Does the CPC's new attack ad violate C-51?

PrimeNumber · June 30, 2015

Article 3, Article 12, Article 14, Article 57 (for private contractors) are all sections prohibiting the use of POWs in demeaning acts well in their custody of an enemy............since said POWs were never in the custody of the Conservative Party of Canada (or CBC, BBC, CNN, PBS Frontline etc), the convention doesn't apply........

I'm sorry that you fell for a retelling of a claim made by someone on a comments section on the internet.......But I do hope the NDP run with this angle

http://thinkpol.ca/2015/06/29/conservatives-isis-ad-violates-geneva-convention-opposition-says/

Here's a website that finally has something on the claim. They point to this.

The ICRC were referring to the Article 2 Geneva Convention of 1929 that states “Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or formation which captured them.
They shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity.”

That doesn't mean that just because POW's are not in the power of a government they don't have to be humanely treated by that government. Using them as fodder for political propaganda, especially since many of those POW's are more than likely deceased by now, is without a doubt inhumane treatment.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves, using POW's to further their own political agenda. Regardless of what you think Derek, many Canadians will not like it. It's at the very least distasteful.

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

I never, unlike you, posted an absolute based on what you say is evidence buried in a wall of text. Post the actual part where it says or doesn't say that this is or isn't part of the Geneva Convention. If you can't do so then obviously you have no idea where it does or doesn't say it in the Geneva Convention.

Sure, once you quote the passage in the King James Bible that clearly states religion is a fraud :lol:

WWWTT · June 30, 2015

Tin foil hattery? haha yeah because there's a conspiracy here? I wasn't aware of that.

Yes!

This is called tinfoilhatsplaining from Derek 2.0.

Very popular trick in the conservatives bag of debating treats that gets pulled out from time to time.

When conservatives need to destroy their opponents credibility in a debate, time to start tinfoilhatsplaining!

WWWTT

PrimeNumber · June 30, 2015

Yes!

This is called tinfoilhatsplaining from Derek 2.0.

Very popular trick in the conservatives bag of debating treats that gets pulled out from time to time.

When conservatives need to destroy their opponents credibility in a debate, time to start tinfoilhatsplaining!

WWWTT

Or they start using arguments that have literally nothing to do with the argument at hand. Fallacy 101 from Derek2.0

Sure, once you quote the passage in the King James Bible that clearly states religion is a fraud

On Guard for Thee · June 30, 2015

Actually if we go back to the OP of this thread, it isnt the Geneva conventions that was the point here. It is bill C 51. And there ay be a good case that using ISIS videos is against Harpers own law.

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

http://thinkpol.ca/2015/06/29/conservatives-isis-ad-violates-geneva-convention-opposition-says/

Here's a website that finally has something on the claim. They point to this.

That doesn't mean that just because POW's are not in the power of a government they don't have to be humanely treated by that government. Using them as fodder for political propaganda, especially since many of those POW's are more than likely deceased by now, is without a doubt inhumane treatment.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves, using POW's to further their own political agenda. Regardless of what you think Derek, many Canadians will not like it. It's at the very least distasteful.

No it doesn't........likewise, I above told you the Article from within the convention that you're basing your incorrect assumption on........

The section you're basing your laughable premise on would apply, for example, to WW II Allied aircrews shot down and captured by the Italians, but then handed over to the German Luftwaffe.......not political adds in other countries, a country that is one the same side as the captured POWs..... :lol:

cybercoma · June 30, 2015

During the first Gulf War the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a reminder that “it is forbidden to expose prisoners of war to public curiosity … and the essential thing is to make clear to all parties that PoWs should not be exposed in any form.”

That wording, "public curiosity," is a strange one. So I looked it up in the Geneva Convention. It comes from a couple places in the Convention.

PART II: General Protections of Prisoners of War, Article 13:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experi- ments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

PART III status and treatMent of Protected Persons
SECTION I Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
ARTICLE 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their per- sons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and prac- tices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and se- curity in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

The argument goes that the CPC is using the prisoners of war as a "public curiosity" by treating them as a political tool to attack their rivals in an election. They're using the prisoners of war as propaganda. As a party to the war, since Harper has declared war on ISIL, Canada is under an obligation to protect POWs from becoming "public curiosities."

