If Bill C-51 goes through...MMJ patients, any pateints will be shared with the RCMP
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
I hear ya, I feel the same way but don't have the balls to move until it's legal.
leaffan
Well-Known Member
Also posted in the other c51 thread....
Unless you've been under a rock as of late, you've likely heard about the Conservative-proposed Bill C-51. The one that aims to transform our secret service, CSIS, into a de-facto policing entity. If you have, you've either expected your opposition leaders to fiercely oppose it, or you've been enthused, if slightly concerned, by the drastic powers given to the intelligence agencies under proposed legislation.
One thing should be clear, in an election year rife with the pervasive, if elusive, threat of another ISIS-orchestrated attack like the Ottawa shootings, you should expect the supreme court to be the only effective opposition to the proposed changes to CSIS, the criminal code, and CSEC, in a majority Harper government. That is a good thing.
In the past twelve months, onlookers to the federal political scene have had no fewer than six major legislative events during which controversial, unconstitutional and unilateral bills proposed by the Harper Conservatives were quashed by the Supreme Court; on charter or constitutional grounds. Be it when it came the Conservative attempt to reform the Senate in order to do away with the Duffy scandal's inexpediency, in the Prime Minister's attempts to overwhelm constitutional rules pertaining to the selection of Supreme Court judges from Quebec (see Nadon), or in the CPC's attempt to enact "tough on crime" regulation that would see convicted citizens lose the right to early parole.
These judicial decisions highlight the fact that Bill C-51, lumped in with last week's Conservative announcement of legislation that would see certain criminals lose the right to appeal altogether, will simply not stand. Not without a slew of setbacks in court from the moment it becomes law, if implemented before the upcoming federal elections as is planned. They point to the fact that Mr Harper is playing politics with legislation he knows to be faulty but unquestionably popular, ahead of an election year that many perceive will be an uphill battle for the incumbent.
Given the parliamentary majority that the Harper government currently enjoys, official effective opposition to its typically extreme legislative proposal lies squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court. Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau's respective decisions to stand aside the bill as it makes its way in the House of Commons, preferring instead to pitch oversight-related amendments as part of their prospective federal electoral platforms, reinforces this reality.
It simply does not make sense on the part of the opposition parties, whose business it is to popularly win control of Parliament, to take a principled stance that is both unpopular and fated to be useless at this point in time. Arguably, Justin Trudeau can be seen as ahead of the curve for being the first to choose to let the Supreme Court block the Bill's most unconstitutional implications, with more than 82 per cent of Canadians reportedly in favour of the proposed legislation.
Even Thomas Mulcair, official head of the opposition, backtracked after first actively opposing the bill publicly, as a result of the tricky political calculus involved. That's just it; in an election year, principled political debate on one of the most fundamental updates to our understanding of privacy and security is reduced to a strategic footnote in a Harper majority government. Leaving courts to impartially sort out the weed from the chaff, in terms of civil liberties in the age of terror.
Not that increased parliamentary oversight, curbing of CSIS powers as initially proposed, and an overall concrete definition of what a terrorist offence is would make national security decision-making transparent in the fight against ISIS. Pr. Philipe Lagasse, of the University of Ottawa's Centre for International Policy studies makes it clear that arguing for more parliamentary oversight of national security and intelligence activities is more likely to result in "a select group of MPs knowing more about Canada's national security affairs, but the public knowing, and perhaps caring, less."
Constitutionally speaking, responsibility for CSIS, CSEC, Department of Defense and Judicial decisions dealing with national security fall under particular ministerial offices, we therefore know where the buck stops when policy goes off the rails. In an open society made transparent by social media and 24/7 news, outlets geared to bringing the public's pressure to bear, this must count for something. The rights and freedoms infringed upon by Harper's undigested piece of judicial reactionism are most effectively protected in the judiciary, not in his rubber-stamping House of Commons.
Unless you've been under a rock as of late, you've likely heard about the Conservative-proposed Bill C-51. The one that aims to transform our secret service, CSIS, into a de-facto policing entity. If you have, you've either expected your opposition leaders to fiercely oppose it, or you've been enthused, if slightly concerned, by the drastic powers given to the intelligence agencies under proposed legislation.
One thing should be clear, in an election year rife with the pervasive, if elusive, threat of another ISIS-orchestrated attack like the Ottawa shootings, you should expect the supreme court to be the only effective opposition to the proposed changes to CSIS, the criminal code, and CSEC, in a majority Harper government. That is a good thing.
