The Bookie Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 In case you missed it this was introduced on Friday; ain't it funny how these things always come out on Fridays. To put it lightly, I'm not a big fan of these new laws. Perhaps it would have been simpler to build a fence around Parliament? But it is interesting that this coincides with two 'terrorism' trials starting today (Raed Jaser and Chiheb Esseghaier, Amanda Korody and John Nuttall) , and breaking news that John Baird is resigning. Anyways, curious how others feel on this. If you want to wade in, the full bill is here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1513457-bill-c-51.html CBC summary http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anti-terrorism-powers-what-s-in-the-legislation-1.2937964 anada's government on Friday introduced its new anti-terror legislation, a sweeping range of measures that would allow suspects to be detained based on less evidence and let CSIS actively interfere with suspects' travel plans and finances. The new bill, C-51, is only 62 pages long but contains a variety of increased powers for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Harper makes his case for new powers to combat terror Terrorism: What other countries have done to combat the threat Here's a look at key elements of the bill: 1. Lower the threshold for arrest The new measures would let law enforcement agencies arrest somebody if they think a terrorist act "may be carried out," instead of the current standard of "will be carried out." It would also increase the period of preventive detention from three days to seven. Read the full text of Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 Stephen Harper makes his case for new powers to combat terror Another measure would provide for a terrorism peace bond that would detain someone if the police believe that person "may commit" a terrorism offence. The current provision allows for a peace bond on someone the police think "will commit" a terrorism offence. A peace bond under the new measures would require the person to surrender his or her passport and would apply for five years if that person had been previously convicted of a terrorism offence. The bill also includes a requirement for judges to consider imposing conditions on the person, including passport surrender, electronic monitoring or a ban on leaving the jurisdiction. 2. Criminalize promoting terrorism Right now, it's illegal to counsel or actively encourage someone to commit a specific terrorism offence. Bill C-51 would broaden that to ban the promotion of terrorism or intentional advocacy of it. The bill threatens a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Officials were careful to note that the bill doesn't criminalize the glorification of terrorism, noting the difficulty in balancing freedom of speech with the desire to keep people from encouraging terrorist activity. 3. Allow CSIS to 'counter-message' or 'disrupt' activities The bill would also give CSIS the ability to disrupt suspected terror activity, including radical websites and Twitter accounts, as well as "counter-message." The power applies inside and outside of Canada. That means security officials could go online to challenge the online communications sent to those suspected of becoming radicalized. It also includes interfering with travel plans and financial transactions or intercepting goods, according to background documents. One example of disruption would be to interrupt a phone call between subjects. It could also mean CSIS could involve a subject's family and friends in deterring that person from participating in terrorism and inform the RCMP of its suspicions. However, there is no definition of "to disrupt" in the legislation, leaving it open to interpretation.If there were a threat to the subject’s legal rights, a court order would be needed, if it involves a Canadian or permanent resident. For non-Canadians outside the country, officials said it would depend on a legal analysis of the situation. The bill also carries a requirement for the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, which has oversight of CSIS, to report every year on disruption activities. 4. Remove terrorist material from the internet The "seizure of terrorist propaganda" measure would let officials apply to a court to order the seizure, or force a website to remove, "any materials that promote or encourage acts of terrorism against Canadians in general, or the commission of a specific attack against Canadians," according to background material provided to journalists. This would expand a measure that currently allows a court to order the removal of child pornography and hate propaganda. However, the information provided at the background briefing did not say specifically which officials would be able to apply for the order — whether it would be CSIS, police or other officials. The consent of the attorney general would be necessary for the court to consider the request. 5. Allow for court proceedings to be sealed Currently, Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows the government to ask the court to protect classified information in immigration proceedings to protect investigation techniques and witnesses. But that application comes at the end of a proceeding. The measure would allow the government to ask for proceedings to be sealed at any point in the process. 