police hid and watched as windows were broken and black bloc dispersed and disappeared.

Even the media were speculating that it was because police didn't know which ones were their own infiltrator/instigators.

.

Edited February 27, 2015 by jacee

LemonPureLeaf · February 27, 2015

Even if you follow the law you can get treated like a terrorist.

I go about my life and I follow the law and have yet to be treated like a terrorist.

guyser · February 27, 2015

you should be treated like law breakers.

Not so sure about that.

This city, whenever some country does dumb things, University Ave is th site of numerous Embassy's (oops, Embassy Lites, sorry) and the protests there quite often block traffic. No one gets arrested since there really is no harm doen overall.

GostHacked · February 27, 2015

I go about my life and I follow the law and have yet to be treated like a terrorist.

How do you know you are not breaking any laws as you go about your day? I bet we all violate a handful of them every day.

jacee · February 27, 2015

I go about my life and I follow the law and have yet to be treated like a terrorist.

Canadians have the right to dissent, associate, assemble ... public protest.

.

jacee · February 27, 2015

If you really think that people blocking streets as they march are going to be labelled as terrorists I'm not sure what to say.

That is what Bill C51 says.

It must be amended.

.

CommunityOrganizer · February 27, 2015

jacee ... My apologies because I can't figure out the quote mechanism here so I can't reprint/quote your post responding to mine.

- Please be more specific and I'll try to respond to your question. You ask if I agree with the oversight provisions of these countries regarding their anti-terror laws and practices and whether I would like similar oversight provisions governing the implementation of Bill C51. I can't answer this question unless you tell what oversight provisions and what countries you are referencing here.

- I will say that I certainly favour an independent and engaged and qualified group and process to ensure adequate oversight. Currently, the disagreement seems to be between a government that thinks an independent board of qualified members is better suited to ensure proper oversight than is a parliamentary committee of partisan political party hacks looking first and foremost to embarrass the government. Many people would contend that politicians should and even must be the ones who make laws but that politicians by the nature of their partisan roles may not be the best ones to objectively ensure oversight of implementation. Perhaps we need both means of oversight, I am not sure on this point. But what countries were you referencing and what provisions did you have in mind?

jacee · February 27, 2015

jacee ... My apologies because I can't figure out the quote mechanism here so I can't reprint/quote your post responding to mine.

- Please be more specific and I'll try to respond to your question. You ask if I agree with the oversight provisions of these countries regarding their anti-terror laws and practices and whether I would like similar oversight provisions governing the implementation of Bill C51. I can't answer this question unless you tell what oversight provisions and what countries you are referencing here.

The countries you mentioned earlier. Check their oversight provisions.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/opinion/commentary/2015/02/24/bill-c-51-threatens-to-sacrifice-liberty-for-security.html

Harper has already said he will ignore this historically unprecedented collective advice, even though it warns that key security agency review bodies will not have enough power to provide critical oversight of new government security activities. (Contrast that with the views of our closest allies in the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand who have established that democratic oversight is a key aspect of national security.)

- I will say that I certainly favour an independent and engaged and qualified group and process to ensure adequate oversight. Currently, the disagreement seems to be between a government that thinks an independent board of qualified members is better suited to ensure proper oversight than is a parliamentary committee of partisan political party hacks looking first and foremost to embarrass the government. Many people would contend that politicians should and even must be the ones who make laws but that politicians by the nature of their partisan roles may not be the best ones to objectively ensure oversight of implementation. Perhaps we need both means of oversight, I am not sure on this point.

SIRC says they do review well after the fact, not "oversight" of detentions and interrogations. And their budget has been gutted so they can't even do that well.

Harper has full control, no public accountability for who is detained and interrogated, and few limits on 'interrogation' methods.

Under Bill C51 as written:

All 10,000 G20 protesters could have been jailed, food and sleep deprived and water boarded or worse for 7 days ... in secrecy with no charges and no public accountability.

"We thought they MAY commit a crime." is good enough.

If it can happen ... will it happen?

Do we want to leave that to chance?

.

Edited February 27, 2015 by jacee

LemonPureLeaf · February 27, 2015

The countries you mentioned earlier. Check their oversight provisions.

SIRC says they do review well after the fact, not "oversight" of detentions and interrogations. And their budget has been gutted so they can't even do that well.

Harper has full control, no public accountability for who is detained and interrogated, and few limits on 'interrogation' methods.

Under Bill C51 as written:

All 10,000 G20 protesters could have been jailed, food and sleep deprived and water boarded or worse for 7 days ... in secrecy with no charges and no public accountability.

"We thought they MAY commit a crime." is good enough.

If it can happen, it will happen.

.

you are seriously crossing over to the completely ludacris. Scratch that, what youve said here is straight paranoia. Now youre telling us PM Harper plans to water board all protesters...Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? Edited February 27, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf

On Guard for Thee · February 27, 2015

you are seriously crossing over to the completely ludacris. Scratch that, what youve said here is straight paranoia. Now youre telling us PM Harper plans to water board all protesters...Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?

Well the bill says only they cant kill them or sexually assault them. Nothing about water boarding.