Like all laws, the problem with language is that it can be open to interpretation. What does this "public curiosity" even mean? The International Committee for the Red Cross puts forward an argument in this article. They write, "This matter has been of special concern to [The British Red Cross and the British Government] since the first Gulf War in 1991, when British prisoners of war were shown on television, badly bruised and making humiliating statements. More recently, unfortunate photographs and television footage, such as that of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay or those detained in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, illustrate that the issue continues to be of general relevance and concern."

That article goes on to recognize that the terms of Article 13 are only applicable to prisoners of state militaries in an armed conflict. That's not the case with the prisoners taken by ISIL and broadcast in the Conservative political ads. ICRC notes, however, that "Article 3 imposes a general obligation to uphold the personal dignity of persons taking no active part in the hostilities during an internal armed conflict, including those in detention." The prisoners in the Conservative attack ad are "persons taking no active part in the hostilities." The ICRC ultimately argues that it is "unacceptable to show images of prisoners of war and civilian security internees in situations which humiliate or degrade them, even if they are not recognisable." In this way, the Conservative attack ad shows no respect for the humiliation and indignity faced by ISIL prisoners and further degrades them by making them a political pawn in their partisan election advertising.

On Guard for Thee · June 30, 2015

Who knows, maybe we will get to see another high ranking conservative doing the perp walk.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2078347/does-the-conservatives-new-ad-contravene-their-own-anti-terror-law/

PrimeNumber · June 30, 2015

No it doesn't........likewise, I above told you the Article from within the convention that you're basing your incorrect assumption on........

The section you're basing your laughable premise on would apply, for example, to WW II Allied aircrews shot down and captured by the Italians, but then handed over to the German Luftwaffe.......not political adds in other countries, a country that is one the same side as the captured POWs.....

It says nothing in there about other governments not having to give those same POW's the exact same treatment. You're living in a fantasy world.

The damage is already done, they are talking about it on the news, it's making the rounds on the internet.

Now everyone knows exactly how distasteful conservative politics can be.

The best part about it is, it's their own attack ad's coming back to bite them in the rear. Who would have known the conservatives would fund their own defeat? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited June 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

cybercoma · June 30, 2015

I, like every other current or former commissioned member that has served in a NATO military has received instruction on the pertinent details of the convention........does that make me an expert? Not at all, but I have a far greater understanding of it than you.........or anyone that would claim the recent CPC add is in direct violation of the convention.......

For all of your understanding of it, you completely failed to explain the argument that PrimeNumber brought up and that I asked for more details on. Instead you've made post after post of generalizations and partisan attacks. But that's ok. I went and looked up what people were arguing and from what sections. It's in my last post for your edification.

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

During the first Gulf War the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a reminder that “it is forbidden to expose prisoners of war to public curiosity … and the essential thing is to make clear to all parties that PoWs should not be exposed in any form.”

That wording, "public curiosity," is a strange one. So I looked it up in the Geneva Convention. It comes from a couple places in the Convention.

PART II: General Protections of Prisoners of War, Article 13:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experi- ments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

PART III status and treatMent of Protected Persons

SECTION I Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

ARTICLE 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their per- sons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and prac- tices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and se- curity in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

Yes, I know.......I provided you said section part and parcel last night.

The argument goes that the CPC is using the prisoners of war as a "public curiosity" by treating them as a political tool to attack their rivals in an election. They're using the prisoners of war as propaganda. As a party to the war, since Harper has declared war on ISIL, Canada is under an obligation to protect POWs from becoming "public curiosities."

No......First, said POWs are not in the custody of Canada, second, said POWs are from our allies, captured by our enemies........and third, they are dead.

Like all laws, the problem with language is that it can be open to interpretation. What does this "public curiosity" even mean? The International Committee for the Red Cross puts forward an argument in this article. They write, "This matter has been of special concern to [The British Red Cross and the British Government] since the first Gulf War in 1991, when British prisoners of war were shown on television, badly bruised and making humiliating statements. More recently, unfortunate photographs and television footage, such as that of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay or those detained in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, illustrate that the issue continues to be of general relevance and concern."

And such acts were in direct violation of the Convention....hands down........But the rebroadcast of British POWs by the BBC, or PBS doing a doc on Abu Ghraib does not make a violation of the convention.....nor the use of said images in a political add in Canada.