6. Expand the no-fly list The bill would allow the government to add to the no-fly list anyone it believes might be travelling to engage in terrorism, and it would define the appeal process. and then there's this lovely bit of reaction.... http://www.99media.org/read-share-article-share-jail-cell/ Read and share this article, and we could share a jail cell Posted on 31 janvier, 2015 by William Ray Bill C-51, if made into law, might make this article and a good part of the activities of my, and other citizen media groups, acts of supporting Terrorism. And some of you engaged citizens reading this, Terrorists. If we will get adjoining cells…I hope you don’t snore. Bill C-51, if made into law, might make this article and a good part of the activities of my, and other citizen media groups, acts of supporting Terrorism. And some of you engaged citizens reading this, Terrorists. If we get adjoining cells… I hope you don’t snore. The clear intent of this bill is to stifle social ,environmental and Indigenous justice movements in Canada. And in the specific wording of the Bill we see measures designed to treat those that take action on social issues in Canada like terrorists and those in the growing independent media that cover them as enemy propagandists.It is important to remember when reading the language of the proposed legislation that the terminology used by security services toward activists of any stripe in this country has changed in a way that make this legislation a perfect fit for repression. “The Canadian law enforcement and security intelligence community have noted a growing radicalized faction of environmentalists who advocate the use of criminal activity to promote the protection of the natural environment,” according to a 2011 report obtained by the Vancouver Observer “It is highly probable that environmentalists will continue to mount direct actions targeting Canada’s energy sector, specifically the petroleum sub-sector and the fossil and nuclear fueled electricity generating facilities, with the objectives of: influencing government energy policy, interfering within the energy regulatory process and forcing the energy industry to cease its operations that harm the environment,”The Conservatives are counting on Canadians ignorance of the fact that if you attend a rally to save your local forest you have likely observed, identified and added to the list of « multi-issue extremists ». And this has been a fact for many years. In 2007 the RCMP and other security services started referring to activists in this way. A peaceful march or banner drop is a « non violent attack strategy ». This is a very deliberate move to be able to easily define those who protest or are socially active within the bounds of the Harper governments anti-terror laws. A non – exhaustive list of groups already deemed a threat and monitored by RCMP would include Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, EcoSociety, LeadNow, Dogwood Initiative, Council of Canadians and the People’s Summit,according to documents obtained under FOI requests by Professors Kevin Walby and Jeffrey Monaghan. Documents they obtained further stated that Some of the provisions of the Bill C-51 seem aimed at making it easier to target, and criminalize, organizers individually and disrupt their work. We have long experience here in Montréal, laboratory for the police state in Canada, of police levelling « conditions » on activists. The conditions used already under Montréal’s anti constitutional P6 bylaw seem set for export to the rest of Canada. These conditions can prevent activists from meeting with certain people, organizing or attending actions and from physically being in large geographical areas, like the downtown of their own city. The new Bill may even make it illegal for them to talk about, or report on others activities. This is intended destroy resistance communities by depriving them of key organizers and the tools that transformed social movements in the late 20th century. This Bill, if made law, would for the first time potentially allow the government to rein in the expanding alternative media in this country and clamp down on activists use of social media to either organize or report on actions that involve even the smallest form of civil disobedience. Similar laws generally making it illegal to « glorify or promote terrorism » are already on the books in the UK and Australia even though legal scholars in both countries deplore The Government obviously understands the power that independent media, and social media have in nurturing and promoting , Indigenous,environmental, and social justice movements and are moving to limit its effect. If allowed to go forward this legislation, coupled with the masses of anti-terror legislation already put on the books since 9/11, it would give the government exceptional power to crush dissent in a « legal » manner.them. When you combine this wording with the fact that the government classifies and refers to activists as extremists, it would be potentially illegal for me to continue to report on the activities of groups like Idle No More or the anti pipeline protesters. It could be used to prevent 99media.org and other organizations from live streaming the demonstrations this spring, for the anticipated general mobilization against austerity here in Quebec and elsewhere. I would probably have been jailed for the work I did covering the « Printemps Érable » in 2012. Just for the record Mr Harper, and I think I speak for my entire group here. I will stop reporting on the dedicated activists struggling to make this country and the world better, and leave the street, when you drag my corpse off it. No compromise. And it is not enough to trust that replacing the Harper government with beautiful Mr Trudeau will solve everything. Governments