marcus Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share 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. Yes! Stop whining about losing our freedom of rights and security! Stop whining and just agree to what the government says (as long as it's one who is a Conservative!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 To many rights make a wrong and is very decisive. There is now 300 and more to come. It pits people against people when they start screaming about my rights . That is the problem and the rights we do have should for Canadians only not everybody that gets in somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 ... 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. You would like to think so. I would like to think so. But here is a case in a "Democracy" (not sure if you call it "Canadian-style").... .... where the prosecutors are asking of the court:: The defendant should be precluded from arguing or suggesting that the undercover technique the government used in the underlying investigation was improper. Any argument attacking the government’s investigative techniques would not only be improper, but it should also trigger an instruction that such investigative techniques are entirely proper. In other words, the defendant can't question the government's methods, or the legality of those methods. Now.... I did not read the court's ruling on this request, but we kind of know of the general relationship between courts and prosecutors. And just for icing on the cake, the defendant cannot mention Snowden, or the existence of the NSA, because it is going to prejudice the jury. This kind of BS is already creeping into our courts, and we better stamp it out now. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/04/mention-snowdens-name-makes-prosecutors-fear/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 That is entirely true. Under C 51 you could find yourself in court under charges and have no opportunity to confront your accuser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 To many rights make a wrong and is very decisive. There is now 300 and more to come. It pits people against people when they start screaming about my rights . That is the problem and the rights we do have should for Canadians only not everybody that gets in somehow. Can you rewrite that in English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Can you rewrite that in English? I suspect the chance for that has passed.... for now at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 ... You would like to think so. I would like to think so. But here is a case in a "Democracy" (not sure if you call it "Canadian-style").... .... where the prosecutors are asking of the court:: Give yourself a shake. Edward Snowden? In a US case that hasn't even been ruled on? That's the best you've got. Hey - we're Canada in case you haven't noticed - even if you seem to have so little respect for our government. That's one of the advantages of a two Party (maybe three) system. If one party starts to break something, the other party can come in and fix it - that's why either party so seldom breaks things. That's a pretty simple explanation but it's mostly true......and it hasserved us well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 How about people that use HRC for frivolous things ,like the guy that sues air Canada over a drink that's name was not spoken in English. And again with OC TRANSPO when the driver did not say hello in French. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Give yourself a shake. Edward Snowden? In a US case that hasn't even been ruled on? That's the best you've got. Hey - we're Canada in case you haven't noticed - even if you seem to have so little respect for our government. That's one of the advantages of a two Party (maybe three) system. If one party starts to break something, the other party can come in and fix it - that's why either party so seldom breaks things. That's a pretty simple explanation but it's mostly true......and it hasserved us well. Not sure why the hostility, because I actually agree with most of your post... It IS Canada, other party CAN fix it, served us well, etc. etc.. Which is why I am concerned that we are trying to change it. As for respect for government, I approach government the way you approach any transaction between parties... a certain amount of trust and a certain amount of skepticism: is that cantaloupe he is trying to sell me REALLY fresh? is that used car REALLY been checked out thoroughly? Is that new law REALLY going to improve my life? You can appreciate that the skepticism becomes more intense when one party to the transaction says, "Oh, by the way... here are all the things about this transaction that YOU CAN NOT KNOW or do.... . Just trust me." The Snowden reference was just a hilarious side-bar. That the government should be so afraid, speaks to the power of that one individual. Why should someone deemed a criminal have such power? Because skepticism has reached the tipping point. I HOPE Canada does not want to get there, but that is the direction where some provisions of C-51 lead us. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 How about people that use HRC for frivolous things ,like the guy that sues air Canada over a drink that's name was not spoken in English. And again with OC TRANSPO when the driver did not say hello in French. Those examples are more a highlight of the inertia of our law profession, rather than of ills in the CRF. Our legal and justice systems need to evolve to handle trivial slights, differently than serious abuses. Not sure of the answer, but I am sure brilliant legal minds could work it out. If there were any incentive to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 The worst out comes possible is what is being written up.You think? That's because we need to consider how legislation will affect people before it gets passed. You seem to think it's a good idea to just pass whatever legislation then deal with the aftermath later. For a Conservative, that's an awfully silly viewpoint considering 1) unnecessary government intrusion into peoples lives, and 2) a bold waste of resources going through court challenges to determine that legislation violates charter rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 How much has the HRC costs us, so people can complain about nothing and walk away with 30gs which is the average I have seen paid out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) C-51 could trigger NDP-Liberal coalition, conservative critics warn Open letter asks PM: 'Do you really want to live in a C-51 Canada that you don't govern?' The letter has been signed by more than 60 supporters who describe themselves as from the "conservative and libertarian side of the political spectrum" including National Firearms Association president Sheldon Clare, Free Dominion co-founders Connie and Mark Fournier, National Post comment editor Jesse Kline and Libertarian Party Leader Tim Moen. I wondered when Conservatives would start realizing that it might be Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulcair who has full control of surveillance, information, disruption, detention and interrogation of ... well ... anybody they want. . Edited June 6, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 I would say when you raise the ire of groups as right wing as the NFA, with a scary bill like C 51, you have really screwed up. Perhaps with their help we can get rid of the bill, and this government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 I think the election polls showing a three way tie is giving some Conservatives pause for thought: Justin is a bit of a loose cannon. Would Conservatives want to be on the receiving end if Justin had the power to 'disrupt' their lives and livelihoods any way he chose (and CSIS has many devious ways), round them up, detain and interrogate them ... without ever having to justify it. The Senate vote on C51 is supposed to be this afternoon. