OSCE finds Bill C-51 violates Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[cybercoma]

http://thinkpol.ca/2015/05/25/bill-c-51-violates-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-osce-finds/

The article is far too concise in pointing out OSCE's criticisms to be condensed further here, though I will attempt it for discussion purposes. So it's worth reading the entire article. The gist is that C-51 is too broad and too intrusive with its powers and therefore violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that has been ratified by Canada.

Restrictions to freedoms of expression, as contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, may only be enacted when there is direct and intentional incitement to terrorism, as opposed to Bill C-51's broad terms that include advocating, promoting, or encouraging, as well as indirect intent named recklessness in the bill. OSCE is particularly concerned about how this will affect the media's ability to uphold their responsibility to report on terrorist activities and threats.

OSCE is also concerned that the Minister has the ability to seize and suppress anything deemed terrorist propaganda under these broad terms. OSCE writes, "[section 16 of Bill C-51] enables administrative action to restrict freedom of expression which is triggered by the very low standard of having ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the material is terrorist propaganda. Furthermore, there are no protections against the overbroad application of this rule" [emphasis added].

OSCE goes on to express concern that "there is a real risk" that people who are not directly involved in terrorism will be affected by this bill simply for making "controversial comments about terrorism" and they may not be able to contest the charges in court for up to 90 days, since the bill allows the government to put the accused on No-Fly Lists (violating Article 13 of the declaration).

-----

OSCE is the Organization for Security Co-operation in Europe. OSCE has 57 participating states in Europe, Asia, and North America, including Canada.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 and was voted for adoption and ratified by Canada. It became international law in 1976.

[TimG]

OSCE goes on to express concern that "there is a real risk" that people who are not directly involved in terrorism will be affected by this bill simply for making "controversial comments about terrorism" and they may not be able to contest the charges in court for up to 90 days, since the bill allows the government to put the accused on No-Fly Lists (violating Article 13 of the declaration)

I would have more sympathy for this argument if the people making it weren't rank hypocrites that advocate eliminating judicial protections when it comes to accusations of rape or don't care about the injustices created by 'best for the kids' mantra that drives child custody cases. Edited May 25, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Gee, Tim. I would have never guessed you would have come in here and called the entire OSCE "hypocrites" and "biased." That's the only argument you ever have for anything you disagree with that's well-researched.

And a red-herring to boot in a sad attempt to change the channel.

Edited May 25, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

And a red-herring to boot in a sad attempt to change the channel.

It is not a red herring. I am really tired of the phony outrage coming from hypocrites. Any law will come with hypothetical scenarios that could cause injustices to occur. The question the public should care about is not whether these hypotheticals exist but whether they are likely to occur and what opportunities to remedy these injustices exist if they do occur.

[jacee]

Hmm ... the world security body sees real problems with Harper's security Bill.

Now there's a pause for thought!

Harper isn't concerned about security at all.

He's trying to suppress dissent against his autocratic government that consists only of him and some puppets.

Wait! They're knocking on my door ...!

Come and get me ****er!

?

[cybercoma]

Phony outrage? They made an argument as to why the bill C-51 violates articles of the UDHR. I don't see outrage here at all. It's a reasoned argument from a security organization that our government actually belongs to. Your raving about your misperceived hypocrises and biases and completely irrelevant "rape" and what's "best for kids" is completely nonsensical and seems to be de rigueur for you these days. When you don't agree with something, you resort to ludicrous ad hominem arguments about hypocrisy and bias instead of actually engaging with the arguments made. If you spent an ounce of the effort on actually debating the arguments made, instead of trying to discredit the people making the argumetns, I might have a reason to take what you post seriously. Until then, your posts are like a handbook for logical fallacies causing your arguments, if I should even dignify your points by calling them that, to have absolutely no merit. Get back to me when you have something more than whining about other people's biases and hypocrisy. Perhaps take some time to check your own for a change.

[jacee]

It is not a red herring. I am really tired of the phony outrage coming from hypocrites. Any law will come with hypothetical scenarios that could cause injustices to occur. The question the public should care about is not whether these hypotheticals exist but whether they are likely to occur and what opportunities to remedy these injustices exist if they do occur.

The question the public should care about is whether our rights and freedoms are being compromised so Herr Harper can suppress all dissent, seize total control and destroy democracy entirely.

Autocrats like Harper ... and you Tim ... don't really grasp that democracy means that the people must hold the power, must not be frightened into submission by state interference and threats to freedom of thought, expression and association.

And the public is indicating very clearly that it does care.

Bye Harper.

.

Edited May 25, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

They made an argument as to why the bill C-51 violates articles of the UDHR.

So? Any time the government does anything someone will argue that it violates the UDHR. The issue is whether we should care about this particular example which is based entirely on hypotheticals.

[cybercoma]

"Any time" is ridiculous hyperbole.

As far as "hypotheticals" how do you propose laws should be evaluated before they're legislated if not to look at the "hypothetical" situations that could arise from them?

