05.07.2015 06:41 AM

C-51: we criminalized the promotion of hatred

…and all three federal political parties supported that, and rightly so. 

Just as we criminalized the promotion of hatred, we should criminalize the promotion of hate’s bastard brother, terror.

Anyone who doesn’t get that is recklessly blind, or egregiously partisan, or both. 

13 Comments

  1. GFMD says:

    Any terror promoting worth criminalizing will also be hate speech, or counselling. Now, as often, its better to use the laws we have rather than inventing overbroad (I mean this in the general, not strict legal sense) new ones.

  2. DonW says:

    If only we could trust the police & CSIS to restrict their enforcement endeavours to those who are suspected of promoting terror and threating our safety and security. However, this government and its law enforcement agents could easily broaden the definition of “terror” to include First Nations demonstrators, environmentalists, union demonstrators, and other “Enemies of the Canadian economy”. Sorry Mr. Kinsella, many of us are neither recklessly blind, not egregiously partisan, but we oppose C-51. The language of C-51 is far too vague and open to interpretation.

  3. Bruce Marcille says:

    Educate yourself, especially on the last, line, which is in the Act:

    2. The following definitions apply in this Act.
    “activity that undermines the security of Canada”
    « activité portant atteinte à la sécurité du Canada »

    “activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:

    (a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;

    (b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;

    (c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;

    (d) terrorism;

    (e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;

    (f) interference with critical infrastructure;

    (g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;

    (h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and

    (i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.

    For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

    • DonW says:

      Bruce, I appreciate your quoting the text of C-51. To further explore the dangers inherent in this language, let’s ponder the follow:

      “(f) interference with critical infrastructure;”

      What exactly is “critical infrastructure”? Railways? Airports? Pipelines? Highways? Access roads to resource extraction sites (mining and logging), Pipeline construction projects? University classrooms? And who decides? Obviously the enforcement agencies, back up by the judiciary. My guess is that there is an abundance of law enforcement professionals and judges who would define all of my questioned locations above as critical infrastructure. Please note I am NOT saying that people who disrupt a university lecture or blockade a road/highway/railway track/pipeline project, etc., should not have to face legal consequences for their actions. Before last night there were adequate laws in place regarding disturbing the peace, trespassing, etc. Let these activists face those legal consequences. Let’s not them brand them all terrorists. Otherwise, the G-20 debacle will be a precedent for the crushing of civil dissent and civil disobedience.

      • Bruce Marcille says:

        The last line, quoted from the text of the bill, itself:

        “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression. ”

        It specifically tells judges that this is NOT to be used to chill dissent or freedom of speech. Face it, the people upset about this want the right to stop any economic project, no matter how critical it may be, unless they say so.

        It always amazes me how “progressives” see any change they impose as an improvement, while any other change is “destroying democracy and Canada, as we know it.”

  4. Priyesh says:

    Criminalizing hate speech IS criminalizing terrorism. Making it criminal to declare someone a target to be attacked or physically threatened.

    What you’re talking about is the largest increase in government power in Canadian history.

    Two Canadians have died from “terrorism” in the past 15 years, and both of them were men in uniform.

    Apparently that’s all it takes for Canadians to surrender their fights. Not the gunmen who killed them, but the Prime Minister who politicized it.

    • Priyesh says:

      surrender their *rights. damn autocorrect.

    • Priyesh says:

      I was talking about deaths on Canadian soil.

      Maybe you want to ask how a huge government surveillance program is supposed to stop our citizens from being killed in a war zone that our government hired them to work in?

  5. edward nuff says:

    past is prologue

    I once ran a sailing school in the Maritimes. Every day this beautiful busty blonde used to show up in a ridiculously tiny bikini and just pose all day. It was a full on tease to the point of distraction. Female customers began to complain whenever a nipple or two would appear as their husbands and boyfriends looked on. I was asked to ask her to cover up away from the beach if she wouldn’t mind. She told me to fuck off. Fair enough.
    That very day I was pulled over by the RCMP and given the full treatment. Car pulled apart. Documents checked and every part of the car scrutinized until they’d had their fun. It happened again the next day and every day for a week. Turned out she was the dispatcher for the local detachment of the RCMP and those cops would believe whatever story this bimbo would tell them if her nose got out of joint and that was anybody who didn’t toe the line or fawn appropriately. Bill C51 gives 1000 times more power to people pre-selected for their psychological willingness to abuse us on behalf of their political masters.
    I don’t understand how Kinsella can rant on about the injustices of the G20 fiasco and Bill Blair and yet think Bill C51 is necessary. The G20 was about citizen chill and this is too.

    • Greg from Calgary says:

      I’ve never understood that either. Warren is against Bill Blair in the G20 Fiasco but the man who gave him the green light McGuinty doesn’t seem to get much or any mention in regards to G20. Now we have bill C51 and it gets support. Is it because the liberals support it? Then again if I have concerns about government overeach I’m just recklessly blind, or egregiously partisan, or both. Seems a bit rich after serving in our military.

  6. cynical says:

    With respect to our host…

    The Liberal vote in favour of this bill has helped me make up my mind that I will not be voting Liberal in the next election. I was so optimistic, but cannot remain so.

    A sad day for our country.

  7. Olivier Jarvis says:

    It would have behooved the party of the Charter to stand by it. What an embarrassment. We deserve to lose votes for this, and we will. I’m ashamed of my party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*