Harper's 5 years as PM: Mansbridge interview

[Fabulous Fred]

You can try to descredit me, but my point stands.

Geist was highly selective in what he plucked from the bills, without providing full context.

You discredit yourself.

It appears to be the alleged "selectivity" you decry, not a word against the draconian legislation.

You say that you aren't affiliated with any political party, fair enough I'll accept your word on that, but be aware you could not appear to be more of a CPC hack if you set to appear so.

Apologists are merely judas cows who try to reassure and knowingly lead the rest to their demise.

Are you an apologist?

[thepartyparty]

Your allegation that he is "not taking it in context" without providing any evidence just doesn't hold any weight.

I provided the context of the bill. Only 5 senior members of the RCMP will be designated such to allow them to make a request for an IP address and only for the purpose of preventing an immediate and serious crime. under these conditions:

(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.

All activities are subject to full audit by the privacy commissioner and reports are to be issued to Parliamentary committees.

Geist conveniently forgets to mention any of this.

[thepartyparty]

when these bills are passed governments will be just as selective as to how they are interpreted.

Everything in these bills requires a court ordered warrant or production order. The police can only make a request for an IP address to prevent and immediate and serious crime (and under strict restrictions).


Yesterday, I sat in the sentencing hearing of a guy that was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. The man had hundreds of pictures and videos of children under 14 in which they were subject to bondage, intercourse, incest, etc. and traded them with other perverts around the world like baseball cards.

The man had no remorse for what he had done and the system of child exploitation that he was a part of. I got the impression that as soon as he was released, he would go back to his life of using children for his sexual gratification.

Laws, like the ones proposed here, will help stop monsters like him.

[thepartyparty]

be aware you could not appear to be more of a CPC hack if you set to appear so.

But, on the postive side, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think of me.

[pirapoi]

This Michale Geist link has been previoulsy mentioned.

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

Government Introduces Bill To Require Surveillance Capabilities, Mandated Subscriber Disclosure
Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act
Thursday June 18, 2009

It concerns Bills C-46 and C-47.
Those bills both died December 30, 2009 when Parliament was prorogued.

C-47 has been reintroduce as C-52, and to my (admittedly) untrained eye, they appear to be the same.

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4007628&Language=e&Mode=1&File=29"target="_blank"> C-47</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&File=29"target="_blank"> C-52</a>

C-51, which starts similarly to C-46 seems different.

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4008179&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24"target="_blank"> C-46</a>

<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-51_1&File=24"target="_blank"> C-51</a>

There is a newer ( Nov 16, 2010) Michael Geist column
<a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5451/135/"target="_blank"> Here</a>

The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities goes back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks along with additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information.

Apparently there is a 3rd bill tied in with C-51 and C-52 -<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4740653&Language=e&Mode=1"target="_blank"> C-50</a>

The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities goes back to 1999
/ who was in power then?

Also worth repeating is this quote of Geist's from the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act (46 & 47) page

Although I can only go on government releases, the approach appears to be very similar to the Liberal lawful access bill of 2005 that died on the order paper

For my money changing governments to try and protect internet freedom is frying pan to fire.
There (hopefully) must be a better way.

[doggedlyright]

when these bills are passed governments will be just as selective as to how they are interpreted.

Everything in these bills requires a court ordered warrant or production order. The police can only make a request for an IP address to prevent and immediate and serious crime (and under strict restrictions).


Yesterday, I sat in the sentencing hearing of a guy that was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. The man had hundreds of pictures and videos of children under 14 in which they were subject to bondage, intercourse, incest, etc. and traded them with other perverts around the world like baseball cards.

The man had no remorse for what he had done and the system of child exploitation that he was a part of. I got the impression that as soon as he was released, he would go back to his life of using children for his sexual gratification.

Laws, like the ones proposed here, will help stop monsters like him.

1. given the track record of the RCMP, I would not trust any of the members of the force. So anyone of these 5 can decide to go rogue and do what they want.

2. These laws will never stop perverts like that man.

The problem I have, is there are already laws on the books to go before judges to demand identity of a suspect. Judges are on call 24 hours a day for that purpose and yes even on holidays.

No new law was needed. Just another example of legislator's thinking they have to create new legislation.

[styky]

when these bills are passed governments will be just as selective as to how they are interpreted.

Everything in these bills requires a court ordered warrant or production order. The police can only make a request for an IP address to prevent and immediate and serious crime (and under strict restrictions).


Yesterday, I sat in the sentencing hearing of a guy that was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. The man had hundreds of pictures and videos of children under 14 in which they were subject to bondage, intercourse, incest, etc. and traded them with other perverts around the world like baseball cards.

The man had no remorse for what he had done and the system of child exploitation that he was a part of. I got the impression that as soon as he was released, he would go back to his life of using children for his sexual gratification.

Laws, like the ones proposed here, will help stop monsters like him.

Yes as you say that would be a good thing, however there must be steel trap provisions in place so the it could not be twisted to meet another agenda.

[Peter O'Donnell]

I think what worries me about this whole child-porn legislation push is the potential for abuse down the road. I am not accusing the Harper gov't of anything in this regard. But think about this scenario -- the next Liberal gov't could contain elements of the Liberal blogosphere, people who are very computer savvy and wouldn't be above suggesting to cabinet that they use the legislation to shame political opponents. Planting this stuff on anyone's hard drive, or even just saying it's there after taking away your computer(s), is as easy here as it would be in the former Soviet Union or today's China or other totalitarian countries.