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 If this is what we have come to, then our democracy experiment failed badly, and I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe that democracy has failed us. I believe it is the corruption among our leadership that is failing democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Senate Live stream 2pm http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1¤tdate=2015-06-9&languagecode=12298&eventid=17272 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Bill C-51 slid through the Senate, overshadowed by the Senate expense scandal. But it seems it's already been in use for a while ...? How can that be? http://m.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/5668820-is-bill-c51-a-threat- A young Winnipeg man is in jail, apparently because of his sympathy for the terrorist group Islamic State. Aaron Driver, who uses the alias Harun Abdurahman, has not been charged with a criminal offence, but he could be locked up for 12 months if he refuses to agree to certain conditions. The RCMP says they fear he may contribute "directly or indirectly, to the activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity." It's unclear what kind of threat, if any, he poses to Canadian society, and it would be premature to make any judgment until the facts are known, if they ever are. So far, however, it appears he has done nothing that would have been recognized as a crime in the past. Instead, he's run afoul of the federal government's new anti-terrorism legislation (Bill C-51), which makes it an offence to advocate or promote terrorist offences. As the Canadian Bar Association has said, it's not obvious what that means, which itself is troubling, since laws against certain activities are inherently unfair if they aren't clear. Many Canadians supported the terrorist actions of anti-apartheid forces in South Africa, the Irish Republican Army, the Jewish insurgents who killed British soldiers in Palestine in the 1940s and so on. The difference between then and now is the homeland was not believed to be at risk from these terrorist supporters. The events of 9/11 changed everything. Driver, a Christian who converted to Islam, told the Toronto Star in an interview last February he cheered when Parliament Hill was attacked and a soldier killed by an armed gunman last year. According to the Star, he believed the attacks on the military and the government were an honourable retaliation for the killing of innocent civilians by allied warplanes in the Mideast. W!T!F!!! He said ... and he goes to jail ... no charges, no lawyer, no court ... No justice. And that's BEFORE Bill C-51 was passed!? W!T!F! Edited June 10, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Bill C-51 slid through the Senate, overshadowed by the Senate expense scandal. But it seems it's already been in use for a while ...? How can that be? Driver, a Christian who converted to Islam, told the Toronto Star in an interview last February he cheered when Parliament Hill was attacked and a soldier killed by an armed gunman last year. According to the Star, he believed the attacks on the military and the government were an honourable retaliation for the killing of innocent civilians by allied warplanes in the Mideast. If any credibility is attached to this report - you've just proven why Bill C-51 is required. Without a doubt, a guy like this deserves to have some restrictions placed on him - and by your own words, we couldn't do that before. Is this your example of someone whose Charter Rights are being violated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 C-51 is nothing to worry about , but people can sure whine about it. We can thank trudeau sr for the whiny Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) If any credibility is attached to this report - you've just proven why Bill C-51 is required. Without a doubt, a guy like this deserves to have some restrictions placed on him - and by your own words, we couldn't do that before. Is this your example of someone whose Charter Rights are being violated?Let me break it down for you.Bill C51 is not law yet. It passed the Senate yesterday and still has to go to the Governor - General (rubber stamp). This kid is in jail for SAYING something that we may not like, but it was not even a threat, not a criminal action at all. The RCMP have him locked up for up to 12 months with no charges, no access to Justice at all ... because he "may" do something? What law did they use to do that? K ... well ... I hope Trudeau gets into power and uses Bill C51 to round up a whole lot of gun toting Conservatives ... because they "may" do something ... and keep them out of circulation for a very long time! And he'll be able to access ALL electronic information about ALL Conservatives to target them, disrupt their lives and livelihoods, hell he could probably even get their children taken away, once they've been smeared ... ie, 'disrupted' ... sufficiently. You just never know what evil might lie beneath 'the hair'. But you do know Conservatives will be the targets. . Edited June 10, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Let me break it down for you. Bill C51 is not law yet. It passed the Senate yesterday and still has to go to the Governor - General (rubber stamp). This kid is in jail for SAYING something that we may not like, but it was not even a threat, not a criminal action at all. The RCMP have him locked up for up to 12 months with no charges, no access to Justice at all ... because he "may" do something? What law did they use to do that? . As the article says - they don't know all the facts - so it's speculative.....maybe there are unknown facts that allow them to hold him. Otherwise as I said..... - you've just proven why Bill C-51 is required. Without a doubt, a guy like this deserves to have some restrictions placed on him - and by your own words, we couldn't do that before. Is this your example of someone whose Charter Rights are being violated - a "kid" who converts to Islam, celebrates the last year's killings on Canadian soil and implies that ISIS is honourable? Edited June 10, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Perhaps this might be the case that eventually makes its way to the SCC, and gets them started on cleaning out the anti charter parts of this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 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. Jesus level hypocrisy. "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Jesus level hypocrisy. "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." Says the guy currently following me around the forum, trolling me and adding nothing to the threads. Look, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but I'm sure you'll get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.