That article goes on to recognize that the terms of Article 13 are only applicable to prisoners of state militaries in an armed conflict. That's not the case with the prisoners taken by ISIL and broadcast in the Conservative political ads. ICRC notes, however, that "Article 3 imposes a general obligation to uphold the personal dignity of persons taking no active part in the hostilities during an internal armed conflict, including those in detention."

And said article is wrong.........civilian members of the Merchant Marine or Red Cross (and other aide orgs) during the second world war were afforded such rights, just as non-state actors like the Viet Cong were expected to afford their enemies treatment as outlined within the Geneva Convention.

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

For all of your understanding of it, you completely failed to explain the argument that PrimeNumber brought up and that I asked for more details on. Instead you've made post after post of generalizations and partisan attacks. But that's ok. I went and looked up what people were arguing and from what sections. It's in my last post for your edification.

Of course I dismissed such partisan implications........its absurd, up there with 9/11 inside job or fake Moon landing conspiracy theories......

-edit- to add-

But I appreciate that you looked it up online for yourself.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Derek 2.0

cybercoma · June 30, 2015

Yes, I know.......I provided you said section part and parcel last night.

I asked for the section, you cited 20+ pages. In the above post, I quoted the two pertinent sections. You didn't do this because you're just being dismissive without showing any inkling of trying to understand the argument.

No......First, said POWs are not in the custody of Canada, second, said POWs are from our allies, captured by our enemies........and third, they are dead.

1) It doesn't matter that they're not in Canadian custody.

2) It doesn't matter who the POWs are.

3) It doesn't matter who captured the POWs.

4) It doesn't matter that they're dead.

The Conservative government is making those POWs public curiosities through their ad campaign, placing those people's faces all over televisions and computers across this country for political gain. The Conservatives are engaged in those hostilities. The Conservatives are bound by the Geneva Convention. How can you not connect these dots? I'm starting to wonder if there's ANY line that the Conservatives can't cross with you. Hell, I'm starting to think stricter gun control laws from them would be perfectly fine with you at this point. They could start Long-gun Registry 2.0 and you would wax poetic about how it's a vastly improved and far superior registry. It's really sad.

And such acts were in direct violation of the Convention....hands down........But the rebroadcast of British POWs by the BBC, or PBS doing a doc on Abu Ghraib does not make a violation of the convention.....nor the use of said images in a political add in Canada.

So you say. But there's a clear argument on the table that it does. Your counter argument....not so clear. Non-existent actually.

And said article is wrong.........civilian members of the Merchant Marine or Red Cross (and other aide orgs) during the second world war were afforded such rights, just as non-state actors like the Viet Cong were expected to afford their enemies treatment as outlined within the Geneva Convention.

You didn't understand a word that I wrote in that paragraph, did you? Your response here is completely unrelated to what I wrote. I have to wonder if you actually read what you're replying to or if you just go, "oh, look! cybercoma posted! I better be confrontational because he's on the opposite team."

cybercoma · June 30, 2015

But I appreciate that you looked it up online for yourself.

You're welcome. Maybe you'll take the time to read it.

On Guard for Thee · June 30, 2015

Where Harper could run afoul of his own law is in section 83.221 of C 51. The wording was I suspect, left so intentionally vague that it could be applied at a whim. (we are talking the MAY standard) with regard to to promoting terrorism. That vagueness could easily be applied to the ISIS beheading ad. OOPS.

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

I asked for the section, you cited 20+ pages. In the above post, I quoted the two pertinent sections. You didn't do this because you're just being dismissive without showing any inkling of trying to understand the argument.

No, you quoted just two sections..........and no, I had no problem understanding the baseless claim, I don't think it merits a thoughtful response.

1) It doesn't matter that they're not in Canadian custody.

2) It doesn't matter who the POWs are.

3) It doesn't matter who captured the POWs.

4) It doesn't matter that they're dead.

1) Yes it does

2) Yes it does

3) You're correct

4)Yes it does, as dead POWs can't be forced to endure demeaning treatment, as they are dead.

The Conservative government is making those POWs public curiosities through their ad campaign, placing those people's faces all over televisions and computers across this country for political gain. The Conservatives are engaged in those hostilities. The Conservatives are bound by the Geneva Convention. How can you not connect these dots?

Is the CBC violating the Geneva Convention by reporting on POWs captured by ISIS, or showing docs on the Passionate Eye relating to captives of ISIS?

