4 ms·

Canada operates as an adversarial parliamentary system, and this editorial is by a member of the official opposition. It has very little in solid critiques, but

Canada operates as an adversarial parliamentary system, and this editorial is by a member of the official opposition. It has very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions. This is a political submission, and there is astonishingly little chance it will yield any commentary of merit. Instead there will be some railing about Harper, trite claims about the terrorists winning, and various bits of partisan dogma.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hnnewguy 12y ago
>It has very little in solid critiques "The government has failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks." "The government has failed to give a single example of how the amendments it seeks in Bill C-51 would be used." "The government has refused calls for more oversight of our national-security apparatus" "It would provide new powers that are frightening to many people." "We will have had only three days to debate this important bill." Good enough for me.
- goalieca 12y ago
  More importantly, the onus is on the government to make a case why they would need more powers. The current government has not justified why they need these. They've plainly said that "canadians are on our side, no need to debate more than 3 or 4 days". That is total BS.
- engendered 12y ago
  You have extraordinarily low standards, then. The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" for even remote contentious legislation is the history of every single piece of legislation ever. It is what the opposition does. A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper". As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy". http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=4 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" Have you been in a bubble the past few years? It is now my default position to expect the government to "make the case" that they require expanded powers to spy domestically. Those are my standards.
ape4 12y ago
> Canada operates as an adversarial parliamentary system Like nearly every democracy. A member of the ruling party isn't going to write a critique.
ska 12y ago
I'm not really a fan of this op-ed either, but the very least, the article/speech at least makes a much more solid argument than you have here. Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off, and then prognosticated that there is little chance useful will come of it. How, exactly, does such an approach raise the level of discourse here in ways the original article doesn't?
- engendered 12y ago
  Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness? It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense. Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight. The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.
    - pyre 12y ago
      Apparently the idea that anyone might want to debate this piece of legislation is appalling to some.
  - ska 12y ago
    What I doubt is not relevant. You claimed that the speech had " ... very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions", but provided no support for this statement at all. That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means. Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself. Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now". This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hnnewguy 12y ago

>It has very little in solid critiques "The government has failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks." "The government has failed to give a single example of how the amendments it seeks in Bill C-51 would be used." "The government has refused calls for more oversight of our national-security apparatus" "It would provide new powers that are frightening to many people." "We will have had only three days to debate this important bill." Good enough for me.

goalieca 12y ago
More importantly, the onus is on the government to make a case why they would need more powers. The current government has not justified why they need these. They've plainly said that "canadians are on our side, no need to debate more than 3 or 4 days". That is total BS.
engendered 12y ago
You have extraordinarily low standards, then. The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" for even remote contentious legislation is the history of every single piece of legislation ever. It is what the opposition does. A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper". As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy". http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=4 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" Have you been in a bubble the past few years? It is now my default position to expect the government to "make the case" that they require expanded powers to spy domestically. Those are my standards.

ape4 12y ago

> Canada operates as an adversarial parliamentary system Like nearly every democracy. A member of the ruling party isn't going to write a critique.

ska 12y ago

I'm not really a fan of this op-ed either, but the very least, the article/speech at least makes a much more solid argument than you have here. Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off, and then prognosticated that there is little chance useful will come of it. How, exactly, does such an approach raise the level of discourse here in ways the original article doesn't?

engendered 12y ago
Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness? It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense. Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight. The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.
  - pyre 12y ago
    Apparently the idea that anyone might want to debate this piece of legislation is appalling to some.
- ska 12y ago
  What I doubt is not relevant. You claimed that the speech had " ... very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions", but provided no support for this statement at all. That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means. Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself. Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now". This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.