Why Canada's anti-terror bill is unnecessary and dangerous
timescolonist.com
timescolonist.com
http://www.straight.com/news/818486/elizabeth-may-condemns-b...
> Victoria MP Murray Rankin: "I heard 10 gunshots at least and huddled with colleagues under a desk."
It feels like a mistake. Anyone know what this refers to?
[0]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shooting-on-parliament-hill-...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_H...
Basically, if you get in the way of big business in Canada, you're in danger of being labeled a terrorist.
[1] http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-mo...
This Globe and Mail article conflates an RCMP position statement on emergent threats (and anti-oil groups are a legitimate law and security threat, some of which are given substantial foreign funding, including hilariously by the Saudi government) with CSIS and then somehow tries to draw it into C-51.
CSIS doesn't care if you protest oil. If you plan on sabotaging oil pipelines, though, yes, law enforcement does and should care.
For example, if you go to enough Animal Rights protests, I've heard that you start to get a "profile" in law enforcement databases (at least in the US). Just look at how "AgGag" laws are passed specifically to "protect" specific industries from activists that want to film what goes on behind closed doors (and bring it to light).
As another example, look at the way that law enforcement in Canada dealt with the G20 summit.
C-51 gives law enforcement and intelligence some slightly more modern tools. For instance, they can demand that "terroristic" material is removed from the internet (where jurisdiction applies), which is a right that they already have for child pornography and hate material, with the agreement of a judge and the minister of justice. If they become aware of a subject, they can ask that the subject's ISPs capture data pending a warrant (versus waiting for the process of the warrant and perhaps miss things).
And so on. Remarkably few who comment on C-51 have any idea what it entails, or the scope changes it offers. But they ply, ironically, exactly the sort of rhetoric of fear that the right wing plies about terrorism -- somehow having an advance ability to request data capture == All lefties are going to be locked up.
Drumming a rhetoric of fear is exactly what is going on now to push this bill: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-recruiter-in-edmonton-enli...
and labeling inconvenient speech as "terroristic" is page 1 in playbook. This whole thing seems so ham-fisted that I'm amazed their are defenders of it.
Fascinating.
I think they're analogous to the NSA and FBI respectively.
The alternative could have been a permanent increase in military presence.
That said unjustified arrests are extremely stressful for the victims (those being arrested for no cause), so I certainly think that's terrible too.
This is a political submission, and there is astonishingly little chance it will yield any commentary of merit. Instead there will be some railing about Harper, trite claims about the terrorists winning, and various bits of partisan dogma.
"The government has failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks."
"The government has failed to give a single example of how the amendments it seeks in Bill C-51 would be used."
"The government has refused calls for more oversight of our national-security apparatus"
"It would provide new powers that are frightening to many people."
"We will have had only three days to debate this important bill."
Good enough for me.
A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper".
As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy".
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...
Have you been in a bubble the past few years?
It is now my default position to expect the government to "make the case" that they require expanded powers to spy domestically. Those are my standards.
Like nearly every democracy. A member of the ruling party isn't going to write a critique.
How, exactly, does such an approach raise the level of discourse here in ways the original article doesn't?
What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness?
It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.
Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight.
The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.
That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means.
Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself.
Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now".
This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.
My "approach" is to call out a bullshit, partisan, zero content article. If you don't like it, well bully for you. And FWIW, I succeeded in short circuiting some bullshit, taking many well worth it downvotes in the process (from imbeciles who are growing in ranks), angry idiots desperate that they can't ply their partisan bickery.
You stated that the article lacked solid critiques, but failed to address even one of the critiques presented and show it's lack of solidity. You further claimed that "instead weighs to emotion" but provided no evidence of it.
Stating such things as if they are self evident from the text is posturing, not argument. This sort of blather serves no useful purpose in discourse, and is rightly despised as a favored tool of the demagogue.
I'm well beyond diminishing returns here, so I'm done with this.
Yuk, within minutes on some long forgotten post -- downvoted. Either you have some pathetic, psychotic users who literally follow me around, or you yourself put some comical downvote bot on me. Sad stuff. HN continues its descent to complete irrelevance.
Oh no, it's the clever slowban. So tricky.