Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism laws: Plenty of Hubbub

Definitely makes one think Oddmott:

..illegal to promote or advocateterror acts, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

..allow security officials toblock websites, and government agencies to share citizens’ personal informationfor the purpose of battling terrorism.

..would include placing people ona no-fly list if they planned to travel abroad to join groups such as IslamicState, or ISIL.

***..would relax privacy restrictions, allowing government departments to share with national security authorities information on everything from passport applicants to individuals’ income tax data if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the information would be relevant to a threat to the security of Canada
.................................

I was concerned about the oversight of law enforcement but it looks sufficient to me.

"Many of the proposed powers would require prior consent from federal or provincial attorneys general, and need court-approved warrants. As well, the review organization that oversees the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS) would be required to report annually on CSIS’s use of the new “threat disruption warrants." quote


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politi...ent-extremists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

All these comments are pretty mellow.

Unfortunately they've just made it clear that the majority of Canadians likely aren't familiar with what the bill covers, proposes or just how far reaching the new measures would be.

As i said, peaceful environmental activists will be included and tracked and reported on as "threats". This is going well beyond simply tracking truly violent terrorist groups/individuals.

This is an abuse of power and a severe invasion of privacy. When law abiding Canadians will have watch dogs set upon them simply for voicing their thoughts against a pipeline or new fracking development in posts on their facebook... we have a major issue.

It's sad that the only thing that'll get most here up in arms, is a direct threat to gun ownership... and that's it.

---

Oddmott,

I haven't made up my mind about this bill. On one hand, organizations such as Greenpeace would be curbed in their behavior while protesting the seal hunt or PETA throwing red paint on little elderly ladies for wearing fur coats (for example) but I can see where the flip side of this can go, i.e. what happened to our southern neighbours and their heavy handed reactions. While the toughness of the bill is a good idea, improvements need to be made.

Dyth

You must mean those peaceful environmental activist like GreenPeace M? Who have been known to um.....
http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html

And I suppose its beyond the realm of plausibility that such groups and such activities would be highly attractive to say a ISIL cell. I mean setting something off near a pipeline, under the guise of just a peace demonstrator that's joined and is part of the save a leaf organization demonstrating peacefully...Nah, that wouldn't be attractive at all......Generating stations? Railway lines, more?

And I further suppose that during the G20 (peaceful demonstrators) agitators and um, the somewhat fanatical anarchist didn't take advantage? Could you imagine the carnage had a couple martyrs.......

Then to of coarse theres nothing to guard against with respect to our borders and groups south of border
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/an...d-ecoterrorism


Eco Terrorist or activist?
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...eaks-from-jail

Oh and lets not forget how certain groups raise money, launder money and more and what it might get used for
http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/repo...rptTPR-eng.asp


Pick a door M
I do understand where you are coming from but rather than blaming Harper, blame those bringing the fight to NA.

Our way of life, those things many fought and died for, make us ripe.


We can take some measures and fight back.
We can erect walls, restrict movement, carry papers to show the troopers, and lose a lot of civil rights because we don't have the stomach for #1
We can just take it.

JBen, i'm not really too interested in getting into a back & forth with you, because you rarely pay attention to what anyone else has to say.

But i will respond with this.

1 - You do realize that Greenpeace a] accounts for an extremely small portion of the world's most effective environmental activists, right? and b] that only the smallest fraction of Greenpeace activists engage in illegal activities, right? and c] that any and all of their illegal actions are already perfectly accounted for under current western legal systems. No new system is required for that particular type of group.

2 - Bill C-51 does not distinguish between aggressive, violent organizations/individuals with history and proven links to terrorism, and normal folks who simply gather to picket. The wording is purposely left vague and open to interpretation, which is where abuses of power ALWAYS take root. This is what has most people concerned. When such initiatives are too open ended, non-threatening people are often swept up in it and included. The sheeeyit will hit the fan when a bunch of grannies who've been fighting on behalf of some "Save the Bees from Commercial Pollution" or "Don't Run a Pipeline Through Our Community" initiative are flagged as dangerous.

3 - ISIL requires that all its activities and attacks and victories be acknowledge as ISIL's. So, no, they won't be targeting college kids in environmentally active groups, convincing them to blow up pipelines.

4 - Most of the groups that would (could, is more accurate) be targeted under the unclear terminology would be Native bands. Maybe before Harper ramrods an unclear new bill down everyone's throats, he should consider cleaning up the Federal Indian Affairs mess first.

5 - Nobody, least of all myself, have said that there are no people, groups and situations we need to safeguard ourselves from. Absolutely steps vs terrorism need to be taken and plans put in place and the bodies we set to safeguard ourselves need to be able to operate quickly and decisively.

However, no matter of legislation is EVER all or nothing - which is the stance you ALWAYS feel needs to be taken. A far reaching bill that infringes (and could possibly even strip) on our right to privacy, right to demonstrate (peacefully) from our citizenry absolutely needs to be reviewed in-depth, questions asked and most likely concessions and retractions and clarifications pushed for.

Implementing new legislation is not a matter of a PM saying "Here, this is what i want and it will be introduced, adopted and enforced with no discussion, no review, no revisions, take it or leave it". New legislation is meant to be tabled in an extreme format in the hopes that as many components remain intact after it's been negotiated and massaged closer to center.

Harper is trying to toss out half that process with this bill for some reason, and that's what has the hackles up on many folks.

I,too,will reserve judgement and comment until I have thoroughly read and understand (to the best of my ability) the ramifications of such a sweeping bill. My only concern would be that there needs to be an unalterable expiry date to it's authority with full and open Parliamentary debate and oversight so it can never be an open-ended blanket authority subject to abuse and over-zealousness against domestic organizations that are in solid opposition of the policies of hostile,future ultra left wing governments.

Actually M I do. Its sometimes you that does'
What is stopping some "ISIL" member (s) or homegrowns from joining "save a leaf" in order to get to close to XYZ under the guise of.....

Theres will always be risk M, until and unless we give up a lot of rights.
Pick your poison or stand and take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I,too,will reserve judgement and comment until I have thoroughly read and understand (to the best of my ability) the ramifications of such a sweeping bill. My only concern would be that there needs to be an unalterable expiry date to it's authority with full and open Parliamentary debate and oversight so it can never be an open-ended blanket authority.

---

I think many folks would be mollified (myself included), if the entire bill was created with clearer definitions of the authority proposed, the scope of impact and if the terminology could be tightened up a bit to make it clear that overzealous officers couldn't expand their reach beyond truly threatening targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Theres will always be risk M, until and unless we give up a lot of rights.

---

There will always be risk, no matter how many rights we give up.

You didn't answer the question. Funny that.
Do you think the like of ISIL and others are dumb or unimagitive? And if we don't find ways....If we aren't prepared to give up some they wont take full advantage or weaknesses such as these?

No problems here reviewing being careful.
Pick a door M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

You didn't answer the question. Funny that.
Do you think the like of ISIL and others are dumb or unimagitive? And if we don't find ways....If we aren't prepared to give up some they wont take full advantage or weaknesses such as these?

No problems here reviewing being careful.
Pick a door M

---

It was a ridiculous question, that isn't really worth answering.

There is no reason for an ISIL member or cell to join a Greenpeace in order to engage in something like bombing a pipeline, because there is nothing Greenpeace membership could do to help them carry out the mission. Everything Greenpeace could do or help with, ISIL is already better organized and equipped to handle on its own.
Also, any organization such as Greenpeace, with the checkered past its had, is already on several watch lists with several law enforcement agencies keeping tabs on it. If anything, trying to infiltrated such an organization and then warp its purview from within is just going to attract LEA attention even faster.