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

[Keepitsimple]

So both polls actually point out that the more ignorant you are of what is actually in the bill, the more likely you would support it. That is a bad thing I would say. Luckily for all of us, the folks over at the SCC do know pretty much what is in the bill.

So you're calling 72% of Canadians ignorant. Nice.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you're calling 72% of Canadians ignorant. Nice.

Thats not what I said at all. But I guess you are grasping at straws now.

[Je suis Omar]

So you're calling 72% of Canadians ignorant. Nice.

Being called ignorant isn't always a bad thing. The primary meaning has, for most people, shifted to the negative connotation but everyone is ignorant about many things. For example, OGFT, like you and most people, consciously knows very little about English grammar.

[Argus]

What doesnt make sense to you...he said he doesnt seem to care

I don't care if law enforcement is recording what phone numbers I contacted. How is that the same thing as giving my password out so people can screw around on my account?r

[Argus]

So both polls actually point out that the more ignorant you are of what is actually in the bill, the more likely you would support it. That is a bad thing I would say. Luckily for all of us, the folks over at the SCC do know pretty much what is in the bill.

Speaking of ignorance, I seem to recall a question about how this bill will harm your right to anything which has never been answered. Maybe you being so knowledgeable could give me an example of that so I would be as frightened as you are.

[On Guard for Thee]

Speaking of ignorance, I seem to recall a question about how this bill will harm your right to anything which has never been answered. Maybe you being so knowledgeable could give me an example of that so I would be as frightened as you are.

I guess you should take the time to actually read the bill and then you might get those answers. A number have been mentioned already, but here is one: if CSIS monitors you electronically and someone there decides you MAY commit a terrorist offence you can be detained for 7 days. Kind of like having the old War Measures Act in place all over again, but without a sunset clause. And if you really want to see how your Charter rights can be violated, look up what a disruption warrant will do for you.

[Argus]

I guess you should take the time to actually read the bill and then you might get those answers. A number have been mentioned already, but here is one: if CSIS monitors you electronically and someone there decides you MAY commit a terrorist offence you can be detained for 7 days.

Well, to start with, no one is likely to think I would commit a terrorist act, so that doesn't exactly set me to quivering in my shoes.

Second, it rests on the presumption CSIS might start monitoring me, which is even more infinitesimally unlikely.

Third, a week is not exactly forever. It's two weeks in Australia, you know, 28 days in the UK, and even longer in the US, which is home to that nice black guy named Obama all you people on the Left love so much.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, to start with, no one is likely to think I would commit a terrorist act, so that doesn't exactly set me to quivering in my shoes.

Second, it rests on the presumption CSIS might start monitoring me, which is even more infinitesimally unlikely.

Third, a week is not exactly forever. It's two weeks in Australia, you know, 28 days in the UK, and even longer in the US, which is home to that nice black guy named Obama all you people on the Left love so much.

Uh, huh, that old worn out platitude about Im a good boy so I have nothing to worry about. You asked for an example so I gave you one, and a reference to an even more troublesome one.

[Keepitsimple]

Thats not what I said at all. But I guess you are grasping at straws now.

Just stating facts each and every time. Can't see how you're not calling Canadians (72% of them) who support the legislation ignorant. Here's what you said.....pretty clear to me.

"So both polls actually point out that the more ignorant you are of what is actually in the bill, the more likely you would support it."

[On Guard for Thee]

Just stating facts each and every time. Can't see how you're not calling Canadians (72% of them) who support the legislation ignorant. Here's what you said.....pretty clear to me.

"So both polls actually point out that the more ignorant you are of what is actually in the bill, the more likely you would support it."

Just pointing out what the polls, including yours, say.

[Je suis Omar]

So you're calling 72% of Canadians ignorant. Nice.

It's not at all surprising that 72% or 92% of Canadians could be ignorant about many things. The word has definitely morphed and likely the overwhelming majority of all English speakers don't even realize it.

Which illustrates a real widespread ignorance.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Speaking of ignorance, I seem to recall a question about how this bill will harm your right to anything which has never been answered. Maybe you being so knowledgeable could give me an example of that so I would be as frightened as you are.

"Speaking of ignorance", (non pejorative) you SEEM to recall as important an issue as this is, but you don't think it necessary to bring yourself up to speed.

Don't you think that this is a serious and bad habit for you, Argus.

All this, and you pick a signature line with an arrow pointing directly back at you.

“Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

[cybercoma]

Well, to start with, no one is likely to think I would commit a terrorist act

Given your intolerance for the Supreme Court, I could see you attacking it. I think you should be on a watch list somewhere or perhaps you could just post all of your emails on a blog so we can read them to be sure you won't do anything like that.

[Keepitsimple]

I guess you should take the time to actually read the bill and then you might get those answers. A number have been mentioned already, but here is one: if CSIS monitors you electronically and someone there decides you MAY commit a terrorist offence you can be detained for 7 days.

And that worries you why? This has you shaking in your boots why?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Je suis Omar]

And that worries you why? This has you shaking in your boots why?

Because that isn't how a supposedly democratic country is supposed to operate. There are very good reasons why those decisions are left up to judges in a court system. If there is one crooked judge, an appeal can be made to a higher court. But things are kept in the open, where they should be, not hidden away in little Gitmos.

