Security

Bill C-51: the Good, the Bad . . . and the Truly Ugly

Two eminent legal scholars detail exactly what we should welcome—and what should fear—in the government’s new anti-terror legislation

by
• 2,606 words

Bill C-51, the Harper government’s recently proposed “Anti-terrorism Act,” restructures our national security laws so extensively that it will take years before we understand the law’s full effect. There is good in the act, but there also is bad, and even truly ugly. The details are difficult for non-experts to navigate. That is why we are providing Walrus readers with this summary.

The Good

Let’s start with what’s good in Bill C-51. First, we applaud the overarching fact that security issues in Canada continue to be addressed by law, and not through use of extrajudicial government power. Not so long ago, this would have been a peculiar thing to acknowledge. But in light of developments elsewhere in the world —such as the post-9/11 United States, where many anti-terror measures have not been specifically authorized by democratically enacted legislation—it is an important aspect to note. Whatever else may be said about Bill C-51, its provisions are all laid out in black and white for pundits and opposition politicians to scrutinize.

Second, we should welcome the government’s efforts to put certain important programs—such as Canada’s so-called “no-fly” list—on firmer legal footing. That list has existed for some time, but was cobbled together on the basis of a slender statutory basis with inadequate checks and balances.

Third, we are prepared to be convinced that the country will be well-served by terrorism “peace bonds,” under which police will be allowed to limit the liberty of someone if they have reason to believe he or she might be about to commit a terrorism-related crime.

We hold a similar view on Bill C-51’s provisions relating to preventive detention. Under the expanded anti-terror regime contained in the law, investigators who are concerned that a plot “may be carried out” will be empowered to detain suspects for as long as seven days (up from three days, as per the current law). We can imagine circumstances under which such a provision becomes a necessary evil. But we believe that that this necessary evil needs to be closely constrained, and carefully overseen.

Moreover, the government’s sketchy explanations—especially the lack of explanation regarding Martin Couture-Rouleau, the Quebec Muslim convert who was well-known to police at the time he drove his car into two Canadian soldiers last October—leave us with little understanding about why the present system is inadequate.

The Bad

Whatever our general views on preventive detention, we are concerned whether seven days of detention will equate to seven days of protracted and aggressive interrogation. Abusive interrogation is one of the hallmarks of the post-9/11 world. And we must be vigilant to ensure that it does not come to Canada by way of Bill C-51.

One should not assume the state will visit abuse on detainees. Nor do we assume that the courts would be inattentive to this matter. Canadians would be naive, however, to assume that some investigators will not take advantage of a week-long detention period to browbeat a suspect. Safeguards should be added to this legislation, including limitations on the total number of hours a person may be interrogated (as well as the circumstances of the interrogation).

Nor should one assume that the “right person” always will be detained: There will be false positives, innocent people wrongly placed into custody. This is especially so in a system that allows the state to detain so easily, combined with cases where the boundaries of a suspected cell or group are unclear. Many Canadians may be vulnerable to detention based merely on the fact that their name appears on a terror suspect’s cell phone call list.

We also are concerned by the bill’s new information-sharing regime, which dramatically loosens the strictures on how the government internally shares data, and introduces a dangerously broad category of “activities that undermine the security of Canada,” which can include much illegal protest. This will be of special concern to anyone who has studied the infamous Maher Arar case.

The Ugly

Bill C-51’s prohibitions on speech that promotes or glorifies terrorism would provide sweeping powers to police and prosecutors—more vast than the government has acknowledged so far. Thankfully, courts may ultimately restrain that scope, either because judges interpret the provisions narrowly, or because (as seems likely) they consider the provisions to infringe on Charter rights to free speech.

In the meantime, the speech provisions of Bill C-51 will cast a chill on any opinion touching upon the issue of terrorism—including opinions that are politically extreme and irresponsible, but that are far removed from actual or threatened terroristic violence. Those opinions will not disappear, of course. They will persist in secret, renewed by a sense of grievance. The more attentive holders of these views will go silent, especially on social media. This important open-source form of intelligence—on, particularly, al Qaeda- or ISIS-inspired radicalization—may degrade. And our most promising response to violent extremism—community-based programs such as the RCMP’s new counter-extremism initiative—may prove less successful, since they rely on open and candid communication with those who harbour radical views.

The bill’s authors don’t seem to appreciate the extent to which speech already is criminalized under existing terror laws. One person was successfully prosecuted in 2010 for outright terrorist propaganda. And last month’s arrests of three men in Ottawa, under provisions of the 2001 anti-terror law brought into effect in the months after 9/11, reaffirms that conduct that amounts, in a large degree, to speech can be prosecuted under existing legislation. We are hard pressed to see any virtue in going one step further, and prosecuting the more general, abstract form of expressed pro-terrorist sentiment that the language of Bill C-51 would cover.

The law will also allow the state to censor the internet and seize “terrorist propaganda” tied to this new, broad offence.  We are not opposed to judicial orders to delete material from the Internet that incites terrorism, and as such is already criminal. But we do have concerns about the breadth of “terrorist propaganda” and what it will mean for expression of unpopular (and even popular) ideas, only distantly linked to possible violence. We have even more concerns that customs and border control will be allowed to enforce this new provision in deciding what material enters the country.

But it is the proposed changes to Canadian Security Intelligence Service that are the most radical feature of the bill. CSIS was designed with a broad mandate but limited powers. Until now, it has been an intelligence service—which is to say that it collects and analyses information, and supplies threat assessments to the government. When it was created in 1984, parliament approved CSIS’s mandate as one that excluded “kinetic” powers—including the power to arrest or otherwise do things to people in the physical world (except when necessary, for example, to install a wiretap or listening device).

That will change under Bill C-51—although some of CSIS’s new “kinetic” powers will be mild or innocuous. CSIS, for instance, will become able to intervene by talking to parents of a radicalized youth. CSIS also will become able to meddle with property in order, for example, to swap out an explosive chemical for an inert one.

But why must it be CSIS that performs such actions and not, as has been the case in the past, law enforcement including the RCMP? And how will CSIS’s involvement affect the government’s ability to transfer secret intelligence into evidence that can be used in court?

Another problem is that the proposed bill does little to limit CSIS’s kinetic powers to the sort of benign activities described above. All we get in Bill C-51, in this regard, is the stipulation that CSIS agents will commit no bodily harm, no obstruction of justice, and no violation of sexual integrity.

These three items are a cut-and-paste job from Criminal Code provisions that authorize the police to, in limited circumstances, violate the law if officers abide by such stated conditions. But the analogy is imperfect. When the RCMP breaks the law in the course of a police investigation designed, ideally, to result in criminal charges, that behaviour will be tested in open court. When the system works as intended, everything comes to light, and police misconduct scuttles prosecutions.

CSIS, however, faces no such prospect. Its activities come to light only when something goes seriously wrong, or when its investigations morph into criminal processes led by the RCMP.

Bill C-51 does superimpose a special warrant system on CSIS’s new kinetic powers: Where those activities would violate either a law or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Federal Court judge must bless them in advance. But that, too, is problematic.

The obvious thinking is that such a system simply builds on the conventional role of judges in issuing search warrants. However, here again, the analogy is approximate. In the world of search and seizure, judicial warrants are designed to prevent—not authorize—Charter violations. That is because the Charter privacy protection is qualified: the Charter protects against “unreasonable” searches and seizures, and any search under a warrant is prima facie proper. “Unreasonable,” in this context, typically means without warrant.

But other Charter rights—including those endangered by CSIS’s broadened powers—are dramatically different. For instance, there is no concept of “reasonable” cruel and unusual punishment under the Charter: it is an absolute right. To imagine that a court can pre-authorize a violation of this right—as C-51 apparently would allow the court to do—is to fundamentally misunderstand the way our constitution works.

Here we get to a major conceptual problem with C-51: Section 1 of the Charter allows rights to be invaded where such invasion is “reasonable” in a free and democratic society, but only when “prescribed by law”—which usually means specified by statute—on top of being justified by a rigorous legal test. A judge who is presented with a warrant application from CSIS is in no position to invent a new exception to a Charter right. Which is to say: Nothing in our constitutional tradition suggests that a judge is competent, by warrant, to “prescribe by law” a Section 1 Charter exception on an ad hoc basis.

This aspect of our critique may sound obscure. But the ramifications are enormous. Bill C-51, if passed, would allow Federal Court judges to limit all sorts of Charter rights, including the right of Canadian citizens to return to Canada. What’s worse, there is no guarantee that such judicial decisions will be made public, given the need for secrecy in terror cases.

