You've likely all heard by now that we are losing our civil liberties as Canadians due to terrorism. And maybe a few folks even question the timing of events and the effects they play on the passing of bills in both the US and Canada. But much of this information gets quickly placed into the darker recesses of your mind due to the fact that it doesn't really pertain to anything that effects you directly at this point in time. And is this what our present government is counting upon?
Back in April, 2014, RT News did a story that the US was annoyed with Canada as it seemed we had instituted laws that prevented them from spying on us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeOalg5jMc0
It was a nice story but I fear that it wasn't true in some aspects. Yes, we do have those rights she mentioned, but we'd already participated in the G20 and G8 summits and had already started spying on Canadians...we just hadn't made it legal to do so.
The Conservatives have been trying to pass Bill C-51 for a long time now and yet it keeps getting thrown out in the end. That is because the majority of parliament dislikes the part that our present government wishes to spy on every aspect of our lives over something some terrorist did overseas... sorta over reacting, yes? Well here is a link that mentions some of the other freedoms that we will all lose if they finalize this bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeTnRSUtvlo
Of course the bill is supposed to be aimed at terrorism, but as usual, this same law also allow authorities the right to therefore impose these rules on any Canadian citizen, all in the name of supposedly preventing terrorism....now the possible implications should make everyone a little nervous, no matter how grey a camouflage you think you wear. The way our Canadian law is already written, it leaves much up to the discretion of the police officer as it stands. This means that if an officer say, decides that you are impaired, he can detain you or arrest you under suspicion alone, without any real proof to back up his claim(remember drugs cause impairment too). And it is your word against his if it ever goes to court. For an officer who is just, this system works and is good. But it's the bad officers who tend to power-trip that give the rest a bad rap. We've likely all heard stories from various friends who claimed they endured harassment from an officer who was power tripping....imagine what such an officer could be capable of when given more powers to even place you in custody (without your usual rights) for extended periods ...all because it is within his ability to do so, all in the name of fighting terrorism!
Our present system is already capable of dealing with such suspects and you can even confirm this by asking any decent federal officer. All they need is "probable cause", and ultimately what defines probable cause is up to the discretion of the officer at that moment in time. And no matter how good a lawyer you thought you could afford, our government always seemed to have a better one to ensure the officer's call was determined as justified at the time of arrest. Just imagine what kind of evidence a years worth of conversation you've had on your phones and computers might bring against you in critical times? Simple comments could be easily twisted to proclaim traitorous conduct on any person who complained aloud. And even if you passed all this daily scrutiny, imagine the paranoia required to remain under the radar. This is what is being presently offered!
Now a really good discussion about the eroding our civil rights here in Canada was held in Ontario (back in October,2014) and the host speaker was Glen Greenwald. He was the reporter that dealt with the releasing of the Snowden files. Amongst these files was proof that Canada was spying on Brazil and then sharing this info with other nations. It was done thru and unknown Canadian agency called CSEC. This is video is almost 2 hours long but covers alot of info which does indeed pertain to the implementing of these new laws. Worth a listen to those who care about our Canada's civil rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq2Hi_SD8pQ .
Please find attached a link to the Parliament of Canada, House Publications website - specifically for the text for Bill C-51. If the bill is to be discussed (as it should, thanks Knuckle), our community might as well have access to the actual piece of legislation.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6932136
It would be nice if commenters would read the bill before posting opinions... Just sayin'
Needs must when the devil drives.
Maybe you at least watched some of these funny commercials which were made regarding this bill back in 2012? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTHRXkg_Ho
As mentioned earlier, the original Bill C-51 did not pass in parliament on a few occasions. Therefore the bill was rewritten as of late to finally pass after some changes were made. One point mentioned in 2nd listed video,(if you had watched them) was how Harper immediately took advantage of the shooting in Canada's parliament to re-institute this previously failed bill. With a minor rewrite, it was instead proclaimed that it was aimed at anti-bullying instead. Seems that content was actually already covered in Bill C-13.
The parts that offended many who did speak out against Bill C-51 though, seem to have been around the point that it exempts lawful advocacy, such as protesting against things that should matter to other Canadians. This means that such as the natives blockades against putting pipelines thru their lands could now be considered an act of terrorism.
I did not read Bill C-51 as I doubt that you did either. But I did actually watch some of the parliamentary debates regarding this bill and now had to see if I could find some of it on YouTube 😮 to prove my stand is justified so I hope you might watch it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tx6Fj8TQwk .
I do hope some even try to watch the very informative links listed above as they indeed cover many such aspects of this bill which most Canadians haven't likely considered....Just sayin'
Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, Bill C-51, First Reading, January30, 2015, (Canada, 41st Parl.,..blah blah blah), s.42, 43.
Giving CSIS the new power to detain when necessary. Those two sections cited above are very important imo. Just my two cents...but I think it will be more efficient to give CSIS this new ability and frankly it stops way short. Currently we have an intelligence agency, who's mandate is to solely collect intelligence with no authority under the criminal code to arrest someone. They are unarmed, unable to detain someone...simply gather information and work with other government departments to follow through.
