— Musings —02.24.2015 08:16 AM
Highly-scientific poll on C-51: vote now! Vote often!
Here is Bill C-51. Here is a bunch of commentary about it.
And here is your chance to pick the party with the position you like the best!
— Musings —02.24.2015 08:16 AM
Here is Bill C-51. Here is a bunch of commentary about it.
And here is your chance to pick the party with the position you like the best!
like the election ballots, you’re missing the None of the Above category
Agreed. None of the above is the right answer.
I’d go with: debate it; refine it; but do it.
None of the Above was registered as a political party in the Ontario 2014 election. It has three policies, electoral and legislative reform, referendum and recall laws and most importantly, candidates are nominated by constituents in open meetings where candidate applications and all details are disclosed before the nomination meeting and the leader and party would have no power to intervene, and elected representatives are accountable to voters in between elections. Efforts are underway to register the None of the Above Party of Canada and nominate 338 candidates in the next election. Expect to see several people that were prevented from running for the Liberal party under Justin-Time nominated in open meetings as NOTA Canada candidates. http://www.nota.ca or https://www.facebook.com/pages/NONE-of-the-Above-Party-of-Canada/684267055001208
Greg,
My hope is for a real None of the Above, where the public loudly tells every party that their leadership choices are corrupt and / or suck and they want none of it, until they come back with a slate of people they can responsibly vote for.
Right now people vote against this or that instead of for this or that.
It’s reached the point where every now and again proportional representation is mentioned but that just shifts the problem from election time to all the time.
Parties need to screen their candidates with something like the MMPI-R, punt the ones who are wicked or twisted, and lay”leaders” (like eggs) which have a chance of gaining respect from the general public.
Sorry if that sounds unreasonable or harsh, but the old I become the more jaded I become.
I mean look at all the things which could be taken out of the electoral process!
Just run down this list:
http://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpidict4
When you don’t provide oversight, you invite potential abuse.
“Every single one of our allies with whom we share intelligence has a parliamentary or congressional oversight mechanism,” Goodale said. “If it is right for the U.S., the UK, New Zealand and Australia, why is it wrong for Canada?”
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-liberals-want-tougher-oversight-of-anti-terror-measures
LPC have the right position on this.
Which is what, exactly?
Given they will vote for it, I gather they support the legislation albeit with effective oversight.
Whatever. The Liberals are supporting the legislation as is with vague promises of “fixing” it when (not if) elected to form government. A spineless, meaningless attempt at trying to be on both sides of the issue on top of arrogant presumption. No better than the Conservatives in my view. At least the Cons are being honest about their beliefs.
yawn. whatever
While the War Measures Act was in force during the October Crisis, how many people were people arrested and held without charge?
a) 4
b) 6
c) 5
d) 465
It was said 500, so I will go with 465 number. That was the “just watch me” thing.
435.
Less then half the number that where arrested during the G20 and during the G20 it was twice as unconstational.
Option B — Because the Liberals have a great track record of getting into power after Conservatives and changing things, right? 😉
The Greens are the only party who get anything done, despite having only 2 MP’s.
I haven’t seen the Green party do anything besides split the progressive vote and therefore elect Conservatives! Some statements are good, others not.
Most western nations have had this kind of security intelligence apparatus for years, some of them much more far reaching than this.
Oversight could be increased, but it should be an enlarged independent panel, no politicians. Listened to a professor yesterday who said that rhetoric from the likes of Green Peace is pretty much nonsensical.
At the end of the day, judges still have to authorize actions.
If people had any clue whatsoever of the stuff that CSIS and the RCMP are dealing with, there would be a lot more support for this than already is the case.
Al,
What is this ‘stuff’ that CSIS and the RCMP must deal, about which Canadians have no clue? Is it dangerous stuff? Does it involve super-villains? Which Bond would be more appropriate to combat this stuff? Should we go old school and recruit Sean Connery? Or maybe Liam Neeson would be a better choice?
As well, if you have an understanding of other jurisdictions’ legislative umbrella which governs their intelligence services, presumably ones which already possess these ‘far-reaching’ powers you claim Canada must adopt, please explain them for us. We need to understand what we are getting into. Canada is about to overhaul our existing public surveillance architecture. Comparisons with other countries, what works and what hasn’t, would be invaluable.
We are giving our security services the legal right to detain people without charge and break the law with impunity. Stephen Harper seems to have no interest explaining the Bill to Canadians. Could you? Detailed knowledge and international comparisons would be invaluable.
On what basis “must” we adopt C-51 or a single clause of this bill.
What is “broken” that requires a bill that grossly infringes upon Canadians’ guaranteed rights under the Charter?
Why is this government writing legislation that broadly attacks any form of political dissent – a move which creates a class of political dissidents much like existed in the Soviet Union, and with it a constituent group of political prisoners? On what grounds do you argue that this is needed?
Bill C-51 is neither necessary nor a well considered overhaul of the covert intelligence groups in Canada. It does not create appropriate oversight, and it broadly categorizes anything that the politician du jour decides is a “threat” as a criminal activity. Even if (and it is a big if) there is something broken in the current system of laws that needs to be addressed, the government and its supporters have failed entirely to provide any kind of intelligent rationalization, instead they fan the flames of irrational fear to cover what they are really doing to Canada behind a smokescreen.