I'm starting to wonder if there's ANY line that the Conservatives can't cross with you. Hell, I'm starting to think stricter gun control laws from them would be perfectly fine with you at this point. They could start Long-gun Registry 2.0 and you would wax poetic about how it's a vastly improved and far superior registry. It's really sad.

My political loyalties are entrusted with the CPC due to far more than one issue......

So you say. But there's a clear argument on the table that it does. Your counter argument....not so clear. Non-existent actually.

How much merit would you afford me if I stated that Tom Mulcair runs dog fights in his basement, as evidence, I read it on a comment section online, but I don't really know all the facts of this claim as there is far too much reading involved.......and the onus is on you to prove that he doesn't!!!

You didn't understand a word that I wrote in that paragraph, did you? Your response here is completely unrelated to what I wrote. I have to wonder if you actually read what you're replying to or if you just go, "oh, look! cybercoma posted! I better be confrontational because he's on the opposite team."

No, I understood your post just fine, but, your interpretation is based on incorrect information stated as fact from the original article......Civilian and members of non-State militaries are very much afforded the same protections under the Geneva Convention.

cybercoma · June 30, 2015

Go read the articles, Derek. All of the arguments are there. Get back to me when you've got something new to offer. And the final paragraph of mine you've completely misread. I'm not going to hold your hand here.

Edited June 30, 2015 by cybercoma

Derek 2.0 · June 30, 2015

Go read the articles, Derek. All of the arguments are there. Get back to me when you've got something new to offer. And the final paragraph of mine you've completely misread. I'm not going to hold your hand here.

I did, it doesn't support your claim that the CPC has violated the Geneva Convention.

PrimeNumber · June 30, 2015

Go read the articles, Derek. All of the arguments are there. Get back to me when you've got something new to offer. And the final paragraph of mine you've completely misread. I'm not going to hold your hand here.

He just doesn't understand the Convention and how it's written. They taught him some "pertinent information" on the Geneva Conventions in NATO you know so of course he knows all there is to know about them. Except they must have left out the fact that the rules regarding POW's don't just apply to the country holding said POW's. Maybe he wasn't paying attention that day, everyone else whose looked them over seems to understand it though.

Why would the countries who put together the Geneva Conventions on POW's, make it so that the rules only apply to countries holding said POW's? Does that make sense to you? That leaves an awful lot of loopholes open to some considerable interpretation if that's the case, which of course it doesn't seem to be.

Edited June 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

PIK · June 30, 2015

I miss the old days when a scandal was a scandal and actually had meat to it, instead of this piddly crap we get form the conservatives.

Argus · June 30, 2015

He doesn't have any facts he only has his partisan opinion.

And the common sense you seem to be lacking. These same brief clips are seen on every single network news show all the time. If someone with any brains thought they violated any laws someone would have brought it up with the courts a long time ago.

Argus · June 30, 2015

He just doesn't understand the Convention and how it's written.

Could you perhaps grant us a brief precis of your vast legal training, sir?

PrimeNumber · June 30, 2015

And the common sense you seem to be lacking. These same brief clips are seen on every single network news show all the time. If someone with any brains thought they violated any laws someone would have brought it up with the courts a long time ago.

We all know western countries are exempt from the Geneva Conventions, haven't you heard? Bush and co would have been tried in court long ago if they weren't.

Nothing will be done about it, all that has to happen is for Canadian to hear about it and the damage is done. Harper will stoop to any low. The jokes on him though, as it will just lose him swing voters. Canadians are far smarter than the conservatives give them credit for.

Edited June 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

waldo · July 15, 2015

according to Harper Conservative MP "Wai Young", Harper's C-51 has remedied that described problem around inter-agency communication... apparently, according to "Wai-too-Young", CSIS knew there was a bomb on the Air India flight but couldn't alert any other agencies! Who knew! Thank you many times over Steve!

Tory MP Wai Young backtracks on claim CSIS knew of Air India bomb

Big Guy · July 15, 2015

Just saw the Harper machine doing a job on this misguided parliamentarian. That is what happens when people go off script. This "gotcha" atmosphere is into high gear. Who would have thought that someone would be taping a parishioners message to her fellow church goers? Not sure if this is going to damage the Conservative brand if only to reinforce the perception that there are some very, very conservatives in the Conservative Party.

Besides, the "God is on our side" philosophy is nothing new in politics. But if God is on the side of Conservatives, who is on the side of Liberals and NDP's? Should somebody not ask God for his opinion?