
Why Canada's anti-terror bill is unnecessary and dangerous - cryptoz
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-why-anti-terror-bill-is-unnecessary-and-dangerous-1.1774500
======
maerF0x0
I respect Elizabeth May's perspectives on many matters. She may be the hardest
working MP.

[http://www.straight.com/news/818486/elizabeth-may-
condemns-b...](http://www.straight.com/news/818486/elizabeth-may-condemns-
bill-c-51-saying-it-would-create-secret-police-force)

------
pjc50
Pretty much every anti-terror bill is unnecessary and dangerous.

------
spatten
I'm confused by the caption under the photo (and I live in Vancouver, right
next door to Victoria):

> 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?

~~~
sospep
He is referring to the attack on Canadian parliament(0) by a lone gunman on
2014-10-22

[0][http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shooting-on-parliament-
hill-...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shooting-on-parliament-hill-what-
cbc-s-raw-camera-footage-shows-1.2818392)

------
aboutus
In Canada, environmentalists are being labeled as a "growing threat to
security" and face increased surveillance (and worse) under the government’s
new terrorism legislation[1].

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...](http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-petroleum-movement-a-
growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say/article23019252/)

~~~
engendered
This is _exactly_ the sort of ill-informed, partisan nonsense that such a
submission is guaranteed to draw out.

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.

~~~
pyre
The problem is that if you are part of an activist group that has "members"
who are extreme enough to commit criminal acts, law enforcement does not
discriminate. Once a couple of members commit criminal acts, the entire group
is guilty by association. We see this with race and religion, why would it be
any difference with ideologies?

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.

~~~
engendered
C-51 has nothing to do with that, though. It doesn't tell CSIS to start
investigating environmental groups.

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.

~~~
GhotiFish
"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...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-recruiter-in-edmonton-enlists-
canadian-woman-to-join-fight-in-syria-1.2970535)

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.

~~~
engendered
So actual reality is "drumming a rhetoric of fear" now? Reality reported on by
a fairly left news organization?

Fascinating.

------
engendered
Canada operates as an adversarial parliamentary system, and this editorial is
by a member of the official opposition. It has very little in solid critiques,
but instead weighs to emotions.

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.

~~~
hnnewguy
> _It has very little in solid critiques_

"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.

~~~
engendered
You have extraordinarily low standards, then. The opposition finding that the
ruling party has "failed to make the case" for even remote contentious
legislation is the history of _every single piece of legislation ever_. It is
what the opposition does.

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...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=4)

~~~
hnnewguy
> _The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case"_

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.