[On Guard for Thee]

And that worries you why? This has you shaking in your boots why?

Im not shaking in my boots. Im concerned about my, and your, rights and freedoms being eroded simply because Stephen Harper is freaked out he is going to lose the next election.

[dre]

And that worries you why? This has you shaking in your boots why?

You should look into the formation of our society, and the environment it emerged from. If you do that you wont need to ask questions about why people dont want to live in a surveillance state. You dont have to be one of the persons under surveillance to understand why. You dont have to be personally afraid to understand why government needs to be constrained.

You just need to have a little common sense and context.

[Argus]

You should look into the formation of our society, and the environment it emerged from. If you do that you wont need to ask questions about why people dont want to live in a surveillance state. You dont have to be one of the persons under surveillance to understand why. You dont have to be personally afraid to understand why government needs to be constrained.

You just need to have a little common sense and context.

And paranoia. OH MY GOD! THE GUBERMENT KNOWS I CALLED LARRY LAST MONTH! AHHHHHG!

[Keepitsimple]

Im not shaking in my boots. Im concerned about my, and your, rights and freedoms being eroded simply because Stephen Harper is freaked out he is going to lose the next election.

Sure - you've been saying that over and over - but you finally gave a concrete example and you still haven't answered the question - why are you so worried and afraid about such a possibility? First - there has to be a reason to surveil you and second, there has to be a reason why they would think you might commit a terrorist act. They are not stupid enough to waste limited money and resources for no reason.......so why are you so afraid?

A number have been mentioned already, but here is one: if CSIS monitors you electronically and someone there decides you MAY commit a terrorist offence you can be detained for 7 days.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure - you've been saying that over and over - but you gave a concrete example and you haven't answered the question - why are you so worried and afraid about such a possibility? First - there has to be a reason to surveil you and second, there has to be a reason why they would think you might commit a terrorist act. They are not stupid enough to waste money and resources for no reason.......so why are you so afraid?

A number have been mentioned already, but here is one: if CSIS monitors you electronically and someone there decides you MAY commit a terrorist offence you can be detained for 7 days.

There is a difference between being scared, and being concerned over the loss of charter rights. But, once again, I am confident the SCC will weed out the most egregious parts of the bill. It will just cost a bunch of wasted tax dollars to do so.

[Keepitsimple]

There is a difference between being scared, and being concerned over the loss of charter rights. But, once again, I am confident the SCC will weed out the most egregious parts of the bill. It will just cost a bunch of wasted tax dollars to do so.

You just refuse to deal with the legislation's practical application and keep hiding behind the technical catch-all of "a loss of Charter rights". You gave what I assume is your best example of infringement - yet you can't explain how it would affect an ordinary Canadian, much less yourself. Give us a practical example of the "egregious" parts of the bill - just one real-world example where a law-abiding citizen might have a genuine concern that would jeopardize their quality of life. It's a reasonable request in a debate.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

You just refuse to deal with the legislation's practical application and keep hiding behind the technical catch-all of "a loss of Charter rights". You gave what I assume is your best example of infringement - yet you can't explain how it would affect an ordinary Canadian, much less yourself. Give us a practical example of the "egregious" parts of the bill - just one real-world example where a law-abiding citizen might have a genuine concern that would jeopardize their quality of life. It's a reasonable request in a debate.

If you decided you wanted to protest about a pipeline going through your backyard, you could be determined to be a terrorist because you are threatening the economic or financial stability of Canada. I suggest you take the time to read the bill, as I have done, before you blindly support it for the silly reasons Harper wants you to.

[dre]

And paranoia. OH MY GOD! THE GUBERMENT KNOWS I CALLED LARRY LAST MONTH! AHHHHHG!

I dont look at that way at all. I dont make any calls or send any emails that are even remotely incriminating. Youre just parroting an absurd strawman and logical fallacy... "People that want personal liberty must have something to hide!!!".

Like I said, you can go and educate yourself about the reasons we have privacy and personal liberty... Its all pretty well documented and information is easy to find.

OR... You can keep vomitting up the same retarded strawman... Whatever you like.

Edited May 30, 2015 by dre

[jacee]

You just refuse to deal with the legislation's practical application and keep hiding behind the technical catch-all of "a loss of Charter rights". You gave what I assume is your best example of infringement - yet you can't explain how it would affect an ordinary Canadian, much less yourself. Give us a practical example of theH . "egregious" parts of the bill - just one real-world example where a law-abiding citizen might have a genuine concern that would jeopardize their quality of life. It's a reasonable request in a debate.

Well let's see ... ok you write a letter to Harper criticizing ... well anything ... and CSIS knocks your door down in the night, take you to 'detention' and interrogates you for seven days while searching and seizing everything you own.

No warrants, no arrest, no charges, no lawyer, nobody knows you're gone.

Now show me what in the bill prevents that from happening?

.

[Keepitsimple]

If you decided you wanted to protest about a pipeline going through your backyard, you could be determined to be a terrorist because you are threatening the economic or financial stability of Canada. I suggest you take the time to read the bill, as I have done, before you blindly support it for the silly reasons Harper wants you to.

Nonsense. It's even been amended to make it clear that the legislation has nothing to do with peaceful protests - and if you want to get non-peaceful, there are plenty of laws already on the books to deal with vandalism, blocking traffic and the like.