Scrap the damned bill and do something that makes sense. A broad swath attack on civil liberties is offensive and fundamentally anti-democratic in the first place. (Not that Harper has ever cared much for such trivialities as the voters)
Among the actions judges can authorize is stripping away a citizen’s Charter Rights. That’s OK if it’s done after a trial, but this can happen without you knowing about it, seeing evidence, challenging your accusers. That seems like the kind of power you shouldn’t trust government with.
At this time too busy with my own life to make an informed decision.
ISIS/ISIL. Very Bad.
Closer to “1984” than ever before in history. Very Bad.
Kind of agree with you but you might just be the next person to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up with a police bat across your forehead or being stuffed into a jail cell for the evening without water or access to a toilet…it’s already happenned. And people want the police to be even MORE unaccountable? And what about Harper’s objective of using the security services to subvert and oppress his policital and economic opponents, the REAL reason behind this bill? He is really scary, this man.
It’s like 1984, they were always at war with someone, the people who won the lottery always lived in other cities, the whole terrorist threat thing is bullshit. The terrorists in 2001 won, they started the process of turning North America into a dystopian police state. Policing is only easy in a police state.
Warren,
I oppose the war against ISIL but I favour further domestic public security legislation. That puts me at 1.5.
In a democracy, I expect debate, robust oversite by the judiciary and the possibilty of amendments being brought forward and accepted by the government.
Our country isn’t a police state. I doubt Harper will ever go that far.
Greens! May is right. This could be nick named the kinder morgan bill.
Davie…..you don`t remember the Squamish Five here in B.C….or Wiebo in Alberta?
Yes,,,I lived and worked not far from the Ludwig family farm. I know people affected by the Thoms Lake stuff.
I wouldn’t let any politician near the oversight group . They are too damn childish and immature the lot of them. But I do agree with an expanded oversight regime of suitable people
Let’s not forget who brought this problem to Canada. With Harper’s costly and minimally effective involvement in Afghanistan, his abysmally one-sided antagonism to Palestineans and now his bombing of Iraq (how many Iraqis will this drive into the ISIL forces), it is no wonder that we have become a primary target of Al Qaeda, ISIL, and now even Al Shabab. There is no way that Canada, France, the UK, the USA and Austalia will stop fanatical Islamists; indeed we have likely only spurred them on and brought the fight to our cafés, malls and magazine offices. It is up to moderate Islamists, yes we could provide support, to take on the fanatics. It is the only way to stop them.
You’re kind of making an argument there for C51 pal.
Thanks for the fifth option.
Good old-fashioned police work has worked in the past when dealing with violent extremist groups.
I would not characterize Canada as a primary target, however. ISIL, for example, quite clearly has the Sunni areas of Syria and the country-formally-known-as-Iraq as its main focus. We could, though, stop helping create more fanatics by pursuing sensible policies toward, say, the Middle East. As opposed to making the same mistake over and over again. It is easier to simply drop bombs I guess. Dropping bombs does represent doing something.
As it is right now, the main beneficiary of our bombing campaign in Iraq appears to be Iran and its local proxies.
If losing media outlets is a threat to freedom, C-51 is 10x worse, IMO.
While the NDP might keep it, they will significantly modify the process. Particularly give a lot more parliamentary control over what is done. After all, there are a few clauses in the bill which might be useful. But only a few.
I was hoping some of you might comment on an idea that crossed my mind.
We read and hear that our police have a list of several dozen Canadians who are (to use the current term) ‘radicalized.’ I would guess the police also have a list of Canadians who might be radicalizing others.
We have a House of Commons that is going to hear some invited speakers give them info on this Bill C 51.
The Bill addresses giving the police and other government services the legal powers to stop radicalization.
Suppose the committee invite some of these radicalized/ radicalizing people to speak to them.
The Conservatives are reported as attempting to limit expert testimony on their public surveillance bill to only four days. 4 days.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/24/conservatives-want-to-limit-testimony-in-study-of-terror-bill.html
They have to be stopped. This is how massive, massive mistakes are made.
Warren, that isn’t a fair representation of the NDP position: “Will vote against it, possibly scrap it but certainly change it”, is more accurate.
Mulcair said, when asked flat out, “will you scrap the bill, yes or no”: “We will change it for sure”.
Mulcair is to sharp to answer yes or no, nice try though! But he doesn’t suggest the NDP “will keep it”.
There is part of the new bill that could be very problematic for our muslim citizens – that which speaks about outlawing verbal or written promotion of terrorist acts. It is so broadly defined that I don’t know what would be accounted for. A few of my colleagues have told me that several of the larger mosques in Toronto have Imams from Saudi Arabia that do preach positive messages about hypothetical jihadist. This new law could land anyone in the slammer for talking about these things in a sympathetic way. If we give the police the power to arrest people for talking about it, won’t that just stir up people to maybe actually do it?