There is no reasonable basis for us to trust the present or future government, especially as more broadly defined (the civil service) in this regard. I know from my own life experience that these people have no scruples and no morals. If they want to destroy somebody, they will do it and not think twice because to them, it is "the right thing to do" to "advance Canadian values" or whatever the current neo-Marxist lexicon is.

I don't know if we have reached that state or not, but I don't trust our government on this at all, it's the same thing with taxation issues and potentially many other things besides -- either a false record can be created, or minor infractions can be blown up into pretext for arrest and social shaming exercises. With child porn, all they need to do is to smear a person with allegations, the actual proof is almost beside the point with that sort of thing.

This has, of course, already been done with loose accusations of "neo-Nazism" applied much more broadly than I would apply it, racism almost a given for anyone right of centre, homophobia a slur word for anyone with moral concerns or reasonable questions about consequences of social changes, the whole nine yards of political correctness -- and we just can't trust our governments because they are led by people who either don't understand these issues, or don't care because they just want power and if lives are ruined in the process, too bad so what?

That's the way Canada has always been -- if I get my economic slice, then who cares what happens down the road out of sight? The poor can all go to the east side of Vancouver and die in an alley some place, who cares about them? The political dissidents can be tied up in court for twenty years, who cares about them? I have my house, my SUV and my boat, and screw you.

That was how I always perceived the Liberals, but now Harper seems to have shifted the template to blue. Is that conservatism, no -- it's Ayn Rand style libertarianism, don't care about anyone but yourself. And there's absolutely NOTHING Christian about it, by the way, for you "gospel of wealth" types. Welfare and nanny state, maybe not such a great thing, but just walking away from the poor, not the only alternative. When the poor have been created through deliberate public policy, then there is something that needs to be fixed.

And when the law is organized tyranny, then we have no real "government of laws" but government by lawyers, and that's a much different proposition.

[Fabulous Fred]

when these bills are passed governments will be just as selective as to how they are interpreted.

Everything in these bills requires a court ordered warrant or production order. The police can only make a request for an IP address to prevent and immediate and serious crime (and under strict restrictions).


Yesterday, I sat in the sentencing hearing of a guy that was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. The man had hundreds of pictures and videos of children under 14 in which they were subject to bondage, intercourse, incest, etc. and traded them with other perverts around the world like baseball cards.

The man had no remorse for what he had done and the system of child exploitation that he was a part of. I got the impression that as soon as he was released, he would go back to his life of using children for his sexual gratification.

Laws, like the ones proposed here, will help stop monsters like him.

Really? I thought you said he was already in court on charges?

How did THAT happen I'd like to know.

How will the police state have any more effect than is already taking place?

You are concerned he will return to kiddie porn without missing a beat, how can he?

How will the police state regulations change that?

[pirapoi]

Michael Geist Column - Thursday December 16, 2010 <br>
On May 11, 2004, the Government launched Canada's Task Force on Spam. I was honoured to participate on the Task Force, which unanimously recommended anti-spam legislation its report issued on May 17, 2005. Yesterday - 2038 days after the release of the report - Bill C-28, the anti-spam bill, received royal assent.

<a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5525/196/"target="_blank"> Source</a>

If I'm not mistaken, C-28 is a reworked version of C-27 -Electronic Commerce Protection Act - one of the original 6 bills in the 'Harper Conservatives' relentless attack on the internet' thread.

/ it would be nice to have some sort of scorecard to see what is dangerous, what isn't, and what stage these bills are at.

[Connie Fournier]

Your allegation that he is "not taking it in context" without providing any evidence just doesn't hold any weight.

I provided the context of the bill. Only 5 senior members of the RCMP will be designated such to allow them to make a request for an IP address and only for the purpose of preventing an immediate and serious crime. under these conditions:

(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.

All activities are subject to full audit by the privacy commissioner and reports are to be issued to Parliamentary committees.

Geist conveniently forgets to mention any of this.

And you, conveniently, keep talking about the less dangerous of the two Bills. The warrantless access to subscriber information that Geist was talking about is in the OTHER Bill.

I'm beginning to think you are doing this deliberately.

[thepartyparty]

My points have been about the contents of Bill C-51 and Bill C-52.
The warantless stuff Geist is talking about is selectively plucking out of Bill C-52.

What in Bill C-50 are you referring to?

[Connie Fournier]

At this point, I only want the government to fall so that these Bills die. It will give us time to organize against them the next time they reappear.

If the Liberals or a coalition form the next government, at least we will have more conservatives to help us fight. If (God forbid) Stephen Harper wins a majority, we will have another chance to try to educate people, and maybe try to team up with some people on the left to fight it, but the deck will be stacked against us.

[pirapoi]

50. 51 and 52 are all on their 1st reading in the HOC.

1st Reading October 29, 2010
<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7132&List=stat"target="_blank"> C-50</a>
1st Reading November 1st, 2010
<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7133&List=stat"target="_blank"> C-51</a>
1st Reading November 1st, 2010
<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7134&List=stat"target="_blank"> C-52</a>

I took a look at Bill C-54 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) to see if it might be internet connected, but it seems to be more of a nuts and bolts - defining the crime/prison terms etc.

One thing I did find interesting though is the fact that even though it was introduced after C-50,1 and 2, - it is already on its 2nd reading.

1st Reading November 4, 2010
2nd Reading December 6, 2010
<a href="http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=7138&List=stat"target="_blank"> C-54</a>

[thepartyparty]

I don't think this is a Stephen Harper thing. I'm conservative and I support these bills. I don't think having them introduced by a Liberal government would change that. I find the legislation to be both reasonable and necessary.