Moreover, there would be no democratic discussion. The British Parliament is having a debate over the validity of exclusion orders that keep citizens who have joined ISIS from coming back home. We are not having such a debate, because our parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque for Charter violations under C-51’s new CSIS warrant scheme.

We could be wrong in our appraisal of how courts will construe these powers. But we won’t know for certain, because any deliberation on this question will be conducted in a warrant proceeding. In other words, all these weighty legal deliberations will be done in secret, with only the judge and the government side represented. The person affected by the illegal activity will not be there, nor likely will ever know what government agency visited the misfortune upon them.

They cannot defend their rights. No civil rights group will be able to weigh in on their behalf. The overall results, we fear, will be an opaque parliamentary debate on the merits of this law followed by a one-sided legal discussion about its application.

At best (the bill does not guarantee this, but we expect courts may do this on their own initiative), the public interest will be defended by a “special advocate.” This is a representative who must try to balance such advocacy work with his or her private legal practice. He or she will be paid a fraction of his or her regular billing rate, will be sworn to secrecy, and made unable to consult often with other special advocates—while, most likely, fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the government is candid. There is no equality of arms in such proceedings.

Shelves already groan with review body reports and Federal Court decisions complaining that CSIS has distressingly, regularly failed to meet its duty of candour in closed-door proceedings. It is difficult to know whether these reports are the tip of the iceberg—a failure to be candid is hard to detect.

The ultimate court decision in such cases generally will not be made public, typically because of concerns that disclosure would reveal and affect adversely ongoing intelligence operations. And there will be no one in a natural position to appeal the decisions. We risk the creation of what is in effect an entirely secret, Kafkaesque body of jurisprudence concerning when CSIS can act beyond the law.

Our expectation is that the Federal Court will do its best to push out redacted versions of its cases, but it will be inventing the process as it goes. Appeals, if any, will depend on ad hoc arrangements, and presumably also require an earnest special advocate with the time and inclination to press matters and involve themselves in endless novel legal disputes (including the question over whether they can actually receive remuneration for bringing an appeal in these matters).

What might all these new powers (court-approved or not) mean for criminal investigations, if CSIS’s new kinetic powers muddy the waters of everyday police work? Will there be viable prosecutions rendered non-viable because CSIS’s undercover activities end up being intertwined in the defendant’s allegedly criminal conduct? We would be shocked if these questions are not deeply preoccupying the RCMP—bearing in mind the historically difficult relationship between CSIS and the RCMP.

With the exception of police bonds and preventive arrests, the government’s legislation package may, in some ways, actually make things ore difficult for the Mounties and prosecutors. Good defence lawyers will demand full disclosure of CSIS disruption and law-breaking activities, making open-court terrorism trials—long and complex to begin with—even more difficult. The Supreme Court already has reminded trial judges that they must permanently halt terrorism trials if they have a doubt that a fair trial is possible.

The Truly Ugly

We have nothing but respect for those who work with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the independent, external review body that reports to parliament on CSIS operations. But SIRC is an underfunded, understaffed review body. Its statutory powers have not kept pace with the expanded power and mandate of the security services it reviews.

In 2006, the Arar Commission underscored the urgent necessity of new legislative tools allowing SIRC to coordinate with other review bodies. But even now, the review bodies are “stovepiped” by agency. Informal efforts to coordinate are rebuffed by the government. As we understand it, the government even has suggested that coordination would violate Canada’s criminal laws governing secrecy.

SIRC needs more money, more people, and a more credible process of appointing committee members. It also requires a renewed government mandate, recrafted to reflect the emerging reality recognized years ago by the Arar Commission.

Not everything in Bill C-51 is objectionable. Some provisions might even be welcome. But without a redoubled investment in our tattered accountability system, the overall package is an ugly one to anyone concerned about civil liberties, and should also provoke deep unease for those looking for a workable, rational approach to security.

Craig Forcese and Kent Roach teach national security law at, respectively, the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law (Common Law) and the University of Toronto. Their book, False Security: The Radicalization of Canada’s Terror Laws, will be published by Irwin Law this fall. You can follow their progress at antiterrorlaw.ca, with additional commentary on nationalsecuritylaw.ca and on Twitter at @cforcese.


  • Pingback: Roundup: It wasn’t terrorism, but support our anti-terror bill | Routine Proceedings()

  • Tyler

    Excellent review, thank Zeus for academics!

    • Gloria Matei

      Zeus? What does Zeus have to do with any of this?

      • Jayberto

        surely about the same as any other ‘diety’… or would you beg to differ?

    • Craig_Hubley

      According to the rebooted Wonder Woman, we have Zeus to thank for her too (she’s now his daughter, like half-sister to Hercules).

      In medieval times the name “Jove” was used to mean Zeus, Jupiter and the Jewish and Christian God. So you are perfectly correct to use the name Zeus meaning any of those too.

  • inky mark

    Well done, hope Canadians get to read it

  • Pingback: Bill C-51– a hamfisted mess | AIMLESS 1()

  • Pingback: C-51– a hamfisted mess | AIMLESS 1()

  • Bruce

    “Bill C-51’s prohibitions on speech that promotes or glorifies terrorism…” So this means I can’t sign Irish rebel songs on St. Patricks day?… The IRA is still considered a terrorist organization…. most rebel songs glorify their deeds…. or do they just mean Muslim terrorists?

    • dave rh

      So you plan on celebrating St. Patrick’s Day by singing rebel songs that glorify the deeds of a terrorist organization?

    • Annette Modien

      How about current terrorists? The IRA is no longer practicing active terrorism if it ever did in Canada. Have you evidence of IRA promoting Canadian young men + women to commit treason by joining enemy armies (which have declared War on Canada). Or maybe you are concerned the the Christians, once declared terrorists + enemies of Rome will have to stop singing ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ You are not worried about where real terrorism is headed here in Canada but you dream up a tempest in a tea cup just to obstruct efforts to insulate this country from real danger.

      • http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm

        Real danger is the loss of our civil rights.

        After all, Canadians are more likely to die in the bathroom http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/04/rick-mercer-rant-anti-terror-bill_n_6803524.html or be killed by a moose http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/03/anti-terror-ad-leadnow_n_6792244.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics than to suffer harm at the hands of a terrorist.

        • Craig_Hubley

          Unless you’re indigenous, then you’re more likely to die from the RCMP dumping you in 40 below outside Saskatoon, or ignoring your disappearance in Vancouver, or shooting at you in New Brunswick. Time for the UN DRIP http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

          • Annette Modien

            Four young people beaten up and hospitalized in Calgary AB by Muslim punks. The punks crossed the street to attack these 2 women and the men because they are Jewish. You think Canada has no Islam problems. In your opinion if one wrong is perpetrated any person can go ahead and add more wrongs, after all there is a Precedent.
            My neighbors dog poops on my lawn so it should be completely understandable if I send my 6 dogs to adorn his lawn.

          • Jim Storrie

            Bill C-51 has absolutely nothing to do with the example you just provided.

          • puskwakau

            That was the City of Saskatoon’s own police, not the RCMP, that habitually dumped FN street people out into the frozen night.
            While it may seem like a culture of hate, remember, it was individuals that were responsible.

        • Annette Modien

          Would you like to be the next Canadian to die because of Terrorist actions? The families of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo + Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent must be so encouraged to know that more people are killed by bears and bathtubs than by terrorists. There will be more terrorist attacks on Canada, they make no secret of there plans. But, hey, remember the bears! How are we loosing Civil right, the supreme court, the Charter, the Constitution will all have to be tossed aside for that to happen.

          • http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm

            Bill C-51 contravenes pretty much everything in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms beyond the parts about language. The thing is, Bill C-51 is not the fault of the Corporal Cirillo or Officer Vincent or their families, so please don’t blame them for the Harper Government’s decision to use their tragedy as the excuse for this.

            Nor is the opposition to Bill C-51 partisan. The draft legislation is so extraordinarily dangerous that people like Thomas Mulcair and Rex Murphy and former Prime Minister Joe Clark and Privacy Commissioners and legal scholars and bloggers and birdwatchers and journalists across the political spectrum oppose it.

            Sometimes bad things happen. Throughout the history of Canada, sometimes people have been, sometimes raped, sometimes murdered. And yet no Canadian suggested our children would be safer by striking down the Charter after Paul Bernardo brutalized and murdered young Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. There is a lot more chance of a Canadian being raped or murdered by a serial killer than there is to die by the hands of a terrorist. More Canadians are probably killed in traffic accidents — probably every day — than have died at the hands of terrorists in the history of Canada.

            Stripping Canadians of Constitutional protections will not make anyone safer… well, maybe it might actually make terrorists safer from detection. A very credible argument has been made that CSIS is sucking up so much data through the enormous amount of mass surveillance it is currently undertaking that it lacks the resources to differentiate between innocent citizens and terrorists.

          • puskwakau

            Unless of course, you concider Louis Reil or the Ontario Orangeman that rode west to kill him as ‘terrorists’
            Bill c51 would.

        • Annette Modien

          Exactly what the C.B.C. says. You have it down perfectly. BTW have you read the bill for yourself? Listened to the debates on CPAC? The real danger, at this time, is the fact that ISIS has declared war on Canada and the rest of the world.

          • linked1

            Harper is ensuring that Canada is and will continue to be a target for retaliation. If ‘terrorists’ are the symptom, then Harper is the disease.

          • puskwakau

            And Harper’s attack on our civil liberties repels those imaginary child taunts how exactly? O-O

  • Pingback: PressTV: Canada’s Patriot Act | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?()

  • Pingback: A Collection of Resources Concerning Bill C-51- the "Anti-Terrorism Act" - Quirks & Quiddities()

  • Pingback: REPOST – with added info: PressTV: Canada’s Patriot Act | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?()

  • Pingback: When Growth Trumps Freedom: the Chill in Canada Comes from our Government, not the Weather « Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy()

  • Bruce

    Almost every song that is sung on St. Patricks day glorifies the deeds of the IRA… Sean South… Grace… Four Green fields… Come out you Black and Tans all classics…. all IRA support songs…. not all are about unicorns

  • doruss03

    Why do we accept people that refuse our culture and way of life? And why do they want to come to Canada? In Japan they don’t want muslims in their country. I have not seen a law for muslims that is strong enough.

    • Mc2

      Im a emmigrant and i say you are rigth why you less enter some one who you have fear in your home? Non sence. If i coming to a new country i need to adaptate to they cultures and rules if i dont love that i can live here is the way need to be, so for muslin or every emmigrant people if you arent ready for adaptation so not wellcome at all.

    • http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm

      Every non-First-Nations Canadian is an immigrant, or the descendent of immigrants.

      • IMtheEggman

        Wrong. You are an immigrant as well. Yes, you were here before “the rest of us” but you are by no means a non-immgrant. Or is there a limit to when we can say we are “original”? 10,000 years? 5000? 500? 250? anyway, it’s irrelevant. Europeans, Asians, Indian, African..we’re all here to stay. You might want to start accepting that.

        • http://www.tomkitta.com/ Tom

          Since man came from Africa all Europeans are also immigrants and they are former blacks ;)

          Lets say put a limit at 5 generations.

      • David Desharnais

        I guess it all depends how far back we want to go. We could say first nations were originaly immigrants from Asia too. Who really knows who was here first. I think maybe we should stick to the last hundred years or so. Or at least where some of the people still live. I am 19th generation Canadian 1/8 Metis. I don’t feel any more entitled than anyone else who is born here. What’s more important is that the different groups, including First-Nations realize that we share a common enemy and threat. Better for us to unite against them than divide and both lose.

    • Jayberto

      absolutely!! and when we get that done, let’s start on the rest of the worlds’ FUNdamEntalists’… extremism in the pursuit of any type of mythological foolishness is to be avoided at all costs and if one examines the facts, is the toxic ingredient which damages virtually all human endeavor. Accepting all others as ‘humans’ is the only path to any sort of peace in our time… and sadly, it is never going to happen. We are ALL in this together, but failure to recognize this and foster mythologies of divisiveness (we’re the chosen, those are … not) foisted on the ignorant and vulnerable by the ‘great leaders’ of the past who wanted only obedience and compliance… still the same today. Our stupidity knows no bounds.

  • Pingback: » Let’s Not Sacrifice Freedom Out Of Fear Olduvai.ca()

  • Pingback: David Suzuki on Bill C-51, threats to fossil fuel critics -The Common Sense CanadianThe Common Sense Canadian()

  • Pingback: Suzuki: Bill C-51 treats fossil fuel critics like terrorists -The Common Sense CanadianThe Common Sense Canadian()

  • Pingback: Suzuki: Bill C-51 could treat fossil fuel critics like terrorists -The Common Sense CanadianThe Common Sense Canadian()

  • Pingback: Climate Change Is Real Threat, Not Activists Calling for Immediate Action - Progressive Radio Network()

  • Pingback: David Suzuki: Let's not sacrifice freedom out of fear()

  • Bruce

    I think you missed the point of my comment. It was pointing out how vague the wording of Bill C-51 is. Laws that restrict free speech no matter how well intentioned chip away at everyones civil rights. Terrorism can not be beaten by laws…. I grew up in Belfast N.Ireland in the 70’s. I was in downtown Belfast on Bloody Friday when 21 bombs went of within 30 minutes…. The British tried laws, Emergency Provisions Act 1972… they tried Internment… imprisonment without trial…. all failed in fact they just strengthened the resolve of their enemies. Canada is a great country but Mr. Harper is copying the American model, keeping their citizens in a constant state of fear, to look like he is being tough on terrorism. BTW the IRA, the INLA,the UDA, the UVF et al are all still active just in a different form.

  • Pingback: » When Growth Trumps Freedom: the Chill in Canada Comes from our Government, not the Weather Olduvai.ca()

  • rokket

    May, Might, Possibly, Could, “We expect”, “Our expectation”, “Our fear”, “We risk”, “We could be wrong” – all the negatives are based on a complete mistrust of our security personal and those in the government and legal system. Not one single firm reason why something in the Bill will cause and injustice. True lawyer speak. Written as a scare tactic by extremist left public rights activists. The article started off clear enough on the items that are good. Then delved into nonsense on the bad items indicating a lack of understanding the pro-terrorist mind (those truly serious and an actual public safety threat will not stop spewing their twitter terror just because it’s against the “law”). But the finish….. I was hoping for some facts – not some biased opinions without any offered solutions of how to make the Bill better.

    • http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm

      Absolutely, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (aka our constitutionally protected civil rights) exist to protect citizens from abuse by the state.

      I find it interesting you accuse citizens of “a complete mistrust of our security personal and those in the government and legal system” for speaking out against this draft legislation which demonstrates the Harper Government’s complete mistrust of the citizens of Canada as it seeks to strip citizens of our civil rights.

  • Mc2

    The way why i see is bad thing is cause even with be a pacific figther you can be tread like a terrorist so no more law who protect normal people

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/harper-environmental-extremism_b_6796028.html

  • Pingback: Bully is As Bully Does: Harper Will Come For You, Too | Just Say No to Harper in 2015()

  • Pingback: A Word from Our Chair: Bill C-51: Anti-terrorism Act | The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs()

  • Craig_Hubley

    Last I saw the term was “advocate” not “glorify”. To “advocate” is very very easy to do even by accident. I do not think there is a legal definition of “glorify”. To mock Harper for hiding in a closet could be “advocating” the shooter’s actions on Parliament Hill, or certainly a charge could be threatened on that basis to intimidate folks.

    “We also are concerned by the bill’s new information-sharing regime, which dramatically loosens the strictures on how the government internally shares data, and introduces a dangerously broad category of “activities that undermine the security of Canada,” which can include much illegal protest. This will be of special concern to anyone who has studied the infamous Maher Arar case.”

    This is actually the worst concern. Chuck Strahl demonstrates that there was no oversight at all on corporate theft and bribery to get access to spy data, even through officials supposed to provide oversight. He belongs in prison for life, but of course there was no prosecution at all.

  • Steve

    “We are not opposed to judicial orders to delete material from the Internet that incites terrorism”… It’s not possible to delete material from the internet. Enjoyed the read. Thanks

  • Pingback: Bill C-51 will allow police to "persecute First Nations protesters"()

  • Pingback: National Day of Action to Stop Bill C-51 ~ March 14th, 2015 | Whoa! Canada()

  • Pingback: Bill C-51 will allow police to “persecute First Nations protesters”: Chief | Cape Breton Independent()

  • Pingback: Some disjointed thoughts on ‘judicial activism’()

  • Pingback: National anti-terror law protest Saturday to include St. John’s | TheIndependent.ca()

  • IMtheEggman

    Meh! Live a decent life and this shouldn’t have an impact on the majority. For the extremely politically active or those with terrorist intent…guess what? And that’s okay. will mistakes be made? Yup. Are mistakes being made now? Yup. Mark my words, this will not affect the vast majority. If you are “marked” there is probably a good reason. BUT…as many have stated, I do think there should be a little more oversight. A lot more. It will need to be watched. Anyway, this will soon be old news and the masses will have moved onto another cause.

