ISLAMIST TERRISTS BIGGST THRET 2 cANAdA -harper 2011

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html


In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 is Islamic terrorism.


Harper said his government will bring back anti-terrorism clauses that were brought in in 2001 but were sunset in 2007 amid heated political debate.


There were two clauses at the heart of the debate:


One allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believed a terrorist act may have been committed.
The other allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness didn't comply.




The Conservatives put forward a proposal to keep the measures in place for three more years, but the three opposition parties united to defeat the proposal in February 2007 by a 159-124 vote.


We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful," he said. "And as you know … they're applied rarely, but there are times where they're needed.

fuck's sake, sure is wonderful harper has a majority now, and doesn't have to worry about his ridiculous bills getting taken down by any pesky opposition government!

[TVTyrant]

Awesome laws. Good thing America is the only country worse than Hitler, or you'd be screwed.

[Kirby_422]

I don't get who in the world is still voting for harper.. I was filled with such rage when he was voted in. Seriously, who is that stupid to vote for him? RAWR

[leorimolo]

Oh wow get fucked canada. Fuck terrorism, its an excuse for zero privacy.

[Kornman00]

I'd demand a vote audit.

[Warsaw]

The PATRIOT bug is spreading! We must destroy the country to save it!

[Amit]

Seriously, who is that stupid to vote for him? RAWR

Freelancer.

There's an easy way to avoid being detained:

1. Don't be brown.
2. Don't be Muslim.

Otherwise, you're fine :rolleyes:

[=sw=warlord]

All those in favor of reporting Freelancer as a witch I mean terrorist say Aye.
Majority in a democracy, Dictatorship without resistance.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6akvjdp1m1qzfy8mo1_500.jpg

[sleepy1212]

it's our turn

lolcanada

[TPBlinD]

The opposition leader would be dead if he was voted in so......

[Phopojijo]

The opposition leader would be dead if he was voted in so......at least he couldn't cause any harm?

[TVTyrant]

Freelancer.

There's an easy way to avoid being detained:

1. Don't be brown.
2. Don't be Muslim.

Otherwise, you're fine :rolleyes:

Those post represents my ideas and beliefs lolno

[Mr Buckshot]

All I see is an excuse for racial profiling, and for airport security to reach American levels of bullying (if you think street beat cops are bullies, fly into America as a foreigner and those cops will seem like angels afterwards). Because no one really wants to bring their kids to Disneyland, they're all coming here to illegally reside and steal jobs or blow up buildings!

[Rainbow Dash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/07/pol-911-security-spending.html


"It's something we believe is a priority for Canadians, it's something that they've asked our government to do," she said. "We know it's very costly but we believe it's an important part of being a Canadian and having safety as a Canadian," she said.

I don't remember asking our government to run us into debt as fast as they possibly could with paranoid security spending.

[Patrickssj6]

Why is Canada suddenly becoming the new America :V

who doesn't remember all those terrorist attacks on canada...

[TVTyrant]

Why is Canada suddenly becoming the new America :V

who doesn't remember all those terrorist attacks on canada...
How could we forget :fail:

[CN3089]

Why is Canada suddenly becoming the new America :V

who doesn't remember all those terrorist attacks on canada...

the flq was islamist duh

[Cortexian]

While these were in use, they only time the laws were actually used was after CSIS built a case on a suspect that recently moved to Canada from a country known for terrorist activity. If I'm wrong then please point it out, but either way the laws were very very rarely used at all.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Sometimes rights should be sacrificed for security. That's my opinion and I know a lot of you will disagree with it, good for you. Unfortunately Canada isn't going to adopt a "We're going to tolerate and love the SHIT outta you" policy any time soon.

[Rainbow Dash]

Allowing arrests without a warrant is a mockery of our legal system and sacrificing one citizen's rights to "protect" the masses is a joke too.

There is no legitimate use for this legislation, and it should not be resurrected.

[king_nothing_]

Sometimes rights should be sacrificed for security.
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[Amit]

Sometimes rights should be sacrificed for security.

This sounds a bit too familiar. The saying should be the other way around: Sometimes security should be sacrificed for freedom.

