Bill C-30 being EXPANDED by Committee - Geist

[styky]

C-30
An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet ... l=41&Ses=1

full text of the bill
http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Pub ... Id=5380965

http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-30/

[Number 6]

As was said before.......


"All I did was to post on Freedominion."

[Maikeru]

C-30 is only necessary to provide employment for Lawyers to interpret it's content.
It's time to place a moratorium on issuance of law degrees - hell, taxicabs are restricted, aren't they ?

Parking ticket Justice...

Notices of Violation
Issuance and service
41. (1) A designated person may issue a notice of violation and cause it to be served on a person if they believe on reasonable grounds that the person has committed a violation.

Contents of notice
(2) The Minister may establish the form and content of notices of violation, but each notice of violation must
- (a) set out the name of the person believed to have committed the violation;
- (b) identify the violation;
- (c) set out the penalty that the person is liable to pay;
- (d) inform the person that they may, within 30 days after the day on which the notice is served or within any longer period specified in it, either pay the penalty set out in the notice or make representations with respect to the alleged violation or penalty — including any representations about entering into a compliance agreement — and set out the manner for doing so; and
- (e) inform the person that, if they fail to pay the penalty or make representations in accordance with the notice, they will be considered to have committed the violation and the penalty will be imposed.

Criteria for penalty
(3) The amount of a penalty is, in each case, to be determined taking into account the following matters:
- (a) that administrative monetary penalties have as their purpose to encourage compliance rather than to punish;
- (b) the nature and scope of the violation;
- (c) the person’s history of prior violations or convictions — or compliance agreements entered into — under this Act during the five-year period immediately before the violation;
- (d) the cumulative amount of the penalties that may be imposed for any violation in respect of which section 48 - applies;
- (e) any prescribed criteria; and
(f) any other relevant matter.

Monitored Probation for 5 years, suspected recidivists subject to random cell searches...

Authority to enter
34. (1) An inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance with this Act, enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.

[Maikeru]

Doubletalk:

'during the five-year period immediately before the violation'

Singletalk:
Things you say today, will be monitored tomorrow, for things you said yesteryear, which became a 'violation'.

Solutions in search of problems...

[drummer]

BTT for everyone's attention.

[Maikeru]

Poetry in motion...

And that fascist desire to keep a close eye on what everyone is doing, and thinking, which is precisely equivalent to the former communist desire, has also burrowed deep into Canadian and western democratic societies, in the form of a rigorous political correctness, that insists on the privileges of an elite class to determine what lesser members of the society may think, say or do.

This tendency is common to both fascists and communists because it is necessary for them to maintain control -- the Chinese government is not too worried about the middle class acquiring cars or televisions, but if they have internet access to free discussion of Chinese politics, then that's dangerous.

And so it goes in Canada, especially for those trapped in a time warp where the Liberal Party almost accomplished the feat of a one-party state, or those who hunger for a sharp turn to the left where their collectivist mentality can be enforced, with them of course as prime beneficiaries.

You see, all of these schemes are essentially make-work projects for those who stride forth on their white horses to speak in lofty terms about the public good -- how wonderful Canada would be if only Peter O'Donnell and people like him would S.T.F.U. and follow orders from Party Headquarters.

And you know what, the party may change, but we just aren't going to be following those orders, not from Liberals, not from New Democrats, and not even from Conservatives.

And if that doesn't suit anyone, then apparently the strategy is to isolate us as pretend-Nazis, which is probably the thing feared more within than without for these critics -- they get a faint whiff of their own fascist tendencies from time to time, and it unsettles them.

Surely as progressive Canadians, they are the world's finest people, an elite corps(e) that everyone else should emulate around the world, humanity's finest offering, but with that nice little bit of naughtiness, and an ability to keep track of cultural traditions (such as putting the little women in their place).

But to compensate, bring forth Omar Khadr, now there's a man's man, he even kills Americans.

Yes, this is the voice that sounds from the loudspeaker, the voice that echoed through other public squares in other times and places.
A soothing, cajoling, opinion-forming voice that cannot be ignored because it tells important lies to make people proud and ready to do battle.

