On Guard for Thee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 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: Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-amend-terror-bill-to-allay-concerns-it-goes-too-far/article23671499/ They have been pointed out various times. Perhaps you just weren't there. While I cant speak for what you refer to as the Charter of Rights gang, I suspect what is good enough, is respect for the Charter of Rights. But again, the SCC will correct what needs to be corrected. Quote
Argus Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 They have been pointed out various times. Perhaps you just weren't there. While I cant speak for what you refer to as the Charter of Rights gang, I suspect what is good enough, is respect for the Charter of Rights. But again, the SCC will correct what needs to be corrected. Or whatever they just don't like personally... 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 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 Or whatever they just don't like personally... Based on what the Charter says, since they don't have to try and appeal to their voter base. Quote
Argus Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) Based on what the Charter says, since they don't have to try and appeal to their voter base. They use the Charter to make social changes they themselves think are appropriate for ideological reasons. The chief justice even said that was what they were going to do years ago. In this seminal document, the chief justice said nothing but the truth in remarking that “the law-making role of the judge has dramatically expanded” and now consisted of “invading the domain of social policy, once perceived to be the exclusive right of Parliament and the legislatures.” She declared that the former task of a judge of determining the relative merits of the positions of litigants had been transformed by “the inability or unwillingness of legislative social bodies to deal with pressing social issues” and that a judge’s role now was the imposition on any case of “the Charter issue … within it … which is polycentric.” http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-chief-justice-beverley-mclachlin-has-emasculated-the-high-court-of-parliament Edited May 31, 2015 by Argus 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
jacee Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a Charter of Rights? Not sure what your point is. . Quote
GostHacked Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 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. Jumping in late but ... why do you hate freedom? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 No it is not. Unfortunately we have to many people in this country that have no clue to what is going on around them. To a lot, it is the CIA that is behind everything. C-51 does nothing to the ordinary citizen and you know it. This is being used to attack harper. At least harper put our security up front, not just a passing remark like the others. There is nothing to fear about this bill. We do have a track record of Harper wanting to push similar laws. Each time the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against parts of those previous failed bills. Harper gets the attention he deserves. But he did not do it alone, so blame all who's names are tabling the bill. Quote
GostHacked Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 That doesn't make any sense. Would you give up your email password? Quote
GostHacked Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 Using your "logic" because law enforcement can pull me over everybody should be able to pull me over. Give logic a try some time. You'll quite enjoy it. Thing is, give government an inch, and guess where they will go from there! You are familiar with 'give an inch, they take a mile' line? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Do you know that the guberment has access to your social security number and all of your tax data!!!??? Zomg! You are given one at birth essentially. Born into the system. And the government should have my tax data but not publicly available mind you. I am to pay taxes as a free roaming slave to a government that is constantly pushing the boundaries of freedom and rights of people. Then again it's called Revenue Canada. I would not mind paying my share, if the government did it's share and protect our rights as well as being able to combat terrorism and extremists. The current laws already do much of that, it's how the plot of the Toronto group was stopped. Not to mention already police and CSIS and RCMP infiltrated the group early on gathering evidence. So don't tell me the current or old laws don't work. Essentially I am paying for my own tyranny and oppression. Damn. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 They use the Charter to make social changes they themselves think are appropriate for ideological reasons. The chief justice even said that was what they were going to do years ago. In this seminal document, the chief justice said nothing but the truth in remarking that “the law-making role of the judge has dramatically expanded” and now consisted of “invading the domain of social policy, once perceived to be the exclusive right of Parliament and the legislatures.” She declared that the former task of a judge of determining the relative merits of the positions of litigants had been transformed by “the inability or unwillingness of legislative social bodies to deal with pressing social issues” and that a judge’s role now was the imposition on any case of “the Charter issue … within it … which is polycentric.” http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-chief-justice-beverley-mclachlin-has-emasculated-the-high-court-of-parliament Well would you rather have this government ad then that government changing the laws based on their individual ideology....I certainly wouldnt, it could get confusing. Quote
Bryan Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a Charter of Rights? Not sure what your point is. . A Charter, we probably should have. THIS Charter is a piece of toilet paper and needs to be flushed. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 A Charter, we probably should have. THIS Charter is a piece of toilet paper and needs to be flushed. You can try running that one up the flagpole, but see how many actually salute. Quote
jacee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 A Charter, we probably should have. THIS Charter is a piece of toilet paper and needs to be flushed. It's pretty standard stuff. What do you object to? . Quote
PIK Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 This charter is very dangerous to this country and it needs to be changed. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