In the past twelve months, onlookers to the federal political scene have had no fewer than six major legislative events during which controversial, unconstitutional and unilateral bills proposed by the Harper Conservatives were quashed by the Supreme Court; on charter or constitutional grounds. Be it when it came the Conservative attempt to reform the Senate in order to do away with the Duffy scandal's inexpediency, in the Prime Minister's attempts to overwhelm constitutional rules pertaining to the selection of Supreme Court judges from Quebec (see Nadon), or in the CPC's attempt to enact "tough on crime" regulation that would see convicted citizens lose the right to early parole.
These judicial decisions highlight the fact that Bill C-51, lumped in with last week's Conservative announcement of legislation that would see certain criminals lose the right to appeal altogether, will simply not stand. Not without a slew of setbacks in court from the moment it becomes law, if implemented before the upcoming federal elections as is planned. They point to the fact that Mr Harper is playing politics with legislation he knows to be faulty but unquestionably popular, ahead of an election year that many perceive will be an uphill battle for the incumbent.
Given the parliamentary majority that the Harper government currently enjoys, official effective opposition to its typically extreme legislative proposal lies squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court. Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau's respective decisions to stand aside the bill as it makes its way in the House of Commons, preferring instead to pitch oversight-related amendments as part of their prospective federal electoral platforms, reinforces this reality.
It simply does not make sense on the part of the opposition parties, whose business it is to popularly win control of Parliament, to take a principled stance that is both unpopular and fated to be useless at this point in time. Arguably, Justin Trudeau can be seen as ahead of the curve for being the first to choose to let the Supreme Court block the Bill's most unconstitutional implications, with more than 82 per cent of Canadians reportedly in favour of the proposed legislation.
Even Thomas Mulcair, official head of the opposition, backtracked after first actively opposing the bill publicly, as a result of the tricky political calculus involved. That's just it; in an election year, principled political debate on one of the most fundamental updates to our understanding of privacy and security is reduced to a strategic footnote in a Harper majority government. Leaving courts to impartially sort out the weed from the chaff, in terms of civil liberties in the age of terror.
Not that increased parliamentary oversight, curbing of CSIS powers as initially proposed, and an overall concrete definition of what a terrorist offence is would make national security decision-making transparent in the fight against ISIS. Pr. Philipe Lagasse, of the University of Ottawa's Centre for International Policy studies makes it clear that arguing for more parliamentary oversight of national security and intelligence activities is more likely to result in "a select group of MPs knowing more about Canada's national security affairs, but the public knowing, and perhaps caring, less."
Constitutionally speaking, responsibility for CSIS, CSEC, Department of Defense and Judicial decisions dealing with national security fall under particular ministerial offices, we therefore know where the buck stops when policy goes off the rails. In an open society made transparent by social media and 24/7 news, outlets geared to bringing the public's pressure to bear, this must count for something. The rights and freedoms infringed upon by Harper's undigested piece of judicial reactionism are most effectively protected in the judiciary, not in his rubber-stamping House of Commons.
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
Chris Hedges on C-51: They have won, and it is up to us
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/03/chris-hedges-on-c-51-they-have-won-and-it-to-us
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/03/chris-hedges-on-c-51-they-have-won-and-it-to-us
Jackal69
Well-Known Member
personally I wish we all were tracked and under surveillance BUT we wouldn't be a slave to greed/money everyone would have the same freedoms ... no one would be more important than the other..... no homeless no hungry.... companies actually don't exist to make money but only to make things that benefit life ... no longer using nasty chems and dumping them in our drinking water.... oh yeah coke a fucking cola ... water is free... fucking cocksuckers buying up 3rd world water supplies to make pop
there's more NO's and more FREE's but yeah when all the little fucking humans stop being sheep yeah I would wish my first line to be true because then if some fuck killed someone else... we wouldn't have to worry who the fuck did it
there's more NO's and more FREE's but yeah when all the little fucking humans stop being sheep yeah I would wish my first line to be true because then if some fuck killed someone else... we wouldn't have to worry who the fuck did it
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
"The elites and their liberal apologists dismiss the rebel as impractical. They brand the rebel's outsider stance as counterproductive. They condemn the rebel for being inflexible, unwilling to compromise. These elites call for calm and patience."
Yep. Vote NDP or this shit won't change. Trudeau supports C51.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i want the Cons out and was thinking Justin might be a good thought especially since he is pro MJ but if he's supporting C-51, he's off my list.
TheDizzyBizzy
Well-Known Member
They voted for the Bill they don't support so they can change it later? I have a bridge to sell you.
If only there was some other approach, like NOT VOTING FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
Anyone who believes there is a real difference between those two parties is living in a fantasy land. The Liberals are Harper-lite. Would you accept Hitler-lite?