[TeeKup]

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither

:|

[Warsaw]

Is it entirely inappropriate to say that terrorists are like siblings who taunt you because they know they will get rise out of you? Like, if a country were to hypothetically stop caring about attacks as a whole (and I don't mean just the government, but all the people too) whether or not they happen, would the terrorists stop because they are no longer actually terrifying people? You have to consider that it might be devastatingly demoralizing to terrorists to find out that nobody gives a shit about whether or not they attack and that if they did, people would simply clean up and otherwise ignore them.

I know, it's completely contrary to human nature, but it's an interesting scenario.

[neuro]

it's what 'most' people do actually.

it's just that all politicians are a bunch of fucking kids.

[Patrickssj6]

it's just that all politicians are a bunch of fucking kids.

no, these changes in laws serve a higher purpose.

[=sw=warlord]

Sometimes rights should be sacrificed for security.
Is it not the right of an individual to choose when and which rights are waived without external encouragement?

[n00b1n8R]

no, these changes in laws serve a higher purpose.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AvUFbgjI8RY/Tj9ZaOoBZuI/AAAAAAAACh0/03aYKbxnnXk/s1600/AllSeeingEye.jpg

[neuro]

where's dano when you need him?

[Patrickssj6]

not that high :v:

[SiriusTexra]

I was going to post something, but then I realised it required a heap of context, so I opted for something more descriptive.


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4001/humpty.png


It's a holy war.

[king_nothing_]

:|
I'll see your Benjamin Franklin, and raise you a James Madison!

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

Both quotes are in my new sig, as well as about 70 more. :D

[TeeKup]

Well played sir! :o

Also well done on the sig.

[Cortexian]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
There's nothing wrong with it if the people who are (temporarily) suspending someones rights are doing it for a legitimate reason. If it gets out of hand and people are abusing it the new laws will go away.

It's pretty simple really. The only problem is if the abuse is covered up, like it likely will be. Oh well, I'm an idealist.

[TeeKup]

If it gets out of hand and people are abusing it the new laws will go away.
Theres this thing with humans, we're easily corrupted and abusive when the situation serves best in our favor.


It's pretty simple really.
I've never known politics and execution of politics to be "pretty simple"

[Rainbow Dash]

There's nothing wrong with it if the people who are (temporarily) suspending someones rights are doing it for a legitimate reason. If it gets out of hand and people are abusing it the new laws will go away.

It's pretty simple really. The only problem is if the abuse is covered up, like it likely will be. Oh well, I'm an idealist.

Key word, legitimate.

[king_nothing_]

There's nothing wrong with it if the people who are (temporarily) suspending someones rights are doing it for a legitimate reason.
Everything is wrong with it. Liberty and due process of law > security, and it's not even close.

You go ahead and gleefully hand over your liberty and protections under the law to them so they can courageously protect you from all the monsters under your bed, though. That rationale has, after all, always worked out really well.


Theres this thing with humans, we're easily corrupted and abusive when the situation serves best in our favor.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - Lord Acton

[CN3089]

There's nothing wrong with it if the people who are (temporarily) suspending someones rights are doing it for a legitimate reason. If it gets out of hand and people are abusing it the new laws will go away.

It's pretty simple really. The only problem is if the abuse is covered up, like it likely will be. Oh well, I'm an idealist.

Listen friend I'm with you that there are situations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfUq9b1XTa0) that may call for these types of measures, but restricting freedoms indefinitely when there's no real immediate threat to Canada is silly.

[Pooky]

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

VOWe4-KXqMM


When fascism comes to America it will not be in brown and black shirts, it will not be with jackboots, it will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Germany lost the second world war, fascism won it. Believe me my friend.

5:50

We're not discussing America here, but still.

[n00b1n8R]

I'm generally against infringing on people's rights for reason's that under normal circumstances wouldn't be legal. This is no exception. If they have legitimate reason to suspect somebody is out to commit a terrorist act, they should be able to arrest them through normal processes without any hassle. Why do they need these special privileges? It's a slippery slope that I don't think anybody could justify.

Listen friend I'm with you that there are situations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfUq9b1XTa0) that may call for these types of measures, but restricting freedoms indefinitely when there's no real immediate threat to Canada is silly.
This link video is unavailable in my country?