    • Murray Long

      I reject the argument that, by leading “a decent life” and being in the mainstream or majority, this law will have no impact. I also reject the rather callous observation that mistakes will be made. A great mistake was made in the case of Maher Arar, who suffered torture as a result. If other Canadians suffer such injustices because of expanded and highly secretive CSIS powers, our society is harmed. Moreover, if this new law forces us to always be looking over our shoulder or suppress our own free speech – just in case it might stray into a gray area – the effect on diminishing our Charter rights will be enormous. it is often the threat of using powers, not their use, that cause the most harm.

      • IMtheEggman

        Reject away sir. Time will prove me correct. I won’t worry about looking over my shoulders.

        • Murray Long

          The Harper government is backing away on some of the bill’s provisions that Craig Forcese and Kent Roach discuss in their article. Good thing people like Forcese and Roach are looking over their shoulders.

          • IMtheEggman

            We all knew the Bill wouldn’t go through in it’s first form. Revision is good. But the Bill will still pass.

    • linked1

      That’s an extremely lazy analysis, and one that could come back to haunt you or yours. You are passively complicit in sacrificing your freedoms to the scheming of a very, very bad man.

      • IMtheEggman

        Not really. Yes it is quite general but I think those that fear this Bill are looking way too much into into it. Too much fear drummed up by these same people…and it’s catching sadly. The Bill will pass in some form..post a comment in a year on how your freedoms have been compromised or challenged. Nothing will have changed.

        • Arrow54

          Hitler was a good man too, and look what he did. Look what Stalin did. Both were killing people by the masses well to ten years prior to WW2. Learn your history, this is just the start if people let this through. The more security the less Freedom. The more war and fear mongering the more the masses of people can be controlled. This bill has got to go.

  • Brent Holland

    failed intelligence sharing and delays in following up on passed on intel between US intelligence agencies was one of the main causes of the successful execution of 9/11. I suspect that after 14 years of a post 9/11 Canada, the short comings of our existing counter -terrorist conventions have become alarmingly glaring and are crying out to be streamlined for quicker reaction time and efficiency. Examples: (something sorely lacking in the above article BTW) CSIS tracks a terrorist plot set to attack an Ottawa institution. Instead of passing on the information to the RCMP and then waiting until the RCMP take action, CSIS can now intervene immediately to some extent, and hopefully thwart impending doom. Its not my belief that the new measures are intended to be draconian; just a modern approach to ever changing terrorists strategies to commit murder. remember the only way Attorney general Kennedy made progress against the Mafia was by extensive use of wire taps. The arguments for that are the same as they are now and will be in the future: how to balance our children’s safety without being under the shadow of Big Brother. Its necessary to debate this. Personally I’ll put kids first.

  • http://www.tomkitta.com/ Tom

    I think bill C-51 needs small refinement in the way of more judicial oversight. Even if immediate action was taken the judicial branch has to be notified and the action needs to be justifiable.

    The main problem is not using the powers against terrorists such as ISIS but “expanding” such powers to others. For example, a small city in Alberta wants to “get rid of” a problem with youth gathering and smoking weed. They enact a legislation making gatherings illegal. Clearly if that law were to stand *any* protest action in the city can fall under the law *at will*.

    In short – we need open ways of controlling these whom we give a lot of power. We want to fight terror but not at the cost of creating a bigger monster.

  • RCH

    Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
    ———————————————————————————-
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

    German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1937

    • goodsensecynic

      It’s not certain that Pastor Niemöller ever uttered those words (they were attributed to him, but no authenticated document exists). In any case, he said it after and not before World War II.

      Anyway, here’s another attributed bit of wisdom (distorted some and roughly recalled only from a fading septuagenarian memory … “If fascism comes to America, it will come on kitten feet. No sturm und drang, no blut und boden, no jackboots … just small incremental steps that will seem reasonable under the circumstances, but will cumulatively erode and ultimately destroy liberty – which we will not appreciate until it’s too late.

    • Chaser Stone

      Nazis referred to themselves as the socialist party… That what Nazi translates to – National Socialist Party. All the worst dictators in the world were self serving very wealthy socialists – Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. It’s the easiest way to sell yourself – through naïve people that think nobody has to work and everybody will still be successful
      Trudeau wore a NAZI hat around town
      Trudeau with CBC cheering him on promoted Mao Zedong (murderer of 70 million Chinese via direct order or starvation – worse than Stalin and Hitler combined)
      Trudeau Jr. said he admires the Chinese government more than any other government in the world because it is a dictatorship
      Trudeau Jr. says honor killings, female genital mutilation, and domestic violence should not be called barbaric – his defense – “I said it three years ago too and nobody cared”
      Bill C-51 is in place now. They cannot keep a guy that just admitted he wanted to commit mass murder and had a crazy arsenal of weaponry to do the job (Dalhousie University). You really think C-51 goes too far or perhaps your just miles away from reality and common sense?
      Just how clueless is the left in our nation and how brainwashed are they from our useless one-side irrational and idiotic media?

  • Pingback: Taking Action against Bill C-51 · thewalrus.ca()

  • Pingback: ‘And if they send in the special police to deliver us from liberty and keep us from peace…’ « colemining()

  • Pingback: The anti-terror bill criminalizes dissent | Cult MTL()

  • Le Franco Nord Américain

    …and those of us who believe greater oversights will suffice to allow Bill C-51 to go forward should take a look at the attached video which describes how NSA gets around oversights in the USA. And don;t fool yopurselves, the NSA will have greater influence over C-51 and than Cdn Parlaiament or juridicairy as a result of close, secretive ties between CSIS and NSA
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40839.htm
    The Future of Freedom: Interview with NSA Whistleblower William Binney : Information Clearing House – ICH

  • Pingback: Conservatives resort to McCarthyism as criticism of Bill C-51 escalates | (Un)Conventional Analysis()

  • Pingback: Conservatives resort to McCarthyism as criticism of Bill C-51 escalates | Ecocide Alert()

  • Pingback: Parsing Freedom | it's all narrative()

  • goodsensecynic

    I might be testing the boundaries not of Bill C-51, but of paranoia here; but, give me a moment.

    In reference to the murders and disappearances of native women, Mr. Harper sneeringly dismissed people who expressed the view that an inquiry into the reasons for this national shame was needed. He insisted that, while unpleasant, these events were simply “crimes” and subject to the no-nonsense application of police work. To make more of the matter was to “commit sociology.”

    Now, I am a college teacher whose courses in Sociology and Political Science frequently deal with matters of social unrest and terrorism. By Mr. Harper’s lights, when I try to explain the roots of social conflict or of terrorism, I may make reference to competing ideologies, socio-economic inequities and so on. In doing so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that Mr. Harper, some law enforcement official or even a student with a heightened sense of patriotism might conflate explanation with endorsement.

    I have, incidentally, taught at colleges and universities in Canada and the United States since the Fall of 1967. I have therefore witnessed violations of academic freedom, the arrest of campus dissenters and so on. In one such case, a professor was accused of “knowingly condoning an illegal act” because he was Faculty Advisor to a “radical” student group (the charge was bogus, but the effort to intimidate was not).

    So, at the risk of annoying him, let me admit that I do not trust Mr. Harper’s good judgement, nor that of his Cabinet Ministers, nor even of all of the good women and men in our always burgeoning public safety forces. As a result, I would like to have this issue further discussed before we get “surprised” in the middle of some dark and stormy night.

    • linked1

      Here here!
      Please use your good sense and cynicism to continue educating those who are easily manipulated by Harper’s deceptive tactics.

    • -Sn

      ” I do not trust Mr. Harper’s good judgement, nor that of his Cabinet Ministers, nor even of all of the good women and men in our always burgeoning public safety forces. As a result”… It’s irrelevant what the legislation says…

      • goodsensecynic

        What the legislation says is so broad and inclusive that anyone complaining about the price of gas at the pump or worried about the possibility of oil spills could be accused of causing harm to the Canadian economy and therefore guilty of terrorism.

        After all, the accusation of “foreign-financed” eco-terrorism (especially with reference to Native Peoples, was first made by Conservative cabinet ministers as a pretext for passing Bill C-51 in the first place.

    • koconor100

      killing people is already illegal. Even killing native females is illegal.

      We need more enforcement of existing laws, not more laws that will be ignored.