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
I agree leaf this seems to be put forth at time close to the election when the cons were losing to the libs according to stats by not very much
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
that thought makes my brain hurt...good point
leaffan
Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/20/canadian-bar-association-_n_6913178.html
Canadian Bar Association Denounces Anti-Terror Bill
...uh huh...but you really don't give a shit do you Harper?
OTTAWA - The Conservative government's anti-terrorism bill contains "ill-considered" measures that will deprive Canadians of liberties without increasing their safety, the Canadian Bar Association says.
The bar association objects to the planned transformation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into an agency that could actively disrupt terror plots.
It argues the bill's "vague and overly broad language" would capture legitimate activity, including environmental and aboriginal protests — and possibly put a chill on expressions of dissent.
The most worrying element of the bill is a provision that would give judges the power to authorize CSIS violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the association says.
It potentially brings "the entire Charter into jeopardy, undermines the rule of law, and goes against the fundamental role of judges as the protectors of Canada's constitutional rights."
The association wants a sunset clause that would see the bill expire and trigger a parliamentary review no more than five years after its passage.
The association, which represents more than 36,000 lawyers across Canada, released a draft summary of its concerns Friday. It has developed a full submission drawing on the input of experts in criminal, immigration, privacy and charities law.
Association representatives are scheduled to appear before the House of Commons committee studying the bill next week.
The government argues the proposed new provisions are needed to combat the threat of homegrown terrorism in the wake of two murders of Canadian soldiers last October.
The bill would also make it easier for police to limit the movements of a suspect, expand no-fly list powers and take aim at terrorist propaganda.
In addition, it would allow much greater sharing of federally held information about activity that "undermines the security of Canada."
The information-sharing measures would permit disclosure of personal data to the private sector and foreign governments, unconstrained by the charter, and open the door to misuse, the association's summary says.
It also says:
— the expanded no-fly list provisions would introduce powers to search computers and mobile devices without a warrant;
— CSIS's powers would be expanded without a similar boost to already insufficient oversight and review of the intelligence sector;
— the bill is being rushed through Parliament without enough time for careful study.
Neither the new disruptive powers nor the information-sharing provisions apply to "lawful" advocacy, protest or dissent, but many critics fear the bill could be used against activists who demonstrate without an official permit or despite a court order.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney told the committee last week such concerns were ridiculous, saying the legislation is not intended to capture minor violations committed during legitimate protests.
Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter
Canadian Bar Association Denounces Anti-Terror Bill
...uh huh...but you really don't give a shit do you Harper?
OTTAWA - The Conservative government's anti-terrorism bill contains "ill-considered" measures that will deprive Canadians of liberties without increasing their safety, the Canadian Bar Association says.
The bar association objects to the planned transformation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into an agency that could actively disrupt terror plots.
It argues the bill's "vague and overly broad language" would capture legitimate activity, including environmental and aboriginal protests — and possibly put a chill on expressions of dissent.
The most worrying element of the bill is a provision that would give judges the power to authorize CSIS violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the association says.
It potentially brings "the entire Charter into jeopardy, undermines the rule of law, and goes against the fundamental role of judges as the protectors of Canada's constitutional rights."
The association wants a sunset clause that would see the bill expire and trigger a parliamentary review no more than five years after its passage.
The association, which represents more than 36,000 lawyers across Canada, released a draft summary of its concerns Friday. It has developed a full submission drawing on the input of experts in criminal, immigration, privacy and charities law.
Association representatives are scheduled to appear before the House of Commons committee studying the bill next week.
The government argues the proposed new provisions are needed to combat the threat of homegrown terrorism in the wake of two murders of Canadian soldiers last October.
The bill would also make it easier for police to limit the movements of a suspect, expand no-fly list powers and take aim at terrorist propaganda.
In addition, it would allow much greater sharing of federally held information about activity that "undermines the security of Canada."
The information-sharing measures would permit disclosure of personal data to the private sector and foreign governments, unconstrained by the charter, and open the door to misuse, the association's summary says.
It also says:
— the expanded no-fly list provisions would introduce powers to search computers and mobile devices without a warrant;
— CSIS's powers would be expanded without a similar boost to already insufficient oversight and review of the intelligence sector;
— the bill is being rushed through Parliament without enough time for careful study.
Neither the new disruptive powers nor the information-sharing provisions apply to "lawful" advocacy, protest or dissent, but many critics fear the bill could be used against activists who demonstrate without an official permit or despite a court order.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney told the committee last week such concerns were ridiculous, saying the legislation is not intended to capture minor violations committed during legitimate protests.
Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter
