CSIS highlights White Supremacist threats ahead of radical Islam

[On Guard for Thee]

How is it violating those human rights?

By significantly lowering the threshold whereby those rights can be taken away from you. But dont worry, the SC is on our side.

[poochy]

3 people in a decade or so by what seem more ie just whackos than jihadi inspired terror plots, while I certainly dont mean to downplay those lives, doesnt really make me think we need to grasp for draconian laws all of a sudden. As has been stated countless times here already, the laws we have are sufficient.

How many of those deaths and prevented attacks have happened in the last few years? But hey, lets ignore that trend, and lets focus on the alleged equal number of white supremacist attacks that no one knows about, sorry, but this thread is just another pathetic attempt to deflect away from what is real. And as I have stated more than once Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are required, but you hate the conservatives, and your ideological bent seems to overide everything, so you assume that this new law is wrong, you assume it is unnesescary. You assume those things in the face of not knowing what the next threat might be, or how many people might be killed, you presume with peoples lives. The rest of us assume that we don't know what needs to be done, and we assume that our government isn't evil and actually wants to prevent attacks that might kill people. But hey i know, we're evil, if only we listened to more Joni we wouldnt want to take away all your rights.

[On Guard for Thee]

How many of those deaths and prevented attacks have happened in the last few years? But hey, lets ignore that trend, and lets focus on the alleged equal number of white supremacist attacks that no one knows about, sorry, but this thread is just another pathetic attempt to deflect away from what is real. And as I have stated more than once Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are required, but you hate the conservatives, and your ideological bent seems to overide everything, so you assume that this new law is wrong, you assume it is unnesescary. You assume those things in the face of not knowing what the next threat might be, or how many people might be killed, you presume with peoples lives. The rest of us assume that we don't know what needs to be done, and we assume that our government isn't evil and actually wants to prevent attacks that might kill people. But hey i know, we're evil, if only we listened to more Joni we wouldnt want to take away all your rights.

So on one hand you talk about adopting laws to prevent what MIGHT have happened, then on the other you talk about what is real. So right off the start you are in contradiction. BTW, you can assume whatever you like. Dont presume to speak or think for the rest of us. You certainly dont speak for over 100 legal experts from across the country who warn about the flaws in this bill.

[Shady]

By significantly lowering the threshold whereby those rights can be taken away from you. But dont worry, the SC is on our side.

How is the threshold being lowered?

[On Guard for Thee]

How is the threshold being lowered?

Um, you have to do a little work and actually read and understand the bill. It has been pointed out here a number of times I believe though that for instance that, what seems like a simple wording change from WILL commit a crime to MAY commit a crime for CSIS to get a warrant to come kick your door down is, just one of instances of the lowering of said threshold. There are others as well.

[Keepitsimple]

So on one hand you talk about adopting laws to prevent what MIGHT have happened, then on the other you talk about what is real. So right off the start you are in contradiction. BTW, you can assume whatever you like. Dont presume to speak or think for the rest of us.

Sorry - but he's not "in contradiction" and I'm part of "the rest of us" so you'll have to qualify your little cabal a little further. What MIGHT have happend and what is REAL are one and the same. France, Belgium, Spain, Australia have all suffered genuine terrorist attacks recently - and only an ostrich would believe that an attack on Canada won't one day soon be successful - unless we take at least some steps forward to learn from those countries and provide our protective safety net with additional tools.

[LemonPureLeaf]

So on one hand you talk about adopting laws to prevent what MIGHT have happened, then on the other you talk about what is real. So right off the start you are in contradiction. BTW, you can assume whatever you like. Dont presume to speak or think for the rest of us. You certainly dont speak for over 100 legal experts from across the country who warn about the flaws in this bill.

. Just like you or the legal experts don't speak for the 82% of Canadians who support this bill. You're part of the 18% thats hardly qualifies as "the rest of us". Whatever the percentages its important to note that the majority of Canada is in support of this bill. The fringe left won't be making laws anytime soon. I'll guess under 5 mins.

[Big Guy]

Looks like our current government would like security as a major issue in the next election. We are being constantly told that we are the target of nut cases in the Middle East and because of that we need more controls over our freedoms.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

We are supposed to learn from our mistakes of the past.

Oh, by the way, the above quote is by Herman Gohring - who knew something about manipulating the masses.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry - but he's not "in contradiction" and I'm part of "the rest of us" so you'll have to qualify your little cabal a little further. What MIGHT have happend and what is REAL are one and the same. France, Belgium, Spain, Australia have all suffered genuine terrorist attacks recently - and only an ostrich would believe that an attack on Canada won't one day soon be successful - unless we take at least some steps forward to learn from those countries and provide our protective safety net with additional tools.

No, what might have happened is only an abstract, not real. only an ostrich would try to conflate the two But in any case, we already have laws which have prevented a number of threats from becoming any more than that.

[On Guard for Thee]

. Just like you or the legal experts don't speak for the 82% of Canadians who support this bill. You're part of the 18% thats hardly qualifies as "the rest of us". Whatever the percentages its important to note that the majority of Canada is in support of this bill. The fringe left won't be making laws anytime soon. I'll guess under 5 mins.

Most of the 82% you speak of hadnt read or understood the bill it was revealed if you dig a little deeper into your polls. The tide is turning toward the bill only being acceptable with increased oversight. But once again, it has to pass muster vis a vis the Charter and it sees quite likely it wont.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Most of the 82% you speak of hadnt read or understood the bill it was revealed if you dig a little deeper into your polls. The tide is turning toward the bill only being acceptable with increased oversight. But once again, it has to pass muster vis a vis the Charter and it sees quite likely it wont.