[CN3089]

This link video is unavailable in my country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis#War_Measures_Act_and_military_invol vement trud0wns*



*freelancer is from alberta and probably hates him because of his energy policy you can safely ignore his opinion

[Cortexian]

So uh, don't involve yourself with any kind of questionable activity... Keep yourself within the law, then there's really nothing to worry about.

I don't see the problem here. The law(s) is sound, the execution will likely be bad.

[Rainbow Dash]

No, the law is ridiculous, there is no immediate threat, and no reason to force a speedup of our arrest process, when there is NO NEED for mass arrests to take place in order to protect our population from a violent terrorist organization.

The reason our arrest system is set up the way it is now, is to protect from false arrest, and allow citizens a recourse if they're falsely arrested. If this is put into effect all that changes, police no longer require "reasonable and probable grounds" to arrest someone, they can just hold them and then if they can't do shit with them send them on their way with, "oh we thought there were terrists invulved", and then boom, no legal recourse, no ability to charge them with false arrest.

[sleepy1212]

don't involve yourself with any kind of questionable activity... Keep yourself within the law

Looks to me like you've just solved the debate. Now all you have to do is know the law..oh wait, you don't and neither do they and they'll never have to explain it to you. In fact, "the law" doesn't even have to exist because there's no legal prerequisite for your arrest. Only suspicion, hearsay, and accusations stemming from the ever changing paradigms of political desire.

We have a law like that in the U.S. and according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano the ranks of terrorism include christians, constitutionalists, and gun owners. Not surprising under the current administration when, conversely, under Bush it was brown people and commie liberals.

Laws like that only exist because of the ignorance of the people and the desire for power over them.

[Warsaw]

I don't see the problem here. The law(s) is sound, the execution will likely be bad.

Wait. What? And you don't see the problem there?

[leorimolo]

So uh, don't involve yourself with any kind of questionable activity... Keep yourself within the law, then there's really nothing to worry about.

I don't see the problem here. The law(s) is sound, the execution will likely be bad.
Next thing you know, hackers will be considered terrorists. And fuck me sideways if we all havent done somethign somewhat illegal on the internet. Also Oslo bombings were interesting, it pretty much gave power to say "WHITE CHRISTANS ARE TERRORISTS TOO" Godamit its so much bullshit. FUCK THIS WORLD.

I am sorry, but I think their is something very wrong with the world we live in.

[Warsaw]

That's because it's all about the $$$$$$ and there is no love for people as human beings.

[n00b1n8R]

I don't see the problem here. The law(s) is sound, the execution will likely be bad.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/342/dscn3668x.jpg

[=sw=warlord]

I am sorry, but I think their is something very wrong with the world we live in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ty3b4EBMg

[Cortexian]

Wait. What? And you don't see the problem there?
I do see the problem there, but I can always hope that if the laws are implemented they will be used appropriately.

Also, I'm pretty sure if (for example) you were arrested on these new grounds for a bogus reason and they didn't actually have any kind of proof to arrest you in the first place, then you can still fight it after the fact. They can't just go around arresting people and using this as a "get-out-of-trouble-free card", they still need to have some kind of intel or suspicion beforehand. If they didn't then you could easily get away with taking them to court afterwards.

[Amit]

Well, this ain't America. I haven't heard of many unwarranted arrests in Canada so far. In fact, I've never heard of any unlawful arrests in Canada. Should I be afraid?

[TVTyrant]

Well, this ain't America.
Technically it is since you are in North America.

[Rainbow Dash]

Well, this ain't America. I haven't heard of many unwarranted arrests in Canada so far. In fact, I've never heard of any unlawful arrests in Canada. Should I be afraid?

Uhm

Toronto G20 Protests?

[Cortexian]

Well, this ain't America. I haven't heard of many unwarranted arrests in Canada so far. In fact, I've never heard of any unlawful arrests in Canada. Should I be afraid?
I'd say the ratio of unlawful arrests here vs the USA is a lot lower, but it still happens. Just because the media doesn't jump on it (or get informed about it in the first place) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.