    • Chaser Stone

      C-51 Is now in place. A Dalhousie student has tons of pretty crazy weaponry and says he wants to kill a bunch of students and teachers… he is released under his father’s care out in public… This is under bill C-51 and you people living in your mom’s basement smoking pot all day think the government has nothing better to do but spy on you (not you…I realize your an ex-prof)? I think you left wing ninnies are so clueless of reality and you work yourselves up together with irrational thoughts. Promoting terrorism should be stopped – a judge has to approve it – how can you suggest otherwise? The media today is attacking Harper and the conservatives non-stop and promoting the Liberals and NDP non-stop. It’s the other teams that seem to have control of the media (they offered CBC over a billion dollars annually if they are elected of our money)

      • goodsensecynic

        Start by getting your facts straight. I am NOT an “ex-prof” … but anyway, the two issues (a “crazy” Dal student and the massive override of legal traditions dating back to the Magna Carta) are different. One has to do with draconian legislation related to “terrorism” and the other has to do with routine criminal activity.

        On the other hand, arguing facts and/or logic with you is pointless, since it takes you only two sentences to sink into ridiculous ad hominem slurs. (I do not live in my Mom’s basement. I do not “smoke pot.” I am not a “left wing ninny.” I do not “promote terrorism.”

        I do confess, however, that I listen to the CBC and watch CBC Newsworld.

        Id you are a representative example, the problem with “conservatives” (actually neoliberals who conducted a hostile takeover of the conservative “brand”) is that they don’t seem to want to “conserve” anything. They are mainly US-style “Tea Party” thugs who are happily dismantling the remaining bits and shards of democracy.

        • Chaser Stone

          I said “not you” regarding all those points… I guessed incorrectly you were a prof.
          So letting this guy go when bill C-51 is in place… that’s too tough – should he not have been arrested at all (C-51’s key complain is the ability to arrest someone that the police “think” will commit terrorism (as in this case)
          insults aside, why do you think this guy should not have been arrested?

          • goodsensecynic

            As it happens, I AM a prof (just not yet an “ex-prof”) with 48 years of college and university teaching under my belt in both private and public institutions in both the Canada and the United States (including teaching courses in an MA program in “diplomacy and military studies accredited at the US Navy War College).

            As for this case, I don’t know any more about it than what you have shared (too busy preparing for classes), but if the young man had violated no law, I would not support his arrest. I am not in favour of arresting people unless there is evidence of a crime having been committed and a plausible case for believing that a prosecution would lead to a conviction in open court. (That’s how we do things in Canada, despite the shouted claim by a police officer at the G-20 fiasco in Toronto in 2010, that “this isn’t Canada anymore!”

            Frankly, if your account is accurate, I suspect that the student may have violated the prohibition on uttering threats and possibly one or two sections on firearm regulation. Presumably, however, the authorities were aware of such possibilities and acted responsibly under the circumstances.

            As far as C-51 is concerned, I have yet to learn from you what it has to do with anything. If the police thought he was guilty of a violation of the Criminal Code, he could have been incarcerated, but wasn’t. If the police thought he had violated the provision of C-51, he could have been incarcerated, but wasn’t.

            It is beyond me how the discretionary decision making of law enforcement officials can be twisted into a rant about “left-wing” CBC lovers. (I’ll forget the bit about smoking pot in Mom’s basement since (a) she didn’t have a basement and (b) she died twenty-five years ago). I will, however, mention that I have taught on and off for almost the same twenty-five years in a college program Public Security and Police Foundations. During that time, I have made it a habit to “promote” law and order (meaning, of course, respect for the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, due process throughout the criminal justice system and the accountability of police officers to uphold the highest standards of what the lawyers and philosophers call “natural justice.”

          • windummie

            Outstanding rebuttal to one of many seriously misinformed and misguided “neo-liberals”

        • Chaser Stone

          his guns were legal
          he only had negative thoughts (he told only his psychologist)
          he didn’t break any laws
          according to the left wing media, Mulcair (not Trudeau) he should not be arrested
          you guys can talk up a big conspiracy theory but in reality you just put innocent lives in danger

          • goodsensecynic

            I don’t believe in “conspiracy theories,” but I do notice that groups of like-minded people often coordinate their activities in a common cause.

            As for “left-wing” media, you can’t possibly mean much of anything on television, radio or the mainstream press since these are all products of corporate sponsorship and mainly owned by large private sector conglomerates.

            The are, of course, liberal and leftish publications. I am thinking, for example, of “The Nation” and “Monthly Review”; however, these are not generally available on a rack at the local convenience store, nor do they make a tremendous impact in kitchen-table conversations or barber shop discussion groups around the country.

  • Pingback: An Amended Bill C-51 Is Still A Problem: Insights from the U.S.()

  • Pingback: Oh Canada! | McApples's Consulting()

  • Pingback: The Walrus: Bill C-51: the Good, the Bad . . . and the Truly Ugly | Seriously Free Speech Committee()

  • Pingback: Bill C-51 isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a Canadian Issue | Whoa! Canada()

  • Carol Powder

    I think harper is a terrorist himself by sticking his noise into other countries and i hope nobody votes pc ? Its time we take back our country ? And he harper keeps uses our innocent troops and people to make them think hes doing good by killing other innocent people and these foreigners he keeps bringing here all bring their own ways and dont aby by our laws? And isis threating canada? Because of harper! Alls i can say with all these bullshit bills harper makes and all his own little rules???? NONE OF US NATIVES ARE WITH YOUR FOOLISH CRAP! YOU SHOULD ASK US BEFORE YOU SELL MAKE AANY DISCUSSION OR DISCUSSION ON BEHALF OF CANADA ITS OUR COUNTRY NOT YOURS!!!

    • Carol Powder

      And not is it not your country cause you came here and by terrorist acts your people distroyed our people and killed off millions of innocent people and no one wants your bs bill c51?

    • Ashley K. Tanner

      If you don’t vote Harper….. then who do we vote for…? There really is no alternatives..

      • linked1

        A vote for a tree stump is a better option than voting for Harper.

      • linked1

        Harper is by a wide margin, the worst of the only three real options that we’re stuck with.

        • Ashley K. Tanner

          That’s okay. I will stay with Harper.

          • goodsensecynic

            And may you rot in hell for doing so.

            Harper is the most venal excuse for a “leader” we have ever had. No prime minister has managed to finish a single term, never mind a whole decade without doing something admirable.

            Even Brian Mulroney managed to bicker with Ronald Reagan about acid rain, save some trees in British Columbia and quarrel with his economic soulmates Reagan and Margaret Thatcher about the incarceration of Nelson Mandela.

            Harper will leave (sooner rather than later, I dare to hope) a only a legacy of an ethical black hole, environmental degradation, economic mismanagement, a huge democratic deficit, civil rights abuses, anti-science policies, partisan assaults on the CBC, the public service and the Supreme Court, hateful repression of trade unions, terrorist paranoia, systemic mistreatment of veterans combined with stupid foreign wars, misogyny, racism and the hideous image of his sneering face contemptuously dismissing anyone with the wit and the will to oppose him and his pathological positions on any and every topic of public interest.

            (There’s lots more, but this partial inventory is sufficient to make the point.)

          • Oilsandsstrong

            I read your previous comments and thought you had a great deal of intelligence, this drivel just undid all that. Especially with the 2 nuts that want to speed up the immigration process through sponsorship and relaxed screening. Here`s a link to check out some of the positive things Harper has done. But I`m sure these facts will go unread.

            http://cotmblog.com/2015/04/20/in-canada-100-reasons-to-vote-conservative-oct-19-2015/

          • goodsensecynic

            Win some, lose some.

            Sometimes it’s hard to avoid sinking to your opponent’s level.

            And, by the way, if you think what I’ve said here is “drivel,” which parts of my previous comments did you fail to understand?

            As far as “nuts” and their views on immigration are concerned, some of my ancestors came from Ireland – “potato famine” and all that. They were regarded alien low-lifes and practitioners of a degraded religion. I am guessing your attitudes are the same as those that prevailed over 150 years ago concerning the Irish, those that were dominant about Asians at almost any time, and perhaps Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, etc. from about 1945 to 1960..

            How about your ancestors?

            Finally, if you were “sure these facts would go unread,” I can only say that you were sure wrong. I read them and remain convinced that Mr. Harper is the worst prime minister in our nation’s history.

          • linked1

            The list of 100 things Harper did is filled with redundancies, hollow gestures, and patronizing bullshit more aimed at forcing his agenda than actually helping anybody, least of all First Nations or Inuit people. What a farce. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • windummie

            indeed

          • linked1

            That’s a nice summary of our despicable PM, a bit polite and restrained, but apt nonetheless.