I'm not necessarily for making CSIS just another policing agency. But I can see the frustration we hear about from them when trying to keep Canada safe. They can watch someone breaking the law, or someone getting on a plane to overseas to join a terrorist group...and all they can do is call the cops....So giving them more power in certain situations to actually stop someone I think is reasonable. The parameters in which they can do this is also very strict..no bodily harm or death....so basically grab them and sit on them until they can secure a police officer to properly arrest them. 😉
As Canadian citizens...we have more rights in making a citizens arrest...
https://www.internationalpreppersnetwork.net/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=7738
So the actions of a few (what 3 persons?), we should opt for a police state type legislation? Can some just remember to look back to the events of High River as a reminder that the RCMP can be somewhat overzealous. And then remember that CSIS is a branch of the RCMP. I too want to ensure that real terrorists don't act against Canada, but this is not the right answer to how respond. The rights of Canadians need better protection in this wording and therefore this bill needs to be rewritten to ensure that we don't sacrifice them. It's present wording allows bullying by the government against the people by use of whatever means is at their disposal.
With the present surveillance allowing CSEC to collect your data, you could be classified as a threat simply for your participation in a forum such as this one. What about folks stockpiling of food for a rainy day? That is really already considered an unlawful act. So how much can such a bill vaguely written really allow to be used against you instead of protecting you? Only time will tell......
I did not read Bill C-51 as I doubt that you did either.
I did. It isn't hard. If you were a police officer and familiar with citing parts of current legislation and regulations reading a proposed bill after its first reading should be a cinch.
https://www.internationalpreppersnetwork.net/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=7738
So the actions of a few (what 3 persons?), we should opt for a police state type legislation? Can some just remember to look back to the events of High River as a reminder that the RCMP can be somewhat overzealous. And then remember that CSIS is a branch of the RCMP. I too want to ensure that real terrorists don't act against Canada, but this is not the right answer to how respond. The rights of Canadians need better protection in this wording and therefore this bill needs to be rewritten to ensure that we don't sacrifice them. It's present wording allows bullying by the government against the people by use of whatever means is at their disposal.
With the present surveillance allowing CSEC to collect your data, you could be classified as a threat simply for your participation in a forum such as this one. What about folks stockpiling of food for a rainy day? That is really already considered an unlawful act. So how much can such a bill vaguely written really allow to be used against you instead of protecting you? Only time will tell......
Your being sensationalistic. There is nothing in the bill that creates a police state. Giving some powers to CSIS so that they can do there jobs more efficiently seems reasonable from the part that interested me. There are parts that need to be modified and they will be.
CSIS is not a branch of the RCMP. It is it's own agency with its own protocol and answers directly to a Minister, etc.
CSEC is a completely different agency and isnt even mentioned in this Bill that I could find (correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont recall seeing CSEC in there at all) nor do they get any new or less powers. Not sure why they were mentioned.
If your worried about being labelled a terrorist and losing particular rights under the Charter...well those powers have been in place for over a decade now. Police can already detain you for extended periods of time if they "deem" you a particular threat. That legislation came out after 9/11...
This Bill has the support of the majority of Canadians. It also has the support of the Liberal party as well as the Conservatives. Only the NDP stand against it, and frankly they have to because thats the job of the opposition is to challenge and hold the government to account on everything and anything.
Whats important to note is there are some shortcomings in the bill and that it has only gone through its first reading. It still goes through a couple more readings at least, dependent on the Senate review and how many times they may send it back to parliament...and so long as it inst at odds with the constitution the Queen will give it royal assent through her Governor General only then making it law. Then...if something even squeaked by and a part of it is challenged in a court of law it can be shot down...
https://www.internationalpreppersnetwork.net/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=7738
I agree that I should maybe take the time and read it thru. But the aspect that I always hated about law was that the wording needs to be absolutely precise or some lawyer will pick it's definition apart and use this flaw to win his case. Thus the content a normal citizen perceives when reading a law is often different from that of a lawyer who loves to pick such things apart.
An example is that I likely wouldn't have considered the rights to protest in this bill as that isn't something I don't think about in my daily routine. But when others do point out such things, I can at least sit up and pay attention as someday I may wish to participate in some protest I agree with...get my point?
Now the links I first put forth do ask alot of questions, but one has to actually watch them too to see some of their points. Yet the commercials that were put forth probably hit home to more Canadians far more than the 2 hour talk I posted. Seems these commercials never made it to my area though in the far north, so they obviously didn't have alot of financial backing to get the message out everywhere.
Seems you at least agree that Canada already has the ability to incarcerate individuals for prolonged periods if justified. But you are wrong in stating that Canada's CSIS is not a part of the RCMP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service .
They may have separated the divisions somewhere along the way, but it is still stocked with active or at least former RCMP members. I used to think that it was maybe attached to the Military as CFSIS is the Military Police training facility. Turns out this presumption was wrong, yet you'd think that the act of terrorism should ultimately fall into the hands of our military instead of those of our federal police force. At least our military had better judgement in High River during the floods, as they wouldn't cooperate with the illegal searches that commenced. They packed up and left instead.