jacee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 This charter is very dangerous to this country and it needs to be changed.What rights don't you want?. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Apparently he would like to keep freedom of speech. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Posted June 1, 2015 Apparently he would like to keep freedom of speech.Yeah but only for himself. That's how these radical rightwing extremists act. They hold up the charter and whine about their rights being trampled when they don't get to trample on others' rights. They don't seem to know how any of this works. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Yeah but only for himself. That's how these radical rightwing extremists act. They hold up the charter and whine about their rights being trampled when they don't get to trample on others' rights. They don't seem to know how any of this works. Kinda reminds me of our PM. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) And here we go already. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, already being stomped on. Political dissent is already being bullied. First you call peaceful protests riots, then it's only a small step away until the cops start calling non-violent protesters terrorists. http://canadalandshow.com/article/rcmp-officer-c-51-protester-you-could-be-branded-terrorist Edited June 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Topaz Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Many Canadians think Bill C-51 could affect them and their Rights, well here's a RCMP police view on the subject and of course, the RCMP said they didn't agree with his views BUT just as the Patriotic Act in the US did affect some Americans , this too will affect Canadian no matter they the Tories say especially down the road when the US, Canada and Mexico ever become N.Americans and Canadian is no longer a choice. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/you-could-be-branded-terrorists-rcmp-officer-to-200310092.html Quote
PIK Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 The worst out comes possible is what is being written up. People have become constant whiners now and it does not matter what the facts are they just whine. And we will never see the 3 join in our life time, that is just stupid. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Many Canadians think Bill C-51 could affect them and their Rights, well here's a RCMP police view on the subject and of course, the RCMP said they didn't agree with his views BUT just as the Patriotic Act in the US did affect some Americans , this too will affect Canadian no matter they the Tories say especially down the road when the US, Canada and Mexico ever become N.Americans and Canadian is no longer a choice. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/you-could-be-branded-terrorists-rcmp-officer-to-200310092.html I wonder if that cop got taken to the woodshed after the cameras were switched off. Quote
Icebound Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 And here we go already. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, already being stomped on. Political dissent is already being bullied. First you call peaceful protests riots, then it's only a small step away until the cops start calling non-violent protesters terrorists. http://canadalandshow.com/article/rcmp-officer-c-51-protester-you-could-be-branded-terrorist +1 There has been a lot of argument in this thread that use of the provisions of C-51 against law-abiding citizens is "hypothetical". But are not the the scenarios which require all these extra powers also somewhat "hypothetical"? We look upon the disappearance and/or murders of a thousand women as being "crimes" that require no special inquiry. 7 RCMP officers were killed by gunfire in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, but nowhere can I find the label "terrorist" associated with Bourque or Roszko. Surely the killing of 7 officers is quite a bit of terror. ( By the way, police used to be called "peace officers"....what happened to that?... but I digress) What makes one particular gun crime on parliament hill... heinous as it is.... any more horrible?... , such that it requires this knee-jerk repressive legislation? Did it kill more people? Inflict more damage? NO... It is because we are concerned about what, hypothetically, COULD happen. Well, LOTS of things could happen, hypothetically. Are we so afraid that our open democracy cannot handle some criminals... even organized criminals...that we have to shut ourselves off into a voluntary jail patrolled by "the authorities" who are privy to secret information about the terrible state of the world outside our prison? If this is what we have come to, then our democracy experiment failed badly, and I don't believe that to be the case. Openness, such as it is, is the reason this society thrives as it does. Free exchange of ideas pushes people to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions that pushes our social progress forward. Someone mentioned in this thread that the Charter of Rights is dangerous. It is... It is meant to be dangerous.... to governments! To keep them from overstepping their authority. To remind them that they serve at the will of the people and not the other way around. Democratic governments must remember that their mandate is not only to prevent their citizens from harm from crime. They must also protect citizens from creeping facism in the future. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 +1 There has been a lot of argument in this thread that use of the provisions of C-51 against law-abiding citizens is "hypothetical". But are not the the scenarios which require all these extra powers also somewhat "hypothetical"?Democratic governments must remember that their mandate is not only to prevent their citizens from harm from crime. They must also protect citizens from creeping facism in the future. Nice straw man but it doesn't come close to holding water. Canadian-style democracy has checks-and-balances against these yet undefined (rationally anyway) hypothetical threats against law-abiding citizens. The government can be voted out of office and the next one can change whatever ails the legislation. Secondly, there are all sorts of ways to sue the government - with the Supreme Court having the final say. But the other side of the coin holds no such barriers. Terrorism will, by its nature - continually seek to find ways to inflict their mayhem.....ways that we don't yet know. Terrorism is ever evolving, poking and prodding for weakness....and as has been said many times - our security has to be "right" 100% of the time - terrorists only need to succeed once. Quote Back to Basics
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.