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

Lots of noise and differing opinions on this one.

Let's try to keep the discussion civil (for once).

I know Harper's Cons have a lot of supporters on this site, but considering how so many of you/them/us are very reluctant to give up any more civil liberties than we already have... i'd be surprised if there isn't significant concern over just how far this bill goes, and just how easily it will become to be branded a "terrorist" under it.

We're not talking about only muslim jihadists here. We're talking about little white grandmothers who speak out publicly against pipelines, etc. being listed as "threats".

Harper has a bad habit of taking the right ideas too far. Haven't read the details of this but I am personally OK with giving up a certain level of privacy to improve security. This Islamic war is only beginning. When you have Canadian citizens return home after spending time with these terrorists they aren't coming back because their contracts are up. They are coming back as agents of the cause and are expected to attack us on our soil. We have been lucky so far in stopping some attacks but it is naive to think some won't succeed. Airports, bus terminals, malls, public utilities are all near impossible to protect 100%. I would worry more about that risk. As extreme as Harper can be I am far more concerned at how weak JT would be and how it would make us vulnerable to extremist attacks. These people are savages bent on murder and mayhem. It is way past time to talk about it only. We need to engage them militarily and destroy them. These people are starting to make the Nazis and Hitler look like boy scouts. This link is just today's example of what they believe in:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...at-online.html

In light of the number of events in the last 6 months, I don't have a problem with the government having more power to control possible terrorists. Sadly, I think that it get worse before it gets better, even with the new powers included in the bill.

No problem here.

The bill will not deter them in the least. Not going to happen. If it enables the authorities to protect us from them more effectively then I'm good with that. I am of the belief that there are many things that should in fact "not" be public knowledge for our own best interests.

I have said for years, probably going back to 9/11 and that afternoon, that life as we knew it, had changed. When few realized what the implications were and then subsequently some changes started coming in, and homeland security and many more. They are winning and laughing at the irony.

In the voice of Monty Hall "C'mon down"

Door #1
We take it like putzes and will if JT/Dion/TM and the likes get in

Door #2
We give up some civil liberties and start fighting back.

Door #3
We give up even more civil liberties because we don't have the stomach for a fight.


Pick a side.

I'm fine with this bill

Bring back the inquisitions. I have no problems with more teeth in rooting out the bad apples. Most of the people on this site are gun owners, and in my experience are better citizens, as we have much more to lose over non gun owners. I agree some risk to civil liberties is at risk, but honestly we don’t have much civil rights in Canada anyways. It will catch those who need to be caught and make it easier to for agencies to be more legal to track and collect info.

If you think you have rights in Canada, try this, strap your shotgun to your back pointing down..and take a stroll down the main street. In most areas, this is not illegal, but I guarantee you will get at least a disturbing the peace or arrested…. For doing something legal, but not perceived well out there. Most smart, legal gun owners would never risk this behavior, but it is not illegal… The perception of your rights verses the reality of situation. We say we are free, but it does not seem that way at times.

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.

I think "peaceful environmentists" in many cases are probably dangerous people too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

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.

---

I will admit, I am one of those Canadians. No excuse other than complacency? I will however read up on it and collect my thoughts about it. Thanks for posting!

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.

Of coarse not.
They are activist and we do love our right to peaceful assembly and you have your knickers in a knott over monitoring what they (peaceful activist groups) are up to. Lets just hand them invitations shall we.

Oh and do also consider M, what do they like targeting?
Ah yes, symbols of freedom and democracy.
Things like the twin towers, the lost soldier, media outlets......the right to peaceful assembly.Just happens to be a corner stone.

What better way to "make a bang" and statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Of coarse not.
They are activist and we do love our right to peaceful assembly and you have your knickers in a knott over monitoring what they are up to.

---

No, i have my knickers in a knot over the fact that I can be placed on a no-fly list simply for posting a bunch of anti-pipeline information/propoganda/education pieces on my facebook and using strong language.

Wouldn't have to initiate or encourage violence, wouldn't have to have links to any actual terrorists OR even extreme environmentalists. My concerns or anti-pipeline agenda wouldn't even have to have anything to do with the environmental impact (maybe i just really don't like the corps involved)... and i could be placed on a watch list for simply sharing an opinion.

Such ambiguity in a federal Bill is BS, and deep down you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

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 think this is a pretty good summary of where I stand (wrt to the bill in question).

I do not trust any of the leaders at all. Harper will steal my rights, organize book burnings and spy on me. Trudeau will piss away my money and regulate my rights away. Mulcair - don't even need to go there.

No good options. Never mind leaving Ontario I think it may time to move to New Zealand.

That's more my position."no good options"
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.


We are ripe, our way of life which is what its really all about......"guarantee's it". Either we don't sacrifice liberties and take it on the chin.... wasn't it you back in the fall taking strips out of people when Harper agreed to air strikes and because people weren't aware of their "master plan"..

You I know are against heavy handed action....so.....You don't want that, and are unwilling to sacrifice liberities...You know what's coming, don't you?

Pick your poison M

Make more sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

That's more my position.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Pick your poison M

---

If that was actually the choice proposed by our government... i'd choose more freedom for ISIL type terrorists.

At least them i could fight on Canadian soil and be deemed a hero for my efforts.

CSIS and RCMP i could not fight, and if i did they'd just disappear me.

As I said, a number of post ago, I understand where your coming from.

Guess the question that people should start asking themselves is just how serious and motivated they are. We are ripe, our rights and our freedoms make us so.............

If one believes they are and are cable we basically have
2 doors, maybe 3 ( a little of both)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

At least them i could fight on Canadian soil and be deemed a hero for my efforts.

.

---

Big,big mistake,Oddmot. Always take the war to the enemy. NEVER let the enemy bring the war to YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Big,big mistake,Oddmot. Always take the war to the enemy. NEVER let the enemy bring the war to YOU.

---

I don't like temperatures above +18C. No way are you convincing me to go over there ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

If that was actually the choice proposed by our government... i'd choose more freedom for ISIL type terrorists.

.

---

WOW. More freedom for a group who rape and murder children and chop their parent's heads off. You seriously wrote that? You hate Harper so much you actually sympathize with a bunch of cowardly Barbarians who deserve nothing but to be blown into oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

WOW. More freedom for a group who rape and murder children and chop their parent's heads off. You seriously wrote that? You hate Harper so much you actually sympathize with a bunch of cowardly Barbarians who deserve nothing but to be blown into oblivion.

---

Try reading again.