6 ms·
> The new disruption powers could permit CSIS to thwart travel plans, cancel bank transactions and covertly interfere with radical websites. The bill says CSIS
by Canada 12y ago
> The new disruption powers could permit CSIS to thwart travel plans, cancel bank transactions and covertly interfere with radical websites. The bill says CSIS needs "reasonable grounds to believe" a security threat exists before taking measures to disrupt it. It requires CSIS to get a court order whenever its proposed disruption violates the charter of rights or breaches Canadian law in any way.
CSIS can now cancel our flights, freeze our bank accounts, and take down our web sites without any due process whatsoever, but don't worry, they need to get a secret court order against us in order to WAIVE our charter rights!
Encouraging someone to commit a terrorist act is now a crime. I expect this will be a very popular law for authorities use their new powers to exempt themselves from.
I'll be surprised if we make it a whole year before this is abused for some completely unrelated purpose such as harassing the administrations critics.
This will have real consequences for freedom of speech online. CSIS has been operating a huge mass surveillance system for a very long time, and today it just grew legal teeth.
- BuildTheRobots 12y ago> "reasonable grounds to believe" (approx) 57% of Americans believe in the devil, so this provision in the bill doesn't really fill me with any confidence :(
- totony 11y agoThat is democracy. 57>50
- Everlag 12y ago'The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' - Section 1, Charter of Rights and Freedoms I like how a single crooked judge can now covertly determine what is a free and democratic society. I mean, this was the case before but it had to happen in the public which had some sense of accountability.
- dblohm7 12y agoNot exactly. The criteria for what constitutes a reasonable limit was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes
- MCRed 12y agoI don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's brought up and the judge decides its relevant. In non-contested situations (eg: only the government is before the court, there is no opposition attorney) there would be no reason to bring up precedents that don't support the governments position. This is part of the reason secret courts are so fundamentally wrong.
- raquo 12y agoAnd blocking a road in protest is now terrorism ("interference with infrastructure"). With the current government Canada is going downhill real fast. Sad, because it's one of the most socially developed countries.
- Mikeb85 12y agoDon't worry, we'll get rid of Harper soon enough. Alberta just dumped a 44-year dynasty, and this is the Conservatives' home ground. Most Canadians are sick of him.
- ZanyProgrammer 12y agoUnless the Libs and NDP are willing to join a coalition, I dont see how that would happen (or one party gains a majority). That's the problem with two opposition parties, both of whom are centre left/left (ish).
- guiomie 12y agoIn my opinion, Trudeau isn't overrated and will get enough votes for a minority or a majority.
- Spooks 12y agoSorry if I am wrong, but doesn't he have very little experience in politics? And didn't he partially support bill C-51
- m_alexgr 12y agoC51 voting split down party lines. Cons & Libs for, NDP, Greens and Independent against. Many MPs abstained. https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/395/ https://openparliament.ca/votes/41-2/395/
- guiomie 11y agoIf I recall his dad didn't have much experience either. I personally don't believe career politician make the best politician.