. Protecting Canadians is more important than protecting terrorists. I don't see terrorists as victims as the fringe left does. Its sad that the fringe left cannot see that the police need to protect us from potential terrorist attempts on Canada.

For the record police don't kick down doors they use rams. They couldn't kick down most modern doors as they are usually reinforced steel framed.

82% support is amazing for a political bill. That's support from virtually every political stripe. I applaud Canada. Its obviius that oversight is included in this bill already for those who have indeed read it. Its already included. Lawyers and legal experts wrote the bill. It will stand up to any challenge.

[Shady]

Looks like our current government would like security as a major issue in the next election. We are being constantly told that we are the target of nut cases in the Middle East and because of that we need more controls over our freedoms.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

We are supposed to learn from our mistakes of the past.

Oh, by the way, the above quote is by Herman Gohring - who knew something about manipulating the masses.

Yes! The first Nazi reference! Lol. Harper's Hitler AND Stalin now! Lol.

[LemonPureLeaf]

Looks like our current government would like security as a major issue in the next election. We are being constantly told that we are the target of nut cases in the Middle East and because of that we need more controls over our freedoms.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

We are supposed to learn from our mistakes of the past.

Oh, by the way, the above quote is by Herman Gohring - who knew something about manipulating the masses.

. How do you have so many Nazi quotes at hand? Why do you seem to have so much nazi material readily available?

[On Guard for Thee]

. Protecting Canadians is more important than protecting terrorists. I don't see terrorists as victims as the fringe left does. Its sad that the fringe left cannot see that the police need to protect us from potential terrorist attempts on Canada.

For the record police don't kick down doors they use rams. They couldn't kick down most modern doors as they are usually reinforced steel framed.

82% support is amazing for a political bill. That's support from virtually every political stripe. I applaud Canada. Its obviius that oversight is included in this bill already for those who have indeed read it. Its already included. Lawyers and legal experts wrote the bill. It will stand up to any challenge.

I dont see why you keep trying to flog this silly notion that anybody thinks of terrorists as victims. And what you find as obvious is not so found by a large group of legal scholars in this country. And the RCMP themselves have stated they dont need this bill, they need better funding from the feds. There are various sections of the charter were it will fall when it hits the SC challenge.

[cybercoma]

I'll let you know when I feel my rights violated.

When they violate them it will be too late.

[cybercoma]

Actual attacks are not the same of threats. If they were, then it would hardly be worth us putting the effort to counteract terrorism would it ?

I believe the verb is "radicalizing." We concern ourselves with Muslims being "radicalized." Are people so naive as to think that there aren't any white supremacist or white nationalist groups working in Canada to radicalize youth?

[guyser]

I dont see why you keep trying to flog this silly notion that anybody thinks of terrorists as victims.

Cap'n Canada

[LemonPureLeaf]

I believe the verb is "radicalizing." We concern ourselves with Muslims being "radicalized." Are people so naive as to think that there aren't any white supremacist or white nationalist groups working in Canada to radicalize youth?

. Bill c51 deals with all terrorism. Race isn't an issue.

[cybercoma]

What human rights are being violated?

The bill hasn't passed committee yet, but if you would like to know go ahead and read the accounts of numerous lawyers, former supreme court justices, former prime ministers, the privacy commissioner, and all the others who have written extensively about it. You have to be living under a rock if you haven't seen what these people are saying.

[LemonPureLeaf]

I dont see why you keep trying to flog this silly notion that anybody thinks of terrorists as victims. And what you find as obvious is not so found by a large group of legal scholars in this country. And the RCMP themselves have stated they dont need this bill, they need better funding from the feds. There are various sections of the charter were it will fall when it hits the SC challenge.

. It seems that when you want the sc to strike down the bill you're saying just that. They're victims who need protecting. They must be allowed to plan terrorist attacks without danger of arrest. I'm sorry but I don't think that should be legal and without detainment. Obviously you think it should be legal to do so. I respectfully disagree and I would guess I'm not alone.

[On Guard for Thee]

. It seems that when you want the sc to strike down the bill you're saying just that. They're victims who need protecting. They must be allowed to plan terrorist attacks without danger of arrest. I'm sorry but I don't think that should be legal and without detainment. Obviously you think it should be legal to do so. I respectfully disagree and I would guess I'm not alone.

You keep making these inane assumptions, which actually undermine your position. Without proper oversight law abiding Canadian citizens could become the victims, while the actual people who pose a threat slip through.

[Argus]

Nailed it pretty good here in this comment!

I also have read that many courts are far more lenient on whites which you briefly touch on in your comment.

WWWTT

The US courts are far more lenient to people who are employed, or regularly attending school, and who have no criminal records, regardless of race.

[Argus]

I just want to protect my rights from the right wing tin hat people who get all jumpy over a couple of incidents they perceive as terrorism. Must be getting crowded under that bed.

Seems to me its you hiding under the bed for fear the Harper police are going to swoop down on you and carry you away because you once said something bad about pipelines.

[On Guard for Thee]

Seems to me its you hiding under the bed for fear the Harper police are going to swoop down on you and carry you away because you once said something bad about pipelines.

More to do with what I might say about pipelines in the future.

[Guest]

When they violate them it will be too late.

Not at all. I could apply to the SCOC for redress.