nowhere have much of a record of repealing control legislation on the books, no matter what they say. You need look no further than old Barrack » Guantanamo drone strike » Obama.If this all sounds like sweaty basement internet fantasy to you, then you should familiarize yourself with « Operation Profunc, ». An RCMP led operation that for 40 years collected the names of social activists. There were plans to simultaneously arrest them, imprison them and their families in « relocation camps ». Don’t worry, keep moving, ze dogs are here for your protection. And any belief that the state wont do it again, is in error. And if your looking for some hope in the Security Intelligence Review Committee controlling all of this, don’t. Harper’s latest appointment to this group a man named Ian Holloway is ex military. He is the current dean of the University of Calgary Law school, not exactly known as a hotbed of human rights. In 1996 he wrote a paper for the Australian Law revue titled, « I Stand For Liberty: Winston Churchill as Social Reformer ». Anyone who believes Winston was a reformer truly wouldn’t even understand the term « social justice ». So in case Im not in enough trouble I would heartily advocate calling your MP, calling the guy who wants to be your MP and anyone else and yes taking to the streets. Let the powers that be in Canada know that we are not afraid. And that we will NEVER Trade our liberty for Mr Harper, or anyones promise of security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Will this stop Vancouver from rioting again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 This bill is too broad. Terrorism, obviously, is a serious issue, but this bill is not going to stop squat. The only thing it's going to do is increase the powers for police (primarily the upper-tier police, not the street police) and annoy everyone else. The word "disrupt" is a troublesome word. With these bills, the 'state' could legalize hacking on suspected individuals. Not that I'm condoning terrorism, how does this bill ensure that the privacy of law-abiding citizens are not affected? So much power, but relatively no limitation. An increase of three days of detention to seven does what exactly? This is a dangerous Bill that should be shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 This bill is too broad. Terrorism, obviously, is a serious issue, but this bill is not going to stop squat. The only thing it's going to do is increase the powers for police (primarily the upper-tier police, not the street police) and annoy everyone else. The word "disrupt" is a troublesome word. With these bills, the 'state' could legalize hacking on suspected individuals. Not that I'm condoning terrorism, how does this bill ensure that the privacy of law-abiding citizens are not affected? So much power, but relatively no limitation. An increase of three days of detention to seven does what exactly? This is a dangerous Bill that should be shot down. Agreed its bs and needs to be denied... Harper and his cronies really need to leave now. Justin Trudeau understands modern politics whereas Harper is still stuck in the cold war era.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Agreed its bs and needs to be denied... Harper and his cronies really need to leave now. Justin Trudeau understands modern politics whereas Harper is still stuck in the cold war era.. I'm not sure I can agree with everything that Trudeau wants, but he's more practical (i.e. pot legalization) and not as heavy-handed. I don't even smoke pot, but if you can get people to agree on an issue that doesn't even affect them, then you're doing something right. It's going to be an interesting next election, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Classic government...use terrorist tragedies to drum up support for expanded police powers. I hope Canadians will take a clue from what's happened in the US and vote out Harper who has more power to threaten Canadian values than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Agreed its bs and needs to be denied... Harper and his cronies really need to leave now.Justin Trudeau understands modern politics whereas Harper is still stuck in the cold war era.. Yeah, the budget will just balance itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Clutch Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Yeah, the budget will just balance itself. I can't believe Trudeau was the best the Liberals could offer up as a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I can't believe Trudeau was the best the Liberals could offer up as a leader. He's the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhahoodlum Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Well, Canada is officially a police state. I'm going to say this before the pigs come to arrest me: I hope that someone theoretically puts a metaphorical bullet in Harper's rheotorical head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Clutch Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 He's the best! It's funny you mention the cold war. Which world leader was it that took a stand against Putin and actaully made a personal visit to Ukraine? Trudeau wanted nothing to do with that. Trudeau (and Mulcair) also put up a stink that the Canadian military fired on IS troops, after the IS fired mortars on them. He also thinks that Canadian troops cannot handle IS. This guy is not cut out to be a leader on the world stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 John Baird is going to resign next week... http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/02/john-baird-to-quit-as-mp-report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 