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.
More importantly, the onus is on the government to make a case why they would need more powers. The current government has not justified why they need these. They've plainly said that "canadians are on our side, no need to debate more than 3 or 4 days". That is total BS.
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".
>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.
I'm not really a fan of this op-ed either, but the very least, the article/speech at least makes a much more solid argument than you have here. Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off, and then prognosticated that there is little chance useful will come of it.
How, exactly, does such an approach raise the level of discourse here in ways the original article doesn't?
Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off
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.
>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.
What I doubt is not relevant. You claimed that the speech had " ... very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions", but provided no support for this statement at all.
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.
Your claim is utter absurdity. I stated the absence of something, and you demand that I prove the absence of it? Grow up.
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.
No, they haven't. That this site is increasingly veering into Reddit land (with the same sort of absurd dogpile moderation -- countless of my completely benign comments have been downvoted by imbeciles who need to "punish" me), and this is on you, dear Dang.
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.
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.