Harper's 5 years as PM: Mansbridge interview

[Connie Fournier]

I won't trade my freedom of speech and privacy rights for anything Harper has to offer. I don't even care if he makes the trains run on time.

That's not what I asked... I asked how would an Iggy/Layton coalition would make my life better. That's the choice coming in the next election.

Right now... I am very proud of my country and life is good for me.

Or, if that scenario doesn't work, explain to me how an Iggy/Layton coalition would improve freedom of speech or internet access in Canada.

Okay, I'll answer your two points.

Life might be good for you, but life has sucked for us ever since Harper became Prime Minister. Within six weeks of him taking office, we had a CHRC scumbag registered on our site, and the persecution by government lackeys hasn't stopped for once second since then. We never had one bit of trouble from the government when the Liberals were in power. So, if you are justified in basing your vote on your present financial circumstances, I think we are more than justified in applying the same test...and the Harper government fails.

Secondly, if this government falls, the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act dies. If a Liberal or coalition government tries to resurrect it at some point, I know that all of the people like you who would lay your head on the chopping block rather than hold Harper to account, will suddenly spring into action and fight against it because it will be a good way to score some points against your opponents.

Harper could throw us all in his nice shiny new prison cells and some of you would say, "Just be patient until he has a majority".

[Peter O'Donnell]

Nah, they'll just say we deserve to be there for being dissidents. This is what the commies in Moscow used to say, what's the difference, a big empty country full of heavy drinkers and nine months of winter?

Only their gulag was a bit more value for money, here the dissidents just rot. There, they got something back for the state to sell.

[thepartyparty]

Within six weeks of him taking office, we had a CHRC scumbag registered on our site

I will agree that government bureaucrats are amongst the most anti-conservative people you will find. I don't believe your situation would have been any different had the Liberals been in power. They set up the system and most of these people are loyal to the core to the liberal (and socialist) parties. If the process began days after Harper got into office, I would consider this evidence that this was liberals lashing out at losing the election.

I also don't believe that Harper has any particular affinity for bureaucrats.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

I believe that child porn is an issue that must be addressed. Looking at the law, it would be much the same as wiretapping a telephone and would require a judge issued warrant. For me, this is a step forward in the exploitation of children.

[thepartyparty]

... that should read FIGHTING the exploitation of children.

While there are some very positive things about the age of the internet, there are also some extremely evil things that come from it as well.

[Fabulous Fred]

I believe that child porn is an issue that must be addressed. Looking at the law, it would be much the same as wiretapping a telephone and would require a judge issued warrant. For me, this is a step forward in the exploitation of children.

Riiiiight .... "the children ... the children". This has ZERO to do with kiddie porn, it isn't an epidemic.

That is the rallying cry of the police state demanding you give up your freedom to "save the children".

If you think kiddie porn is a problem then just try to find some online.... good luck, you won't find any. The people involved in this are a small community of pervs who circulate it amongst themselves and there are already all of the legal measures needed to track down and prosecute them as we have seen may times when international sting operations bust and arrest them.

[Connie Fournier]

Within six weeks of him taking office, we had a CHRC scumbag registered on our site

I will agree that government bureaucrats are amongst the most anti-conservative people you will find. I don't believe your situation would have been any different had the Liberals been in power. They set up the system and most of these people are loyal to the core to the liberal (and socialist) parties. If the process began days after Harper got into office, I would consider this evidence that this was liberals lashing out at losing the election.

I also don't believe that Harper has any particular affinity for bureaucrats.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

I believe that child porn is an issue that must be addressed. Looking at the law, it would be much the same as wiretapping a telephone and would require a judge issued warrant. For me, this is a step forward in the exploitation of children.

The Harper government could have put a stop to the persecution at any time, but they chose not to. Enough said.

As far as the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act goes, I'll be generous and assume you didn't read it, and not that you are deliberately misrepresenting it. The Bill REQUIRES our ISPs to install software that will track our every online movement, and it requires the release of subscriber information WITHOUT A WARRANT.

This is not about child porn, this is more police state crap.