We've heard the voice before. George Orwell knew it as "Big Brother" and made no great distinction about whether it spoke German, Russian or English.
Today it speaks Canadian.
And to that voice, I say -- S.T.F.U.

[WestViking]

Ruling stops wiretap without a warrant

High court justices strip police of power, order law rewritten

By: Mike Blanchfield
Winnipeg Free Press
14 April 2012

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a law that allowed police to immediately start wiretaps in urgent cases without getting a search warrant.

The 9-0 ruling stripped police of an investigative power and gave Parliament 12 months to rewrite the law to fix a breach under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling stemmed from an unusual case that reached the high court after the conviction of six men in a kidnapping case in Richmond, B.C..

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge sentenced the men to prison terms ranging from 10 to 18 years in the February 2006 abduction of Peter Li, his wife Jennifer Pan and their friend Xiao Chang.

The RCMP started wiretapping immediately after they learned of the kidnapping and only obtained the necessary judicial authorization 24 hours later.

At trial, the judge ruled the police violated the Charter of Rights, but admitted the wiretap evidence anyway.

Such cases usually get to Ottawa only after a provincial appeal court hearing, but B.C. prosecutors sought and were granted leave to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

The Conservative government's two new Supreme Court appointees, justices Michael Moldaver and Andromache Karakatsanis, co-wrote Friday's ruling. It struck down a section of the Criminal Code that allows police to intercept private communications without a warrant if they are trying to prevent an unlawful act that could cause serious harm.

The ruling made it clear allowing police the power to intercept a private communication without a warrant does not inherently represent a charter breach. But if the police are to have the power to install emergency wiretaps, the justices said Parliament must change the law to address the issue of accountability.

The ruling said Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code "falls down on the matter of accountability because the legislative scheme does not provide any mechanism to permit oversight of the police use of this power. Of particular concern, it does not require that notice be given to persons whose private communications have been intercepted."

Unless a criminal prosecution results from a wiretap, the targets may never learn police eavesdropped, depriving them of the ability to challenge the police use of this power, the ruling said.

The law failed to meet the minimum standard of Section 8 of the charter, which guarantees freedom from unreasonable search or seizure.

"After-the-fact notice... is one way of correcting this deficiency; it may not be the only one. Other effective means are no doubt open to Parliament," the ruling said.

A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the ruling would be reviewed to determine the government's next steps.

The RCMP declined to comment.

The NDP and Liberals both said the ruling sends a warning to the Harper government over its proposed online-surveillance law, Bill C-30. It proposes allowing police warrantless access to Internet-subscriber information.

"It's a big blow to the Conservatives' proposed Internet-snooping bill," said NDP critic Jack Harris. "The court has expressed the same concerns as New Democrats raised from the beginning about this -- the lack of accountability and threat to the rights and freedoms of all Canadians."

Liberal critic Francis Scarpaleggia said the ruling shows the court considers "Canadians' privacy rights to be sacrosanct, and that the government must properly protect these rights."

In the case at hand, the three kidnapped people were released after the payment of a $1.3-million ransom, which was never recovered.

The six convicted men are appealing on a range of issues. Their lawyers will likely make use of Friday's ruling, but there is no immediate impact on their case because of it.

-- The Canadian Press

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 14, 2012 A19

[free_life2]

Here we have the socialist NDP party on the right side of this and the cpc on the fascist wrong any way you look at it side, bizzare!

[WestViking]

Here we have the socialist NDP party on the right side of this and the cpc on the fascist wrong any way you look at it side, bizzare!

Bill C-30 is rotten legislation and a proposed violation of our freedoms and rights. However, I will not trade Bill C-30 for socialist theft and wealth redistribution. We can fight C-30 without Mulcair; his plans for our liberty are far worse.

We now know why Bill C-30 is sitting in limbo and has not come up for second reading and referral to committee. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was afraid that the Supreme Court would rule against him. The existence of Bill C-30 should be reason enough for a shakeup of the Public Safety and Justice Ministers. Our freedoms and rights are too important to be left in the hands of a pair of autocratic control freaks.