You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever here.

[Shady]

The UN needs to stay out of our business.

[Je suis Omar]

I wish they would just STFU.

Funny, that's just what Harper wants too.

I don't want to see you muzzled. I think it's important that folks like you and Shady and ..., and ... are given every opportunity possible to speak.

[cybercoma]

I am just sick of all the whining from the left. It has never stopped since harper won. The left have become softy and lazy and have no idea what is going on around the world. I would not doubt it one bit, every dam one of them think the C.I.A is behind everything. I wish they would just STFU.

The OSCE is an organization of 57 nations including Canada, the United States, most of Europe and some of Asia. How is their report "whining from the left?" Do you have anything to add other than whining about the left? Do you want to address the points they made about the articles in the UDHR that C-51 violates?

[cybercoma]

The UN needs to stay out of our business.

This isn't the UN. Do you have anything you want to contribute to the actual argument here instead of whining about the UN?

[Civis Romanus sum]

I wonder what the OSCE had to say about member nation Denmark's undemocratic anti-free speech rules where a judge bluntly told an MP that truth was no defense as he convicted him of insulting Muslims.

Section 266b of the Danish penal code reads "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.

Imagine that. If you say something which someone feels insulted or denigrated, even if it's true, you can still be punished.

I bet the OSCE isn't criticizing Denmark, though. I bet they have no problem with these kinds of laws.

[cybercoma]

Start a thread about it. That's not the subject of this topic. Do you have anything to say about their argument here?

Edited May 25, 2015 by cybercoma

[Shady]

I wonder what the OSCE had to say about member nation Denmark's undemocratic anti-free speech rules where a judge bluntly told an MP that truth was no defense as he convicted him of insulting Muslims.

Section 266b of the Danish penal code reads "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.

Imagine that. If you say something which someone feels insulted or denigrated, even if it's true, you can still be punished.

I bet the OSCE isn't criticizing Denmark, though. I bet they have no problem with these kinds of laws.

Yep. Or Frances anti-terrorism bill that goes well beyond what Canada's done. They're silent there as well. Seems like a definite political agenda. Have they mentioned anything about Obama's NSA stuff?

[Shady]

This isn't the UN. Do you have anything you want to contribute to the actual argument here instead of whining about the UN?

Recognized as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, the OSCE also regularly co-operates with other international organizations, institutions, and initiatives and exchanges information and experiences on a variety of thematic and regional issues.

http://www.osce.org/networks

[Shady]

This institution means nothing to me. Sorry, I couldn't care less what they think about our governance. They're list of anti-democratic partner countries is impressive though! Lol.

[Civis Romanus sum]

This institution means nothing to me. Sorry, I couldn't care less what they think about our governance. They're list of anti-democratic partner countries is impressive though! Lol.

Yeah, Russia is a member, so is Turkey. And they're doing reports on how Canada's laws don't meet up with their standards for freedom? Bah!

[Hudson Jones]

I wonder what the OSCE had to say about member nation Denmark's undemocratic anti-free speech rules where a judge bluntly told an MP that truth was no defense as he convicted him of insulting Muslims.

Section 266b of the Danish penal code reads "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.

Imagine that. If you say something which someone feels insulted or denigrated, even if it's true, you can still be punished.

I bet the OSCE isn't criticizing Denmark, though. I bet they have no problem with these kinds of laws.

Does this mean you're against C51?

[Civis Romanus sum]

Does this mean you're against C51?

It means I don't give a damn what happens to terrorists or those who sympathize with them.

[cybercoma]

This institution means nothing to me. Sorry, I couldn't care less what they think about our governance. They're list of anti-democratic partner countries is impressive though! Lol.

So again, there's 57 nations here and you have a problem with a handful of them. Did you want to address the argument or you going to stick to the usual logical fallacies on this one? You've got nothing? Just going to dismiss the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights, going to ignore the fact that we're bound by it by our own democratic institutions, etc? Don't care about the rule of law? I guess law and order only matters when the criminals are black.

Edited May 26, 2015 by cybercoma

[poochy]

Next someone will tell me the UN is upset, luckily i can't imagine caring less.

Edited May 26, 2015 by poochy

[On Guard for Thee]

This finding will simply add weight to the evidence put on the table when this, yet another flawed bill of the Harper government, ends up being thrown out after another costly round at the SCC.

[Mighty AC]

Conservatives, when presented with an argument that you are either unable or unwilling to counter, does it at least give you pause? Sure, like good little foot soldiers, you accuse an international body comprised of 57 nations of being biased and left wing. However, do you at least internally consider that a bill which violates the UDHR may be flawed, even if championed by Harper? If a former Conservative PM, a large faction of Canadian businesses, international tech firms, the majority of Canadians and now the OSCE oppose C-51, isn't it possible that the bill could use some serious tweaking?

Hey has anyone checked to see if Harper can retroactively change Canada's vote on the adoption of the UDHR in 1948?