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

[jacee]

Not if his backyard is Crown Land and such as act is prohibited. Ceded or not, it's all Crown Land, and Canadian and provincial law applies throughout.

Oh get over it.

It'll never be black and white enough for you.

But let me just say:

Indigenous Peoples 'are connected, and live under the Protection' of the Crown.

The treaties, proclamations and pre-confederation laws and agreements are with the Crown.

The Crown holds Indigenous land in trust

"... should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them ..."

And the Queen recently 'polished the Silver Covenant Chain'.

So it's all good. No worries.

.

[poochy]

You'l get hit by lightning before you get killed in a terror attack.

Yes, and you have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot by a legal gun owner, but people who i would place in your ideological camp were almost universally for an ineffective gun registry, funny that, you're right, people are dumb.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, and you have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning than being shot by a legal gun owner, but people who i would place in your ideological camp were almost universally for an ineffective gun registry, funny that, you're right, people are dumb.

You are I suspect intentionally drifting off topic. But since you have, go ask your local cop what they think of that gun registry.

[jacee]

I like the Stat about 8000 people dying from medical malpractice terrorism. Lol

[Smallc]

Oh get over it.

It'll never be black and white enough for you.

The recent BC ruling by the SCOC made clear that all laws apply on land that has not been surrendered. It's all under Crown control. You're the one that needs to get over it.

[jacee]

The recent BC ruling by the SCOC made clear that all laws apply on land that has not been surrendered. It's all under Crown control. You're the one that needs to get over it.

We don't disagree:

Again

Indigenous Peoples 'are connected, and live under the Protection' of the Crown.

The Crown holds Indigenous land in trust.

Laws apply, superceded by the Constitution of course.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Derek 2.0]

I thought we had advanced far beyond those practices so it seems concerning this new bill has to have such directives.

Who do you mean by "we"? Canada? The "West"? Mankind?

Again I fail to see why anyone would fault the new legislation for making it quite clear, that any form of torture wouldn't be condoned by the Government of Canada....

[Derek 2.0]

That's right.

It has to cause terror.

Prevention of pipelines does not cause terror.

Blowing up pipelines is an act of terrorism, as defined by the Criminal Code, and as already pointed out to you.......Chaining oneself to a piece of oil equipment or playing the part of speed-bump on an oil field access road isn't terrorism......

To make it crystal clear, so that if by chance any young eco-zealots are reading our exchange (and taking your uninformed opinion as gospel), plotting, assisting and carrying out any acts against O&G infrastructure that result in death or injury, the potential for death and injury, the destruction and/or sabotage of things their parents can't replace or seriously impedes the flow natural resources, will result in Federal (terrorism) charges.

Federal terrorism charges, if when one is convicted will result in Federal prison time.....not parole, not at home with an ankle bracelet, nor in a tame Provincial prison. A Federal prison with actual violent criminals is where one is bound for 3+ years. Once you're eventually released, with a terrorist conviction on ones record, you'll never get a Government job, or be employed by a large company that conducts background checks (including banks, most large corporations, around children or the elderly or even Walmart & McDonalds for that mater) and will never be allowed entry into the United States, most of the EU or other modern civilized countries.

Also, once C-51 is passed (and it will be), those that promote and/or encourage such acts (even on internet chat forums with like 10 members or comment sections on the CBC site) can be reasonably certain that they too will be eventually investigated.......

So to make it very clear, blowing up pipelines is really bad, versus chaining ones self to something or planting oneself in the road playing bongo drums with sandwich boards....which might get you on the local news and maybe an arrest record if you're a real jerk about it.

[Topaz]

How would one view the terrorism government does in the name of "nations interest???

[jacee]

Blowing up pipelines is an act of terrorism, as defined by the Criminal Code, and as already pointed out to you.......

I would never condone such an environmentally damaging act.

Chaining oneself to a piece of oil equipment or playing the part of speed-bump on an oil field access road isn't terrorism......

Are you the decider about that? Because Harper calls any interference with corporate profits a threat to Canada's economic security ... Thus terrorism. It's in bill C51.

Do you know what's actually in the proposed law?

To make it crystal clear, so that if by chance any young eco-zealots are reading our exchange (and taking your uninformed opinion as gospel), plotting, assisting and carrying out any acts against O&G infrastructure that result in death or injury, the potential for death and injury, the destruction and/or sabotage of things their parents can't replace or seriously impedes the flow natural resources, will result in Federal (terrorism) charges.

Federal terrorism charges, if when one is convicted will result in Federal prison time.....not parole, not at home with an ankle bracelet, nor in a tame Provincial prison. A Federal prison with actual violent criminals is where one is bound for 3+ years. Once you're eventually released, with a terrorist conviction on ones record, you'll never get a Government job, or be employed by a large company that conducts background checks (including banks, most large corporations, around children or the elderly or even Walmart & McDonalds for that mater) and will never be allowed entry into the United States, most of the EU or other modern civilized countries.

Also, once C-51 is passed (and it will be), those that promote and/or encourage such acts (even on internet chat forums with like 10 members or comment sections on the CBC site) can be reasonably certain that they too will be eventually investigated.......

So to make it very clear, blowing up pipelines is really bad, versus chaining ones self to something or planting oneself in the road playing bongo drums with sandwich boards....which might get you on the local news and maybe an arrest record if you're a real jerk about it.

And once again, blowing up pipelines is not an ECO act.

But I think you may be incorrect about how Harper wants the RCMP to deal with protests and blockades. C51 threatens that protests and blockades - interference with infrastructure and corporate profits - may be treated as terrorism.

I'm sure the RCMP will get their ORDERS from Harper about that if the bill passes.

Harper is the decider about what is terrorism, and in C51 he gives himself a lot of leeway: - ie, anyone committing a municipal bylaw infraction by protesting in the street is subject to terrorism charges due to an 'unlawful' act.

ALL PROTEST BECOMES UNLAWFUL.

ALL RESISTANCE BECOMES TERRORISM.

And I think that's what Harper, CSIS and the RCMP are after:

CRIMINALIZING DISSENT.

If you've been watching CPAC you know that that word "lawful" is a real sticking point for MP'S, many of whom have violated laws by civil disobedience, participating in protests and blockades.

Also the lack of public oversight of CSIS (only secret review by SIRC).

So Derek, are you the decider about who's a terrorist?

I think Harper wants that job for himself. He has a long list of enemies with Indigenous and environmental protesters high on the list.

Now he's giving himself the power to go after them, criminalizing dissent, rigging elections and setting himself up as dictator for life.

andrew-coyne-you-will-be-shocked-to-see-who-is-on-stephen-harpers-full-enemy-list

And since the RCMP CSIS SSIRC have NO duty to protect individual rights, they just gleefully OBEY HARPER'S ORDERS TO CRIMINALIZE DISSENT ... we no longer have a functioning democracy.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Black Dog]

Acts of terrorism have been growing for over two decades. The sheer violence and associated atrocities are increasing - seemingly by an order of magitude thanks to Al Quaeda and ISIS. There is ample evidence that the situation will get much worse before it gets better - if it gets better at all. Our legislation is not so much for today - as it is for the next decade or so as we watch a very real increase in the threat to Canada and Canadians.

The worst act of terrorism in Canadian history took place 30 years ago. Since then, we've had a few half-baked plots that were easily foiled (if not first aided and abetted) by the RCMP and security services and a couple of lone wolf attacks in which not a single civilian was harmed. So I'll ask the question no one seems to be able to answer: where's the evidence that the threat of terrorism today or tomorrow is so great as to require exapanding the powers of the state security apparatus and the inevitable unintended consequences thereof?

Some people are. The people opposed to stopping terrorism, for instance.

Such people would be dumb, but fortunately they don't exist except in the fevered swamps of your imagination.

[jacee]

Apparently many Canadians agree that this bill goes too far:

PETITION: STOP BILL C-51, Harper's 'secret police' bill

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

Many? About 18%. In context, that is very few.

[jacee]

Many? About 18%. In context, that is very few.

From the OP:

There is one note of caution for the Conservative government as it presses ahead:

a large majority, 69 per cent, believe there should be additional oversight

so police agencies do not go overboard with these new powers.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

From the OP:

There is one note of caution for the Conservative government as it presses ahead:

a large majority, 69 per cent, believe there should be additional oversight

so police agencies do not go overboard with these new powers.

And also from the OP - 82% support the bill.

[On Guard for Thee]

Who do you mean by "we"? Canada? The "West"? Mankind?

Again I fail to see why anyone would fault the new legislation for making it quite clear, that any form of torture wouldn't be condoned by the Government of Canada....

It seems quite clear you havent read, or at least understood the parts of the bill that worry a lot of people.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper in 2006: “you won’t recognize canada when i’m through with it”

Just to point out, that has never been confirmed as something that Harper said. It was confirmed and denied heavily by columnists for the National Post but the truth hasn't been stated for sure.

[eyeball]

The proof is in the pudding.

[Michael Hardner]

Many? About 18%. In context, that is very few.

"many" ... "few" ...

Just pointing out again that these words are amorphous.

[PIK]

They said harper said it ,but it was trudeau sr who actually did it.

[Smallc]

"many" ... "few" ...

Just pointing out again that these words are amorphous.

With the numbers given in conjunction...no.

[Michael Hardner]

With the numbers given in conjunction...no.

Granted, there was some quantification... but I don't know if 18% is "few". It's certainly significant... but not "many" ... unless many means numbers in which case it IS "many". And ... uh ...

[Smallc]

Granted, there was some quantification... but I don't know if 18% is "few". It's certainly significant... but not "many" ... unless many means numbers in which case it IS "many". And ... uh ...

18% can be many when you're presented with several options. 18%, when directly compared with 82%, is few.

[WWWTT]

Since lightning strikes are a threat, and we take measures to minimize the risk of those happening it follows that we should do it for terror too.

Great. Perhaps the government can ban us from leaving our houses during thunderstorms. Then the measures to prevent lightning strikes to people will be comparable to those taken to "prevent" terror attacks.

I don't think this is a good comparison.

When there is an severe act of nature occurring such as snow storm, hail storm tornado hurricane earthquake etc etc. There's nothing we can do to prevent or stop these acts from happening (please no global warming thread drift, thank you)

The best we can do is build structures that can withstand these forces.

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

So I'll ask the question no one seems to be able to answer: where's the evidence that the threat of terrorism today or tomorrow is so great as to require exapanding the powers of the state security apparatus and the inevitable unintended consequences thereof?

Such people would be dumb, but fortunately they don't exist except in the fevered swamps of your imagination.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Paris subway bombings, Charlie Hebdo, Spanish train attacks, recent Belgium attacks, last years Sydney hostage killings, 9/11 of course - and our own brush with lone-wolf attacks. Those are some that made the news.....others didn't. And take a wild guess at this - for all those "successful" attacks, how many do you think might have been thwarted in their planning stages or scared off by law enforcement and surveillance. As they say, the good guys have to be right every time - the terrorists only have to succeed once.

Those who think Canada is immune or doesn't need to adapt to changing times and changing tactics to continue to thwart people who would kill innocents just for the sake of causing as much atrocity as possible - would be dumb.

For a more comprehensive list of terrorist attacks that are a harbinger of things to come in our own neighbourhood:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

Edited February 20, 2015 by Keepitsimple