      • Chrism76

        Harper has the American Military mentality of going and bombard the crap out of people. In the country the American Warmongers took out (for the wrong reasons 9/11) and can’t fix.

        These people who are bombarded by Canada is adding our Country on their list they now will come here for revenge.

        I thought we were a peaceful Country.. not anymore.

    • linked1

      Harper is not only complicit, but he’s an instigator of domestic and global terrorism. Harper is evil.

  • Pingback: Large Fierce Mammal » Take the Fight to the Enemy()

  • linked1

    I’m more worried about the damage Harper will do to Canada if he is given these expanded powers. He’s a scary guy, it’s hard to even fathom what compels a monster like him. But what’s really worrying is that the average Canadian supports him, though they haven’t a clue what he’s about, except they believe he’s saving them fifty bucks through child payments and income splitting schemes.

  • linked1

    Harper and his policies are ensuring that Canada is and will continue to be a target for violent retaliation. If terrorists are the symptom, then Harper is the disease.

    • Sugarhappygames

      nice

    • IMtheEggman

      Bull. Just because you appear to have a personal hatred for Harper does not justify your hostile comments on the party overall. Are they perfect? Of course not. But if you think your preferred party would have done a better job in general…you’d be dreaming. As for this Bill, all you are doing is fearmongering. You are jumping on the Voice of Doom bandwagon. C-51 will pass. Your life will not change. Your rights and security will not have changed. That is of course assuming you are not a terrorist or have an affiliation with marked cells or subversive organizations.
      And here’s the kicker..all this is already happening and you just didn’t know it.
      Go ahead, you and your ilk can spout untruths and spread fear over this Bill. We need an “other side” opinion but it doesn’t mean a damn in certain circumstances…such as this. If you think this is such a threat, you might want to research other countries security measures. We’ve still a long way to go.

      • JB

        Since 9/11 and the anti terror bill has been pushed in the states, all it has done is create more terrorists. linked is absolutely right. It’s not fearmongering, the fearmongering is in c-51 you fucking idiot.

        • IMtheEggman

          LOL…..Sure sweety. Whatever you wish to believe however incorrect.
          Name calling..priceless…instant loss of argument and cred. Later.
          Isn’t anonymity awesome? One can be so tough with no repercussion.

          • God Damn

            ur retarded lol

          • IMtheEggman

            Ouch! Your rapier wit slew me! (Do you understand sarcasm oh wise one?)

          • gnilleps

            This entire string of comments made me cringe

          • IMtheEggman

            Oh well. Isn’t it horrible when one has a differing opinion? ….C-51 is in effect…and oh look, the sky is still up there.
            All moot.

          • JB

            Calling u an idiot was not an insult, but merely an observation.

            You told linked: “As for this Bill, all you are doing is fearmongering. You are jumping on the Voice of Doom bandwagon”

            You fucking idiot (observation), BILL C-51 IS FEAR MONGERING LMAOOO

          • IMtheEggman

            Sadly (or hilariously), I know you’re not “LMAO’ing”. You’re angry. You’ll get over it.
            I’m sure your coffee shop gang are huddling in the corner by now…in fear.
            Say sport, are the police knocking on your door yet? Are your rights and freedoms stripped yet? Oooh, such a scary Bill.
            When you grow up, you’ll see this won’t affect you. But in the meantime, continue your spews of fright. Evidently there’s people like you who’ll listen.
            The Bill has passed… it is I who gets the “LMAO”.
            One more thing BJ…I mean JB, , get your mother to scrub that potty mouth.

          • JB

            I’m definitely not mad. I’m not the one who has a deluded view on this situation. This probably means u have a deluded view on a lot of things. I’m sure you worship a deity of some sort lol.

            Anyways, I’m not spewing fright, axs you call it. Bill c-51 is essentially that… Spewing fright. Its a tactic to justify actions that actually have nothing to do with protecting us from terrorism. If you can’t see that then you’re a fucking idiot.

          • IMtheEggman

            Silly boy. I’m an athiest actually (if one must use labels). Yes, you are angry. You also have an ego that necessitates the requirement for the last word.
            Still hung up on your patheitic and weak name calling eh? I’ll bet you think that shouting wins arguments too.
            You may go away now. You bore me. Oh…I hear knocking…must be the police! No…it’s C-51…..The sky is falling! Run! lol
            Go ahead, have the last word. You deserve it.

      • Shirley Renshaw

        I chuckle at those who hide behind a fake name. Ooooo so tough. As if I’d take you seriously. All you’re doing is telling me that you’re a Harper lover.

        • IMtheEggman

          I chuckle in general Shirley. I don’t mind “hiding” behind my moniker. I do not purport to be tough. Impossible to prove so why would even try here? Though others make a noble attempt and only succeed in looking ignorant. I insult, retort and the like but I don’t stoop down and call people names. Who I really am is inconsequential. Quite frankly, i don’t give a rats butt what your name is. You are no braver nor a hero for supposedly being the real you. No one cares.
          As for a Harper lover, nope not really. I prefer the party in general as the other two are inadequate. Harper is boring and dry no doubt. But if you think the other two parties would have been better for the economy or the country over the last decade then I’d say you’re dreaming…and you know this to be true. But you and the rest of you are just don’t seem to get the bigger picture in reference to the topic. I am fortunate to have a job that has an insight into and you people have no idea just how serious it is. You go on and on about losing freedoms and rights, I call BS. Look around you. Look at the world. What do you see? Hmm? Do you see a rosy meadow called Canada? Not a chance. If you think all these things proposed (now passed) in C-51 are not already happening then you are asleep. And yet, wait for it, nothing has changed! How about that eh?
          Like I’ve said to others already, come back in year and tell us all how your life has been affected by this Bill. You will find me 100% right. Had enough? I have.

    • JB

      Well said.

  • Pingback: Edward Snowden, Bill C-51 and the scary growth of government surveillance - Loonie Politics()

  • alan iriawan

    please, vote my picture in this link

    http://kaa2015.ucontest.info/detail/image/5653

    picture by Alan Iriawan

  • Sugarhappygames

    i was in a riot against it

    • IMtheEggman

      While the rest of us were working?

  • Sugarhappygames

    Harper is a hater

  • bloggermouth

    The Conservatives want it and the Liberals and NDP won’t fight it. We
    have nothing to fear but fear itself. We are being led by a bunch of
    feckless cowards who mistakenly believe legislating overreach is the way
    to keep us safe when the only people who are in danger are the
    politicians themselves. A nutter goes on a rampage in Ottawa and the
    whole population has to pay for them to quiver behind their pews. Their
    narrative is not mine. My next vote goes to the Libertarians.

  • Pingback: Canadian Political Housecleaning | Laurel L. Russwurm's Free Culture Blog()

  • Et Th

    They are just bringing this to protect us from the muslim invasion .They are trying to bring in their laws.Dont be fooled.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p47GsXbIGbQ&feature=player_detailpage

  • Pingback: Why should you care and what you can do to oppose Bill C-51 | stop bill c-51()

  • Pingback: Big Brother | Episyllogism()

  • Manthan Rathod
  • Glenfilthie

    ‘Protracted Interrogation’? ‘Abusive Interrogation’? Please. These are not things that law abiding Canadians have to worry about; nor most criminals for that matter. Interrogations are straight forward and recorded and the laws covering them and how they are handled are specific. What the bed wetters and snivellers are worried about are the vigilante cops who conduct their own interrogations against the law. That is a crime and the penalties covering it are adequate and severe. So…there, there…there, there little Craig. Your widdle bleeding heart doesn’t have to worry about that at all. Laws like this won’t enable vigilantism.

    As far as free speech goes…pull my other finger, girls – it has bells on it. The liberals wringing their hands over the idea of moslems being muzzled (because, let’s be honest, that’s who we’re talking about) – were silent as church mice when gays were attacking the church, and the social justice warriors took over the media. It’s kinda late to be worrying about the loss of free speech, girls. That ship sailed when you let the homosexuals out of the closet and the liberals started enforcing political correctness.
    For a JOURNALIST or a LAWYER to be yapping about the lack of accountability in law enforcement is the stuff of high comedy. You guys wrote the book on passing the buck, shirking responsibility and thwarting justice, and more than a few of you deserve a good waterboarding yourselves! I would buy tickets to watch!
    In the real world there is nothing to worry about. Nothing is going to change or happen – Harper is putting on a show of trying to protect Canadians. This forces the liberal scum in the media and judiciary to tip their hands – they are more interested in protecting terrorists. Sorry girls, the jig is up and we see you for the threat you are. The fact is the phony concern trolls are as dangerous and contemptible as the terrorists themselves.