It's funny you mention the cold war. Which world leader was it that took a stand against Putin and actaully made a personal visit to Ukraine? Trudeau wanted nothing to do with that. Trudeau (and Mulcair) also put up a stink that the Canadian military fired on IS troops, after the IS fired mortars on them. He also thinks that Canadian troops cannot handle IS. This guy is not cut out to be a leader on the world stage. That's the point.. We don't need another wannabe warmonger/fearmonger. What do we have to gain in fighting ISIS? Harper only serves American interests and lives a scripted life. John Baird is going to resign next week... http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/02/john-baird-to-quit-as-mp-report Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 That's the point.. We don't need another wannabe warmonger/fearmonger. What do we have to gain in fighting ISIS? Harper only serves American interests and lives a scripted life. Good. If Harper serves US interests, why does Obama keep blocking the XL pipeline? If anything, Canada should stop kowtowing to US foreign policies until the pipeline is approved. Canada is not getting anything out this relationship with the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 If Harper serves US interests, why does Obama keep blocking the XL pipeline? If anything, Canada should stop kowtowing to US foreign policies until the pipeline is approved. Canada is not getting anything out this relationship with the US. Obama is only doing that to piss off the republicans really no other reason.. He wants to show his strength and unlike Canada the XL pipeline is overwhelmly opposed by the US public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Clutch Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 That's the point.. We don't need another wannabe warmonger/fearmonger. What do we have to gain in fighting ISIS? Harper only serves American interests and lives a scripted life. Good. Warmonger? Harper isn't looking for war, he's standing beside international friends and keeping promises made by previous prime ministers, even when there is little to nothing to gain. That is what a leader does. I won't pretend everything he does is wonderful, the point is that he is a far better leader Justin could ever be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I can't believe Trudeau was the best the Liberals could offer up as a leader. He wasn't. Marc Garneau was, but the Liberals decided to run a political "name" instead of the most qualified candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Whats the governments definition of terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 mdehaan, it's in the criminal code http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec83.01_smooth PART II.1TERRORISM Interpretation Definitions 83.01 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part. “Canadian” « Canadien » “entity” « entité » “listed entity” « entité inscrite » “terrorist activity” « activité terroriste » “terrorist group” « groupe terroriste » “Canadian” means a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or a body corporate incorporated and continued under the laws of Canada or a province. “entity” means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization. “listed entity” means an entity on a list established by the Governor in Council under section 83.05. “terrorist activity” means (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences: (i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970, (ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971, (iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973, (iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979, (v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.21) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980, as amended by the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on July 8, 2005 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on September 14, 2005, (vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988, (vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988, (viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988, (ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada, (i) that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and ( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and (ii) that intentionally (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence, ( endangers a person’s life, © causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public, (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©, or (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to ©, and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law. “terrorist group” means (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or (b) a listed entity, and includes an association of such entities. For greater certainty (1.1) For greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph. For greater certainty (1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph. Facilitation (2) For the purposes of this Part, facilitation shall be construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2). 2001, c. 41, ss. 4, 126; 2010, c. 19, s. 1; 2013, c. 13, s. 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Garneau would make an excellent PM. Maybe he'd push for engineering, and development of a diversified economy in Canada. Get us out of the 19th century. This smacks of the Patriot Act in the US. Don't like it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.