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

[Michael Hardner]

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

"many" and "few" are ambiguous terms, if you're looking for relative measures use "more" or "less"

[Black Dog]

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.

So it seems the system works pretty well as it is.

As they say, the good guys have to be right every time - the terrorists only have to succeed once.

I assume you left off the last part of that line "for every conservative to shit their pants."

There's simply no way to prevent every terrorist attack anymore than we can prevent every car accident. The question you seem incapable of answering is why new legislation is needed when the old methods seem to being working just fine.

[Keepitsimple]

So it seems the system works pretty well as it is.

I assume you left off the last part of that line "for every conservative to shit their pants."

There's simply no way to prevent every terrorist attack anymore than we can prevent every car accident. The question you seem incapable of answering is why new legislation is needed when the old methods seem to being working just fine.

And you seem to be incapable of comprehending that terrorism and techniques evolve - especially in the use of technology. Like any animal lusting for a bloody meal, they poke and prod and look for weakness. They adapt - and so must we. There is a point of diminishing returns on both d=sides and I hop we are fast approaching that.....but technology changes quickly so you never know. Who would have contemplated even just 20 years ago that videos of beheadings would actually be a recruitment tool - and that people that embraced as fellow Canadians would go off to fight in other countries and come back with the idea of killing us? The times - they are a changing.

[Mighty AC]

Why would anyone accept the idea that secret police, without oversight, should be able to spy on citizens, without warrant, and share that data with foreign nations? Isn't this the kind of government intrusion that conservative types usually denounce? And what for? Canadians are more likely to get crushed by their TV set than killed by a terrorist.

Former PMs, Chretien, Clark, Martin and Turner challenge the dangerous lack of oversight in bill C-51. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-close-eye-on-security-makes-canadians-safer/article23069152/

We all share the view that the lack of a robust and integrated accountability regime for Canada’s national security agencies makes it difficult to meaningfully assess the efficacy and legality of Canada’s national security activities. This poses serious problems for public safety and for human rights.

Canada needs independent oversight and effective review mechanisms more than ever, as national security agencies continue to become increasingly integrated, international information sharing remains commonplace and as the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to expand with new legislation.

Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security. Given the secrecy around national security activities, abuses can go undetected and without remedy. This results not only in devastating personal consequences for the individuals, but a profoundly negative impact on Canada’s reputation as a rights-respecting nation.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Mighty AC

[PIK]

So how many people got burned to death this week people. How many have been beheaded. How many are now homeless and you are whining about words and if it is 122 million or more. How pathetic that is. Look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are right in not helping these people, that is very uncanadian.

[jacee]

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

With

-public - ie parliamentary - oversight.

-the word "lawful" replaced with peaceful.

and other amendments

... perhaps.

.

[Smallc]

With

-public - ie parliamentary - oversight.

Most of us wouldn't disagree with some form of that.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most of us wouldn't disagree with some form of that.

Harper sure as hell does.

[jacee]

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

Over 8000 people died of medical malpractice ... terrorism?

We're talking Canadian reasons for Canadian laws for Canadian people.

Stop the hysteria.

Perspective is good.

[Smallc]

Over 8000 people died of medical malpractice

I'm pretty sure we have laws that deal with that.

[jacee]

Most of us wouldn't disagree with some form of that.

Exactly.

But it's NOT IN THE BILL!

And the bill says if I engage in peaceful but unlawful protest - ie violate a municipal bylaw by protesting in the street -

I aam subject to the anti-terror act, treated as a terrorist.

f!@#*ing silly.

We will change the words "lawful protest" to peaceful protest.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Scotty]

Exactly.

But it's NOT IN THE BILL!

And the bill says if I engage in lawful protest - ie don't violate a municipal bylaw by protesting in the street -

I am a terrorist.

f!@#*ing silly.

Do you seriously believe anyone is going to be arrested on terrorism charges for peaceful protest?

[Smallc]

Exactly.

But it's NOT IN THE BILL!

Actually, it is. For things that were previously illegal, judicial warrant is required.

And the bill says if I engage in lawful protest - ie don't violate a municipal bylaw by protesting in the street -

I am a terrorist.

f!@#*ing silly.

As I said, there's nothing peaceful about blocking transportation routes. That's very aggressive and should be dealt with immediately.

We will change the words "lawful protest" to peaceful protest.

Good.

[jacee]

Do you seriously believe anyone is going to be arrested on terrorism charges for peaceful protest?

EMay:

My question is about those activities that are by definition not lawful but are peaceful, such as when Conservative MPs refuse to fill out the long-gun registry, or when Green Party members blockade Kinder Morgan pipelines. Will non-violent, peaceful activities be exempted from this act?"

Harper responded that the proposed measures are "designed to deal with the promotion and actual execution of terrorist activities, and not other lawful activities.

I'll tell you the way it works.

People walk on a road in protest.

They are violating a municipal bylaw and possibly the Highway Safety Act by being in the street.

The protest is unlawful.

Then the anti-terror act is in effect.

Protests are unlawful before they start.

Dissent is criminalized.

And the police can search seize detain arrest incarcerate interrogate ...

Oh ya.

Harper and the RCMP are gunning for the Indigenous and other direct action protesters who peacefully and successfully prevent pipelines, clear cutting, development ... etc.

This bill isn't about terrorism.

It's about disrupting protest.

It's about criminalizing peaceful but effective dissent.

.

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

So how many people got burned to death this week people. How many have been beheaded. How many are now homeless and you are whining about words and if it is 122 million or more. How pathetic that is. Look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are right in not helping these people, that is very uncanadian.

How many people in Canada have been victims of terrorism? How will increasing state powers over Canadians, without oversight, and the stripping away of Canadian privacy rights aid those affected by a foreign battle?

[cybercoma]

What percent of the population do you suppose has actually read and understands the proposed legislation? If we're going to appeal to popular opinion polls, perhaps we should see how popular actually reading the legislation is before asking people their opinion on it. Then we should see the difference in opinion between those who've read it and those who haven't.

[Black Dog]

Do you seriously believe anyone is going to be arrested on terrorism charges for peaceful protest?

If you have to ask the question, then you have your answer.

[jacee]

@Mighty AC

That's right.

If I lose my right to protest, dissent and oppose ... how does that stop some unbalanced homicidal suicidal wannabe terrorist?

Edited February 20, 2015 by jacee

[Black Dog]

And you seem to be incapable of comprehending that terrorism and techniques evolve - especially in the use of technology. Like any animal lusting for a bloody meal, they poke and prod and look for weakness. They adapt - and so must we. There is a point of diminishing returns on both d=sides and I hop we are fast approaching that.....but technology changes quickly so you never know. Who would have contemplated even just 20 years ago that videos of beheadings would actually be a recruitment tool - and that people that embraced as fellow Canadians would go off to fight in other countries and come back with the idea of killing us? The times - they are a changing.

So no actual evidence, just a vague sense of fear and unease.

Just out of curiosity, does the Harper government have any plans to reach out to communities that are vulnerable to terrorist recruitment to work with them to staunch the flow of recruits or nah?

[Shady]

Nobody's losing any rights. The level of hyperbole is absurd. The vast majority of Canadians support the bill. For those who don't, you're just going to have to accept that fact and move on. Or, try and persuade more Canadians towards your point of view. Until then, you're just making a lot of meaningless noise. Especially in this forum.

[jacee]

Nobody's losing any rights. The level of hyperbole is absurd. The vast majority of Canadians support the bill. For those who don't, you're just going to have to accept that fact and move on. Or, try and persuade more Canadians towards your point of view. Until then, you're just making a lot of meaningless noise. Especially in this forum.

Again:

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.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nobody's losing any rights. The level of hyperbole is absurd. The vast majority of Canadians support the bill. For those who don't, you're just going to have to accept that fact and move on. Or, try and persuade more Canadians towards your point of view. Until then, you're just making a lot of meaningless noise. Especially in this forum.

They support PARTS of the bill, and they want additional oversight before its passed. Have you actually read it yet, seen the amendments.

[jacee]

Actually, it is. For things that were previously illegal, judicial warrant is required.

Not if a person is participating in an unlawful protest by walking in the street, and "MAY" commit a crime.

As I said, there's nothing peaceful about blocking transportation routes. That's very aggressive and should be dealt with immediately.

Ah ... so no more protests in the streets.

Dissent is criminalized.

[Argus]

EMay:

My question is about those activities that are by definition not lawful but are peaceful, such as when Conservative MPs refuse to fill out the long-gun registry, or when Green Party members blockade Kinder Morgan pipelines. Will non-violent, peaceful activities be exempted from this act?"

.

People failing to fill out a form are peaceful enough. People blocking roads, rails and highways are not. They should be ordered to move and if they don't, arrested immediately.

[Smallc]

Ah ... so no more protests in the streets.

Dissent is criminalized.

No more protest that brings traffic to a halt.