    • gnilleps

      Trying to debunk someones argument by spewing sexist remarks… class act.

      • toomanycrayons

        Quite possibly…certifiable?

        “Let’s be honest about who’s driving this idiocy – it’s the women! Women are fascists and socialists by nature. The founding fathers understood this and wisely withheld the vote and positions of authority from them. They were considered by law to be little more than children – which makes sense considering the developments of today, where productive men are fired for telling or laughing at the wrong jokes, and pretty young ladies can’t get jobs because they trigger jealousy amongst the fatties and harridans in HR. Sophomoric drama queens run the universities, and they are to blame for the intellectual wastelands that the universities have become. They do this with the encouragement from beta males, homosexuals, Marxists, and other marginal people.

        If you think the workplace is a politically correct minefield now…just wait. On another thread people are fretting about robots stealing their jobs…well – in tomorrow’s feminized workplace…not even robots will be able to compete!”-Glenfilthie

        https://disqus.com/home/discussion/nationalreview/progressivism_on_campus_takes_a_summer_vacation_national_review_online/#comment-2055795423

        • Marty Smith

          If you swapped out ‘women’ with ‘radical feminists’, I would agree with you. I can speak with plenty of wisdom that this represents a victim culture within feminism, because we allowed women to be unconditional victims after the second wave began to make progress in the 1980’s. Some women too full advantage of that, started a backwards and idiotic ‘third wave’ in the 1990’s which is doing exactly as you describe to a tee. Don’t lump all women into this, and bear in mind, it only takes a handful of well placed idiots to do some MAJOR damage.

          • toomanycrayons

            “Sorry girls, the jig is up and we see you for the threat you are.”-Glenfilthie

            “Well placed idiots”/”girls” like these?

            “Twenty years ago, while still First Lady, Hillary Clinton made a groundbreaking speech in Beijing, setting down a challenge to world leaders: to treat women’s rights as human rights. She highlighted abuses including young girls sold into slavery; women raped as a tool of war; lack of education for girls. Since then, three women – Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and of course Clinton herself – have done one of the world’s most powerful jobs, as US Secretary of State. In candid interviews, these three former Secretaries of State talk about what its like being a woman at the centre of power, how they personally tried to change things and about the political challenges of improving the lives of women across the world. The film reveals the shocking extent of abuses in some developing countries and conflict zones and asks what Western politicians should – and should not – do to promote women’s rights and equality. And as the US waits to hear if Hillary Clinton will make a second attempt at the US presidency, the film asks if America is ready to break the biggest glass ceiling of all – and what a woman President of the USA could do for the world’s women?”

            http://tvo.org/video/213940/power-and-worlds-women

          • Marty Smith

            Trouble is I think Hillary Clinton is a Sycophantic liar, rape enabler, and murderer.

            Her gender has nothing to do with it. Condolezza Rice Was merely average for her position. Unremarkable, but competent, as was Madeleine Albright.

            Please tell me how these women are special merely for being women, and don’t give me that pioneering shit. Greater women lived before them!

            I also finds it interesting you replied to me, and not the misogynist above. What; scared of a little adversity?…

            Coward!

          • toomanycrayons

            Which greater women, the ones being trafficked around the world forever? I take it you don’t like Hillary Clinton. So, what? I don’t see how that improves your specious arguments. You and Glenfllthie are what, 10th Wave Masculinists? Got Internet Brave! if you want it, Marty. Glenfilthie ran away back to his LOL hater silos:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walrusmagazine/coming_out/#comment-2052077214

            “I can speak with plenty of wisdom that this represents a victim culture within feminism, because we allowed women to be unconditional victims after the second wave began to make progress in the 1980’s.”-Marty

            Be the BIGGER victim, Marty. Spare everyone the plenty of wisdom, too. You don’t have the “chuckles.”

            “Ha ha.”-Nelson Muntz

          • Marty Smith

            Ok I take it back… You aren’t a coward. That requires at least SOME intelligence and discretion. You apparently have neither.

            “Be the BIGGER victim”?

            What do you mean by that? Is it because pretending to be the victim is how you get attention, so you automatically assume me pointing out third wave feminism is backwards and destructive is me somehow being the BIGGER victim?

            If I am a victim of anything, it would be the odd occasion of me tasting my lunch twice every time I have to deal with idiot feminazis like you who instead of trying to understand opposing views, simply yell and scream louder and louder until no one wants to attempt to make any sense with you.

            Are you wondering why feminism is on the fringes right now? Why Caitlyn Jenner is more important than your silly little movement?

            Your attitude, and that of you newfangled feminists would be why,,,

          • toomanycrayons

            If you’ve finished wiping your chin go back up the comment tree to my original comment: “Quite possibly…certifiable?”

            You responded:

            “If you swapped out ‘women’ with ‘radical feminists’, I would agree with you. I can speak with plenty of wisdom that this represents a victim culture within feminism, because we allowed women to be unconditional victims after the second wave began to make progress in the 1980’s. Some women too full advantage of that, started a backwards and idiotic ‘third wave’ in the 1990’s which is doing exactly as you describe to a tee. Don’t lump all women into this, and bear in mind, it only takes a handful of well placed idiots to do some MAJOR damage.”-Marty Smith

            So, ALL women had unconditional victim status (whatever that is) until saner (male) minds beat them back, and only extremist “feminazis” carried on creating the “MAJOR damage” tsunami you are BRAVELY bleating about here?

            Your point presumably is that all the problems described in Clinton’s ’95 speech have been addressed; like they say on Leafs’ Lunch, “We get it?” But, nothing addressed in Clinton’s speech has changed. Instead, you’re focused on a tiny fraction of presumed ideologues and use them to distract from the endemic misogyny of the world’s cultures.

            “Please tell me how these women are special merely for being women, and don’t give me that pioneering shit. Greater women lived before them!”-Marty Smith

            You’re the one who’s yelling and screaming. My inclusion of those women was related solely to the program describing the lack of progress. They had addressed it. No men stood out presumably to the film editors. Perhaps you could list the male alternatives along with the “Greater women who lived before” those that were included. You have “plenty of wisdom” by your own assessment. Use it to illustrate how women are not still, if ever, the victims of cultures around the world; that this is the best of all possible worlds in which to be female because you say so. Re-ingest your lunch and get on with your “plenty of wisdom” display. The world has been waiting for this moment to arrive…

          • Marty Smith

            ’95’

            Plenty has changed since 1995. There are mountains of resources available for women which weren’t available then. Maternity leave is better regulated, laws have been cleared up, and governments and labour unions took the extra step and now hire on gender quotas, which I feel is wrong…

            …and STILL you are NOT satisfied. You are still going around like a perpetual victim of ‘male white corporate oppression’, an invented fallacy which as been debunked thoroughly several times over.

            None of you backwards retards will be happy until the SCUM Manifesto becomes law. Admit it! Your lies and nonsense will not wash with me.

          • toomanycrayons

            “Trying to debunk someones argument by spewing sexist remarks… class act.”-gnilleps

            I believe I’m still on topic according to the comment tree. You’ve just lost your “temper” like Glenfilthie. As to how far we’ve come as a species since 1995, watch the video. Some of the main sources of terrorism feature the abuse of women and girls as the cost of doing business. Check your labels. C-51is Harper’s attempt to protect rights by removing them: Bush 2.0. If you don’t think the condition of women worldwide (don’t be so parochial) is your own eventual fate, think again. First they came for those who would fetch the highest price…

            http://tvo.org/video/213940/power-and-worlds-women

          • Marty Smith

            “I believe I’m still on topic according to the comment tree.”

            Firstly you are bringing up something a lying sycophant brought up in the 1990’s. It was already proven she lied here, when she mercilessly attacked Paula Jones, who was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton, into silence. Hillary Clinton could care less about women’s rights outside of any chance she sees in it getting her elected. She is NOT a role model for feminism!

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

            http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-faces-scandal-amid-expectant-presidential-run/

            Ref. ‘The Other Women’

            There’s the true colours of your champion! Now reap what you sow!

            Anything to say about bill C-51 yet? I feel it will put us in line with the rest of the world when it comes to security and domestic terrorism. Many nations looked at us as a potential haven for terrorists before this.

          • toomanycrayons

            “Anything to say about bill C-51 yet?”-Marty Smith

            What, human rights aren’t women’s rights? What is the C-51 controversy supposed to be about anyway? The security of…what? Your ad hominem attacks against the high ranking women in the video don’t actually address the message. Is C-51 meant to keep Canada just better enough to attract undesirables but no more? Just bad enough to inspire the occasional psychopath?
            You’re the one with nothing to say about C-51. Calm down, and try and contribute something not just cribbed from some male consciousness, Free Glenfilthie, love-in site.

            “…we allowed women to be unconditional victims after the second wave began to make progress in the 1980’s.”-Marty Smith

            There oughta be a law, right? Why did “we” ever allow that! Maybe Harper’s base fundies working on it.

          • Marty Smith

            “There oughta be a law, right? Why did “we” ever allow that! Maybe Harper’s base fundies working on it.”

            A once over on that statement easily proves again the extremist you are… You are making this very easy for me.

            We didn’t allow that. Our idiotic media culture let that happen. Graphic anti-rape commercials which actually featured a rape dramatization at suppertime. Went along with those world vision commercials of dead and starving African children… remember? I do. I was about 7…

            Eventually I guessed we became shocked into compliance; Guilted into submission to the neo-liberal mafia, and their total war on truth and integrity…

            Now it’s about 30 years later and my how history repeated itself quickly this time. Usually it takes a radio culture about 100 years or so. I guess the internet changed the game again… lol. It is kind of funny watching North America explode into a self-righteous mess of sexism and racism all at the same time though…

          • toomanycrayons

            “A once over on that statement easily proves again the extremist you are… You are making this very easy for me.

            We didn’t allow that. Our idiotic media culture let that happen.”-Marty Smith

            Nothing appears to be easy for you, with all due respect, but blaming the media culture is a real cop-out.

            “…it only takes a handful of well placed idiots to do some MAJOR damage.”

            In keeping with the C-51 discussion you’re clearly highly anxious about the terrorist threat that “feminazis” represent for Canada. Your original secretly personal “plenty of wisdom” comment is probably code on male victim sites for Family Court custody loses. Internet “facts.” Who cares? The judges can’t be wrong all the time. Glenfilthie, for example, likely got better than he deserved judging by his version.

            “If you swapped out ‘women’ with ‘radical feminists’, I would agree with you. I can speak with plenty of wisdom that this represents a victim culture within feminism, because we allowed women to be unconditional victims after the second wave began to make progress in the 1980’s.”-Marty Smith

            You suggested swapping out women with rad/fems and then went on to outline how all women were the same, allowed to be “unconditional victims.” You then said, “Don’t lump all women into this….”

            Trying to suck and blow at the same time is not the mark of rational argument. Calm down.

          • toomanycrayons

            “I also finds it interesting you replied to me, and not the misogynist above. What; scared of a little adversity?…
            Coward!”-Marty Smith

            Interesting? Hey, I can be online brave, just like you. Glenfilthie came back to tweet his seminal rage into the quiet mist of a long dead discussion. I just happened by; so far no response. Perhaps he can’t find his blue typing pills. Got yours?

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walrusmagazine/coming_out/#comment-2149345129

        • Steph Ahmed

          boy you really are extremely narrow minded, and have no idea what you are saying bashing people who are the majority of this world right now is not cool, we do have a lot of issues in this world right now but allowing the male to run this world and put us homesexuls women and fatties as you stated in a gagged manner will not bring the country forward but backward, every single person on this planet deserves to be treated equal

          • toomanycrayons

            You seem to have missed that MY actual comment refers to the original poster, Glenfilthie: “Quite possibly…certifiable?”

    • Gigi

      So because they don’t want Herr Harper to have unlimited power they’re “scum”? Got it. This isn’t phoney concern. The concern is real.

    • matt10023

      So Canada would never do something so evil as enable torture? How about Maher Arar. The only reason this came to light was because of leaked secret documents.

    • Daviddickinson

      Thanks, Adolph. We really need A-holes like you in our once-proud nation!!!

      • Glenfilthie

        You are reminded, David, that the gay hipsters, elderly Marxist beardos, and the hairy chested feminists do not represent Canada. You may speak for downtown Tranna but you won’t speak for me or any Canadian with a triple digit IQ.

    • windummie

      You are delusional, abuse has and will continue to occur, your willful ignorance will not alter the facts.

  • Glenfilthie

    Stick to the subject, Chickie. We are talking about law, not your vaginal hang ups.

  • BarrysConspiracyWorld

    Makes no mistake, “terror” is a hoax. It is ALL state created. The state created the problem, so it can implement the “solutions.” A CIA whistleblower recently claimed that every single “terror” event in the US was a false flag.

    • Gigi

      Every single one? I find that hard to believe.

  • Pingback: Reading Response 4 | Celina Laurette < INTM 2009 SU: READING RESPONSES()

  • sam

    The good thing is sleeping all day :v lol
    http://www.copalibertadores2015.net

  • Braillion

    There is nothing in the bill that has to do with seven day of detention. When evidence appears in front of a judge, and the judge deems it to be terrorist propaganda and a warrant is issued, within seven days a judge shall issue a summons to the premises occupier to appear in front of court. This is added to the criminal code after section 83.22.

    Then there is seven day intervals for taking samples of bodily fluid by defendants. But this is an existing subsection (810.3(6)) that already lists four sections under it. The section being added is 810.011(6)(f). Further readings cannot find this section, even in the existing Criminal Code. Looks like a phantom section.

    The only possibly worrying mention of seven days is the amount of time the Ministry of transport has to destroy information they received from an air carrier or an operator of an aviation reservation system.

    As for detention, without a warrant, something that has been in the criminal code for a long time is that the detained is supposed to see a provincial court judge within 24hrs. This does not change. What Bill C-51 does contentiously changes about arrests without a warrant (subsection 83.3(4)) is “is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity” becomes “is likely to prevent a terrorist activity.”

    • Daviddickinson

      “Terrorist activity”: writing bad things about the ruling party in forums like this. Sheesh! Harper and Trudeau, YOU IDIOTS SUCK! Now come and get me, morons!

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: Bill C-51: What You Need To Know Pt.1 | Last Weeks News()

  • matt10023

    Since when does “Terror” make it OK to eliminate due process protections? The foundation of our democracy depends on government transparency when it comes to criminal enforcement. Governments do bad things sometimes, and the more opaque the process, the less they can be held accountable to the people.

    Open trials don’t make it harder to convict based on due process we expect. What they do is reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the government’s case, and any abuses they may not want the world and Canadians to know. This notion that evidence gathering must be kept secret used to be used in standard trials – secret witnesses, hearsay evidence, fake evidence, were all part of the Spanish Inquisition. Is that where we want to go?

    • Daviddickinson

      Secret witnesses, hearsay, fake evidence, etc etc were all part of the Soviet regime which happened only a few decades ago. We have become a quasi-Soviet regime exuding communist ideals.

  • Daviddickinson

    The Good: The Conservative Party of Canada has already breached this law with nation-wide televised propaganda, so PM Harper needs to be thrown in jail without any charges being laid and then shipped to Guantanamo Bay for ten years without any chance of trial or due process. Justice, Canadian Style! This is just what our country needs: to become much more like Soviet Russia. Keep up the good work!

  • Pingback: Deja-vu,you-too? | Planned Pedanthood()

  • saj

    Well done, hope Canadians get to read it….

    -http://www.downloadlagu.net/

  • Pingback: Some disjointed thoughts on 'judicial activism' - Policy Options()

  • Pingback: An amended Bill C-51 is still a problem: insights from the U.S. - Policy Options()

  • koconor100

    NO one gives a crud about some terrorist with a gun in their hand, openly praising allah and calling us all infidels. Those guys get whats coming to them.

    What we care about are those who are falsely accused. Did you know anyone can make a 20$ contribution to a terrorist funding organization and stick your name on it , thus framing you as a terrorist ? The organizations don’t ask for identification before they take the money , naturally.

    What are they doing about the people who have been framed, who are not shouting “allah ackbar” who are shouting “what the heck are you talking about ? I’m a good christian , not a muslim ! someone framed me !”

    What about them ?

  • Pingback: Your Guide to the 2015 Federal Canadian Election – Part 4 | Perceptive Insight()

  • Sherry Main

    He/she is sexist. Use they or them or name the person. Bill C-51 is in itself a terrorist act pitting groups against one another.

    Ethnocide, genocide, racism, discrimination, all of the ism’s are alive and acted upon in Canada.

  • Pingback: 2015 Election Analysis | Time Odyssey()

  • Pingback: Google()

  • Pingback: Google()