Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Nonsense. It's even been amended to make it clear that the legislation has nothing to do with peaceful protests

Right. The cops would NEVER overstep their boundaries in a peaceful protest. That like almost literally never happens, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...