Spiderfish Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) 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? When they violate them it will be too late. If perceived terrorist threats or potential attacks aren't considered actual threats which warrant additional measures of prevention, would this also apply to perceived or potential rights violations? Why be concerned with something that hasn't happened yet. Edited March 16, 2015 by Spiderfish Quote
guyser Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) . 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. If you think education is hard, try being stupid. Appears you have managed, barely. Edited March 16, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote
Big Guy Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 To Shady and LemonPureLeaf - I use quotes of previous leaders in history to show how things do not really change. I hoped that the brighter posters would notice that their positions are nothing new. I also hoped that they would understand the historical consequences of those positions. If you were to criticize, I would hope that you would point out how my quote differs from your position or those of the current government. When I see our government using fascist like tactics and when I read posters mouthing racist ideas under the guise of freedom of speech then I see no problem with showing examples of the same tactics in the past - and what kind of people used them - and what the result was. If my comparison is inaccurate then I would hope that the authors would point out the differences. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 Further to my previous post: "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 way in any country". We are being told that we are being attacked and at war with extremist Muslim terrorists. Those who question that assertion are criticized for lack of patriotism and by opposing these bills are exposing Canada to danger. What is the difference? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2015 Author Report Posted March 16, 2015 If perceived terrorist threats or potential attacks aren't considered actual threats which warrant additional measures of prevention, would this also apply to perceived or potential rights violations? Why be concerned with something that hasn't happened yet. I never claimed perceived terrorist threats aren't potential attacks. I am saying the proposed additional measures of prevention are not necessary, since the measures in place are working just fine and this proposal has no oversight for abuse by future governments or bureaucrats. What I'm not saying is that there should be no additional measures. I'll gladly humour additional measures, provided the legislation isn't absolute garbage. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 If perceived terrorist threats or potential attacks aren't considered actual threats which warrant additional measures of prevention, would this also apply to perceived or potential rights violations? Why be concerned with something that hasn't happened yet. As Cyber has just pointed out, why generate laws which provide so much potential for abuse, and then end up in lengthy and costly SC battles, especially when current law is already effective. Or is this an attempt at that old worn out cliche about having nothing to hide then dont worry... Quote
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 I don't know its so important for cybercoma to link right wing politics with white supremecy. Its a disgusting way to make points. It appears as though she? Is trying to say that right wing party supporters are racist. Just disgusting. Quote
Spiderfish Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 As Cyber has just pointed out, why generate laws which provide so much potential for abuse, and then end up in lengthy and costly SC battles, especially when current law is already effective. Or is this an attempt at that old worn out cliche about having nothing to hide then dont worry... No, it's not about that. I've just noticed that there's a lot of paranoia from some about how they think our rights are in jeopardy and may be destroyed through C-51 and how we have to fight to prevent this at all costs, however when the discussion turns to the increased terrorist threats and what should be done to prevent potential attacks, some of these same people take on the attitude that we don't need to worry about perceived threats and that inflating the perceived risk and reacting to it is foolish. Seems like these people are falling into their own trap to me. There seems to be quite a bit of unmitigated fear and paranoia, as well as inflated rhetoric around this issue from both sides of the spectrum. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 No, it's not about that. I've just noticed that there's a lot of paranoia from some about how they think our rights are in jeopardy and may be destroyed through C-51 and how we have to fight to prevent this at all costs, however when the discussion turns to the increased terrorist threats and what should be done to prevent potential attacks, some of these same people take on the attitude that we don't need to worry about perceived threats and that inflating the perceived risk and reacting to it is foolish. Seems like these people are falling into their own trap to me. There seems to be quite a bit of unmitigated fear and paranoia, as well as inflated rhetoric around this issue from both sides of the spectrum. Lots of people have pointed out the issues around C-51 without lapsing into inflammatory rhetoric. On the other hand, belief in a serious and growing terrorist threat that exceeds the capabilities of law enforcement is a prerequisite for believing C-51 is necessary. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 No, it's not about that. I've just noticed that there's a lot of paranoia from some about how they think our rights are in jeopardy and may be destroyed through C-51 and how we have to fight to prevent this at all costs, however when the discussion turns to the increased terrorist threats and what should be done to prevent potential attacks, some of these same people take on the attitude that we don't need to worry about perceived threats and that inflating the perceived risk and reacting to it is foolish. Seems like these people are falling into their own trap to me. There seems to be quite a bit of unmitigated fear and paranoia, as well as inflated rhetoric around this issue from both sides of the spectrum. The only trap I see is inflating the perceived risks. But I think most of the blowback people have for the bill is the obvious lack of oversight. If more of that was built in people might change their tune. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 What if I was to hope it didn't pass? Just as scary? Yes. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 So no problem then? They cancel each other out. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 16, 2015 Report Posted March 16, 2015 So no problem then? They cancel each other out. Nice try... Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2015 Author Report Posted March 16, 2015 Lots of people have pointed out the issues around C-51 without lapsing into inflammatory rhetoric. On the other hand, belief in a serious and growing terrorist threat that exceeds the capabilities of law enforcement is a prerequisite for believing C-51 is necessary. Lots of people including the deans of law schools, the privacy commissioner, former Prime Ministers (including Conservatives), and former Supreme Court justices. I'm going to go on the assumption that these are people who understand the law and aren't going to make up partisan crap for no reason, especially considering there's been more than a hundred signatories on the letter to the government about this law's potential for abuse. Quote
Argus Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 To Shady and LemonPureLeaf - I use quotes of previous leaders in history to show how things do not really change. I hoped that the brighter posters would notice that their positions are nothing new. I also hoped that they would understand the historical consequences of those positions. You use nazi quotes to insult posters because you aren't capable of countering the positions they take with any sort of logical or intelligible response. All you are really showing is that you know virtually nothing about history. It's really quite pathetic. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 I agree with On Guard For Thee - Most of the arguments I see here are based on what CAN happen because of the loose wording, generalities and lack of specifics. I personally would let it go (and I assume the Supreme Court will be the final judge) as long as oversight was guaranteed. What "could" happen would not happen if a system of stringent objective oversight was guaranteed to be in place. (And a sunset clause) Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
poochy Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 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. Your reading comprehension is quite poor, btw, how are the three bears? More to do with what I might say about pipelines in the future. That's right, perfectly reasonable people now believe that they will be arrested for speaking badly of pipelines, that is a perfectly normal thought. The only trap I see is inflating the perceived risks. But I think most of the blowback people have for the bill is the obvious lack of oversight. If more of that was built in people might change their tune. But you have said often that you don't perceive any new risk that requires any new laws, and while this new law might be bad in some ways, to believe there is no new or higher risk considering recent events is...unimaginable, to put it politely. We need more bodies to convince you, yet we are the ones supporting evil. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 Your reading comprehension is quite poor, btw, how are the three bears? That's right, perfectly reasonable people now believe that they will be arrested for speaking badly of pipelines, that is a perfectly normal thought. But you have said often that you don't perceive any new risk that requires any new laws, and while this new law might be bad in some ways, to believe there is no new or higher risk considering recent events is...unimaginable, to put it politely. We need more bodies to convince you, yet we are the ones supporting evil. My reading comprehension is quite OK thanks. Do you like the 3 bears story...understand it... Forget the 3 bears for a moment and try to comprehend this: we can have a new law, but one as far reaching as C 51 needs serious oversight because of the potential for abuse it offers. Luckily there are people who do have good reading comprehension, who understand this bill, ad will hopefully keep those who dont quite get it, availed of their human rights. Quote
jacee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 I agree with On Guard For Thee - Most of the arguments I see here are based on what CAN happen because of the loose wording, generalities and lack of specifics. I personally would let it go (and I assume the Supreme Court will be the final judge) as long as oversight was guaranteed. What "could" happen would not happen if a system of stringent objective oversight was guaranteed to be in place. But it isn't. . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 But it isn't. . And that is what keeps me shaking my head. Why is Harper so adamant that this bill needs no oversight if what it is meant to do is protect us and protect our rights at the same time, as he keeps claiming. Is it he figures there are votes to be had before the thing gets struck by the SC, or is he just trying to give the finger to Mclaughlin after she has spanked him and caused another temper tantrum. In any case its such a waste of time, money, headlines, etc. Quote
Guest Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life. Either way is good, I guess. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life. Either way is good, I guess. Thats not the way this shit works. What if the person whos rights are lost hasnt the wherewithal to mount a challenge. Why should they linger in jail or under a peace bond until a challenge does finally occur. It is understood that C 51 wouldnt have likely stopped any of the 3 deaths that have been chalked up to terrorism so what is the point. Quote
jacee Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life.. Lone wolf attacks like the one in Ottawa won't be prevented.Lone moose attacks won't either. . Quote
cybercoma Posted March 17, 2015 Author Report Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) . Edited March 17, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Black Dog Posted March 17, 2015 Report Posted March 17, 2015 What could happen if C51 is in place is that someone's rights might be lost. But that's okay because the SCOC would see they got them back. What could happen if C51 isn't in place is that someone might be killed. But that's okay because the SCOC would bring them back to life. Either way is good, I guess. Out of all the really stupid stuff that's been said by people on both sides of the debate, this is the most recent. Well done. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.