[thepartyparty]

The Harper government could have put a stop to the persecution at any time

Short of sticking himself into the investigation... that would have been difficult. Getting involved in quasi-legal processes is not something a Prime Minister can do.

I understand what you went through sucked. The same bureaucracries went after Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. Those events sucked, too. But, it would be a pretty big stretch to think that Harper was pulling the strings on those events (or was even sufficiently aware of them).

The Bill REQUIRES our ISPs to install software that will track our every online movement, and it requires the release of subscriber information WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Not according to the justice departments description of it:

The amendments would create a preservation order that would require a telecommunication service provider (TSP) to safeguard and not delete its data related to a specific communication or a subscriber when police believe the data will assist in an investigation. A preservation order is a "quick-freeze", temporary order, and would only be in effect for as long as it takes law enforcement to return with a search warrant or production order to obtain the data. This is not data retention.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 32388.html


If there is no warrant requirment, then what am I seeing?

[Connie Fournier]

Here is Michael Geist's assessment of the Bill:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4069/125/

As you can see, no warrant is required for an ISP to turn over subscriber information.

[thepartyparty]

I looked over Bill C-52.


The law will only allow 5 officers in all of the RCMP to have the power to make a request to an ISP and those designated officers must be senior officers. Any request must be subject to these requirements:

(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;

(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and

(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

So in other words, these 5 officers can only use this power in order to prevent an immediate crime that will cause serious harm. They will also be subject to audits from the Privacy Commissioner on any use of this power.

Given the nature of child predators and their activities on the internet... this law may have the potential to save a child's life. In my view, the law is reasonable.

[Connie Fournier]

Yeah, I know...."If it saves ONE LIFE..."

Take a look at all of the horrible internet bills this government has introduced <a href=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=131400>here</a>.

Perhaps the other Parties have had enough respect for our freedom that they have made a few amendments...I will take a look at that tomorrow...but, this is the crap that Police-State-Harper has been trying to force on us.

As I said before, he is dangerous and he has to go.

[pirapoi]

So, to clarify (?) Bill C-52 that thepartyparty looked over, is the former C-47 that Michael Geist referred to, and the current C-51 would be C-46.

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-51_1"target="_blank"> C-51</a>

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-52_1"target="_blank"> C-52</a>

[Connie Fournier]

So, to clarify (?) Bill C-52 that thepartyparty looked over, is the former C-47 that Michael Geist referred to, and the current C-51 would be C-46.

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-51_1"target="_blank"> C-51</a>

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-52_1"target="_blank"> C-52</a>

Thank you, pirapoi. So, the Bill C-52 that thepartyparty referred to is no longer in play, is that correct? All of this renumbering is SO confusing!

[thepartyparty]

Evil, evil, evil things do happen through the internet and have horrendous consequences to the victims.

This law is an emergency measure law that can only be used to stop immediate and serious crimes subject to severe restrictions and mandatory audits.

I'm failing to understand your objection to it. I also fail to see how this makes Canada a "police state". Given the proliferation of child sex abuse on the internet, I think this an important step to addressing this horrible problem.

I don't think this is being "forced" on anyone.

[Connie Fournier]

Evil, evil, evil things do happen through the internet and have horrendous consequences to the victims.

This law is an emergency measure law that can only be used to stop immediate and serious crimes subject to severe restrictions and mandatory audits.

I'm failing to understand your objection to it. I also fail to see how this makes Canada a "police state". Given the proliferation of child sex abuse on the internet, I think this an important step to addressing this horrible problem.

I don't think this is being "forced" on anyone.

We aren't even talking about the same bill.

[Connie Fournier]

So, to clarify (?) Bill C-52 that thepartyparty looked over, is the former C-47 that Michael Geist referred to, and the current C-51 would be C-46.

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-51_1"target="_blank"> C-51</a>

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-52_1"target="_blank"> C-52</a>

Thank you, pirapoi. So, the Bill C-52 that thepartyparty referred to is no longer in play, is that correct? All of this renumbering is SO confusing!

No, I see it is still in play, but thepartyparty was looking at a different Bill...not the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, but one of the other police state Bills. I didn't think the text looked familiar so I assumed revisions had been made.