cybercoma Posted May 30, 2015 Author Report Posted May 30, 2015 Nonsense. It's even been amended to make it clear that the legislation has nothing to do with peaceful protestsRight. The cops would NEVER overstep their boundaries in a peaceful protest. That like almost literally never happens, right? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 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. Thats true, there are already sufficient laws on the books, which is why we don't need, or want, C51. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 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? . Duh. Common sense. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 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. Plenty of laws on the books indeed, and terrorism was a way bigger problem 30 years ago than it is now. Not sure what justifies all these new laws, but it certainly doesnt appear to be based on any kind of evidence. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 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. No, you actually couldn't. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 No, you actually couldn't. Once again, you make assumptions without actually having read, or understood, the bill. Quote
Argus Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 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!!!". I never suggested people afraid of the bill had anything to hide. I suggested they were a raging paranoids with tinfoil caps desperately afraid CSIS or the NSA or alien space bats wanted to monitor their brain waves. And I've seen nothing here to suggest otherwise. As for telling me to go read it and educate myself - hey, you're the one trying to convince doubters of something and you've utterly, utterly failed. 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
Argus Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Once again, you make assumptions without actually having read, or understood, the bill. Your fear is based on interpretations of what could be done with the bill, not the bill itself. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Your fear is based on interpretations of what could be done with the bill, not the bill itself. Wow, now there is a doublespeak if ever I heard one. Do you think these laws are just written on a piece of paper, thrown in a drawer and forgotten... Quote
Shady Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Plenty of laws on the books indeed, and terrorism was a way bigger problem 30 years ago than it is now. Not sure what justifies all these new laws, but it certainly doesnt appear to be based on any kind of evidence. Right. Terrorism was a way bigger threat before groups like Al Qaeda. Sure. And technology hasn't changed at all in 30 years. Wow, you guys are the ultimate deniers. Quote
Shady Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Wow, now there is a doublespeak if ever I heard one. Do you think these laws are just written on a piece of paper, thrown in a drawer and forgotten...Do you know that the guberment has access to your social security number and all of your tax data!!!??? Zomg! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Do you know that the guberment has access to your social security number and all of your tax data!!!??? Zomg! And what exactly does any of that have to do with C 51... Quote
Argus Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 Wow, now there is a doublespeak if ever I heard one. Do you think these laws are just written on a piece of paper, thrown in a drawer and forgotten... When it get used inappropriately you can bitch and complain. Until then it's all utterly speculative. 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
Topaz Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 The Bill goes after "terrorists" but what is Harper's def. of "terrorists".....someone who may protest against the feds? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 When it get used inappropriately you can bitch and complain. Until then it's all utterly speculative. Isnt that kind of like the well worn adage about how silly it is to shut the barn door after the cows got out...Flaws in legislation, especially ones that compromise the charter, should be weeded out before passage, rather than waiting until a case has to go through the court system to be ruled unconstitutional. Very expensive process which seems to be becoming quite regular under Harper's government. Quote
dre Posted May 30, 2015 Report Posted May 30, 2015 I never suggested people afraid of the bill had anything to hide. I suggested they were a raging paranoids with tinfoil caps desperately afraid CSIS or the NSA or alien space bats wanted to monitor their brain waves. And I've seen nothing here to suggest otherwise. As for telling me to go read it and educate myself - hey, you're the one trying to convince doubters of something and you've utterly, utterly failed. Im not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just pointed out the obvious suptidity in assertions you are directing towards people that oppose these kinds of bills. Your latest nonsense about tinfoil hats just carries on this retarded meme. I never suggested people afraid of the bill had anything to hide. Oh, I thought you said they were worried someone would watch them masturbate. Glad I was wrong and that you DIDNT say something that jaw droppingly stupid. When it get used inappropriately you can bitch and complain. Until then it's all utterly speculative. Seems like an odd way to craft legislation... "Lets write unnecessary legislation, then wait and see if it turns out bad!". Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 It's even been amended to make it clear that the legislation has nothing to do with peaceful protests - Really ? How did they do that ? I'm genuinely interested, as I feel that discussion of this law has been rampant but not good discussion. If they indeed listened, and amended the law, then why aren't people discussing it more ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
On Guard for Thee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 At committee something like 100 changes to the bill were suggested by the NDP, LPC, and the Greens. None was adopted. The government under pressure, agreed to 4 amendments but actually only acted on 3. They removed the word Lawful from in front of Protest, but it is still quite ambiguous what activities could have you declared a terrorist because, you could fit that category if you protested to stop an activity that was related to the economic well being of the country. They included changes to make it clear CSIS wont have the power to arrest. Although they will retain the power to detain. And finally they adjusted a provision that would have given the public safety officer the power to direct an airline to do anything, that, inn the ministers view, was reasonably necessary to prevent a terrorist act. Quote
Shady Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 I'm still waiting for one person that's been "violated" under this law. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 I'm still waiting for one person that's been "violated" under this law. That would be a little difficult Shady, since it isn't law yet. But never fear, once it passes, I am sure it won't take long. Quote
Shady Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 That would be a little difficult Shady, since it isn't law yet. But never fear, once it passes, I am sure it won't take long. I thought it passed already? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 I thought it passed already? Its at the senate. Quote
jacee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 sask-lawyer-backs-canadian-bar-association-s-anti-bill-c-51-stance- "I think it's a historic moment for citizens to see the Canadian Bar Association, which has 36,000 lawyers in its membership, calling on citizens to come out today and protest against Bill C-51," Kowalchuk said. Kowalchuk said he believes the bill has the potential to violate essential rights outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Really ? How did they do that ? I'm genuinely interested, as I feel that discussion of this law has been rampant but not good discussion. If they indeed listened, and amended the law, then why aren't people discussing it more ? They are not discussing the amendment because nothing will ever be good enough for the Charter Rights gang - that gang that can't express one rational example of how C51 could entrap law abiding Canadians and abuse their rights. Here's the proposed amendment as detailed in the Globe and Mail along with a few other tidbits: The bill as written now says threats to national security do “not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.” But environmentalists, aboriginals and civil-rights advocates were concerned the word “lawful” implied that some forms of dissent might be a threat. Critics had raised the example of pipeline blockades or a street protest where demonstrators had not obtained a permit. The government is therefore removing the word “lawful” from the wording to broaden the exemption. Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-amend-terror-bill-to-allay-concerns-it-goes-too-far/article23671499/ Edited May 31, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 I think Harper isn't concerned about protest as long as it's completely ineffective. But effective protest has him p'd and he wants them treated as terrorists. 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.