With the present surveillance allowing CSEC to collect your data, you could be classified as a threat simply for your participation in a forum such as this one. What about folks stockpiling of food for a rainy day? That is really already considered an unlawful act
You are entitled to your opinion, but the above statement is just that - opinion, not fact.
HopeImReady
"The thing about smart mother f*ckers, is that they sometimes sound like crazy mother f*ckers to dumb mother f*ckers." -Abraham .”
I hope things never get so bad as to even to have to consider such extremes. it's just that the collection of our data allows for such things to be possible. They could use such information to show your political, religious or social beliefs that may paint a false portrait of someone just because they cruise the web alot. You may have friends that openly make inflammatory comments against the system and this data connects you with them.
The cold war put many folks on the hot seat, commonly just due to an individuals associations. It took many man hours to compile evidence against a single individual. Yet this will pale in comparison to what could be accomplish today with the advent of the internet and especially the creation of programs such as Facebook. We now unintentionally provide this data collection with a steady stream of potential evidence to implicate us to a wide variety of "probable causes" to be incarcerated. All that's left is where they set the parameters when drawing that line as to what is considered traitorous.
So the bottom line isn't really how honest the average Canadian is, it's how honest our present government is! If they were real honest, they'd gladly rewrite this bill to better define it's limitations so we don't have to worry about such potentials. Since they aren't quite willing to fix some of these obvious areas, that just reason to doubt their intentions when writing this bill. When a flaw is pointed out, they should be willing to add a line such as "this law cannot be used to prevent peaceful protest to a legitimate concern". What's wrong with that?
Here's some numbers from AngusReid. They back up Crowns position that the majority support C51.
My take on it.
Most Canadians (69%) want additional oversight to ensure law enforcement’s powers aren’t abused Think that will happen? Me thinks not.
Most Canadians (80%) profess to having at least heard about the legislation.
The one thing from this survey I found hilarious was 36% felt it didn't go far enough. Their reasoning was if you are not a terrorist then you having nothing to hide. http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
Edited for clarity
Here's some numbers from AngusReid. They back up Crowns position that the majority support C51.
Most Canadians (69%) want additional oversight to ensure law enforcement’s powers aren’t abused Think that will happen? Me thinks not.
Most Canadians (80%) profess to having at least heard about the legislation.The one thing from this survey I found hilarious was 36% felt it didn't go far enough. Their reasoning was if you are not a terrorist then you having nothing to hide. http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html http://angusreid.org/c51/
So lets work on that premiss then a bit.
You are so trusting of your government that you don't mind them collecting and holding all sorts of data about you for a year's term? You expect that any government officials that have access to the system that store this data is not capable of profiling you in an incorrect manner due to some criteria another submitted as qualifications to suite that profile.
Don't most realize that this could eventually lead to some persons being convicted on conjecture alone without any real evidence being produced to back it up? Think about it!
Crown also stated earlier that many looking hard enough can find information on the web to back up their own biases. You don't think that with a years worth of data to sift thru, an investigator couldn't find enough circumstantial evidence alone to convince any jury that a given individual had intent (probable cause), the major qualification which is needed to really convict someone? That will make our already crowded jails more crowded than ever.
I still marvel at how an act of terrorism suddenly occurs just at the time when a bill such as Bill 51 requires it or it again would have been denied for the 3rd time. Yet Harper instantly seized upon this chance even before the soldier was even put to rest to steal the spotlight for himself and this bill. Seems this same type of coincidence also occurred previously when the Boston Marathon bombing occurred and then the Via Rail bomb scare a week later. Seems this controversial bill S-7 http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25/controversial-anti-terror-bill-passes-allowing-preventative-arrests-secret-hearings/was passed just days later also because of this incident while a similar one passed at the same time in the US for these same reasons......hmmmm. How soon we forget such things 😐
Seems our world isn't that black and white my friend. We all know that corruption exists and this data would often become a weapon in the wrong hands as much as it would in the right ones!
We seem less trusting of gov in this one.
We seem less trusting of gov in this one.
I like your choice of links as these have great substance. And yet I even wonder as to the true accuracy of these stats compared to where reality itself lies.
Imagine that you are at home and you get a call on the phone(or a knock on the door)
Hello. I'm with Census Canada. Would you answer a few questions? Great!
1. Do you view Edward Snowden as a hero or a villain?
I know my brain would be doing double time right then as this is not your usual census type questions. Will they be flagging me after responding improperly to their
questions. Maybe I'd best tell them what they want to hear instead.....
Now maybe you best slide that bar a ways further towards the untrusting side as I'm betting the real statistic is closer when you do!
People, me you government etc cherry pick the parts of a survey that work best for our argument.
Here is a different and surprising to me article on what some police chiefs want.
http://www.thetyee.ca/News/2014/12/08/Tackling-Terrorism-Draconian-Laws/
But this is what we may get. http://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/03/11/C-51-Six-Things-To-Know/
i think the majority of people who are supportive of C51 believe it's solely aimed at ISIL type terrorism. Is it?