6 ms·

C-51 is a proposed anti-terror law that gives "secret police" powers (the ability for intelligence organizations to detain a suspect without charge for up to a

C-51 is a proposed anti-terror law that gives "secret police" powers (the ability for intelligence organizations to detain a suspect without charge for up to a week) and broad eavesdropping and surveillance powers without oversight (the traditional oversight body was dismantled a year ago).

dmix 11y ago
In addition, it gives our version of NSA, the CSE, more powers to spy on people domestically - more accurately allowing CSE to share the information it is already collecting on Canadians with our domestic law enforcement agencies. So it will no longer simply be a foreign surveillance agency. It will allow police to take down “terrorist propaganda” online. It will create a secret no-fly list in Canada. It will allow our health agencies and our tax agency (CRA our version of the IRS) to share information with our federal police. Among others: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill-c-51-how-the-anti-terrorism-bill-undermines-canadian-privacy/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill... It also includes plans to expand the amount of data-sharing with the NSA and other five eyes. So I'm sure the Americans are backing this bill too, which Harper is famous for appeasing.
- steamy 11y ago
  So, the Parliament shooting was a false flag to take away the people's rights?
  - clord 11y ago
    Unlikely. It was a terrible thing that is being taken advantage of by politicians to advance their agenda of increasing their own power.
    - steamy 11y ago
      They either had prior knowledge of the matter and let it happen so they can reap the benefits of the police state, or they helped the perpetrator whether directly or indirectly to commit his crime and then stage this soft coup.
      - fysac 11y ago
        Where is your evidence of that?
        steamy 11y ago
        A plausible theory, that's all!
        yarrel 11y ago
        You're clearly an agent provocateur. Hey, it's a plausible theory...
        themartorana 11y ago
        Before Snowden, I would laugh at him with you. Now... I have a hard time dismissing anything as conspiracy theory nut-baggery...
        mcantelon 11y ago
        False flags, although risky, are probably the cheapest way to create an atmosphere conducive to change. Was the Parliament shooting a false flag? Who knows. The bottom line is govs seem to have repressive legislation sitting around to push whenever bad things happen. My guess is the West's governments anticipate unrest as a long-term consequence of economic globalization and they want to consolidate power in advance.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        The bigger loss is that even if we think a false flag operation to be extremely unlikely, we no longer rate it as impossible. Then again, anyone who was rating them as impossible pre-Snowden hadn't been paying attention to history.
      - afarrell 11y ago
        Sigh... Someone should write up a list of ways to evaluate the plausibility of conspiracy theories that actually has a basis in game theory and the way organizations work.
- nota_bene 11y ago
  We have just set up a Campaign for email encryption (join it!): https://www.iwoulddo.it/en/campaigns/2949/email-encryption https://www.iwoulddo.it/en/campaigns/2949/email-encryption This Campaign allows for a coordinated migration of your "social network" towards encryption b/c: Encryption can't be done alone and is often prevented by the fact that people ignore if/when their friends are willing to join them in their effort - an answer we can generate using the "conditional pledge" ("I'll set up encryption if Alice, Bob and Chris encrypt as well").
badloginagain 11y ago
The political context the bill is being pushed through in is interesting. It's an election year (9(?) months away) and the bottoming out of the oil market has put a lot of pressure on the incumbent Conservative party. The Conservatives have had a perception of being good for the economy, and weak oil prices have really hit their base (Alberta's economy has completely stalled in the last few months, and a provincial election going on there right now has the 42 year incumbent party in third place). The Conservatives are in damage control mode, trying to shore up there base with this Anti-terror bill, a balanced budget, and attack ads.
- badloginagain 11y ago
  Just to add an addendum to this, the decade the Conservative party has been in power has transformed the economic landscape in Canada- it is now wholly dependent on the strength of the oil industry. The Albertan tar-sands is an especially expensive form of oil extraction- break-even prices around the $70-$80 mark. With the loss of the Keystone XL and continued pressure on the Northern Gateway pipelines; Canada has a lot of over-priced oil and limited means of shipping it. The problem with a oil dependent economy is that it's at odds with the "classic" Canadian economy- manufacturing/production and trades that directly benefit from low Canadian dollar. If oil does well, it raises the dollar and stresses one side of the economy; if oil does poorly manufacturing is strengthened but the overall health of economy falters. It's a very precarious position that the Canadian government has put itself in and could result in some very long-term (on order of decades) problems to fully develop.
  - cbowal 11y ago
    Out of curiosity - isn't an economy more diversified (and thus stabilized) by having both manufacturing (which benefits from a low $CAD) and oil (which benefits a high $CAD)?
    - afarrell 11y ago
      yep, but without a large pool of internal demand to buffer things, these two work against each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
omfg... can we please have a body count in western countries proposing these laws. And can we then please put that into perspective? (e.g. compare it to traffic casualties) And then look at the price we're willing to pay (ridiculous amounts of corrupting power without oversight that affects mostly innocent people)? For example, let's take one of the countries with the gravest terrorist threat: Israel. Its civilian deaths from any mortar attack from Gaza (let's assume 100% terrorism) in the past 14 years? 30. Now how many people die in traffic in Israel every year? Today about 260, in 2000 about 450, let's average that at 350. Alright, so in 14 years, 30 civilian deaths from rocket terror attacks, and about 5.000 people dead in traffic. Now obviously, that's 30 and 5.000 to many, respectively. And if we can prevent them, we should. But when these are the numbers for a country under what is considered some of the greatest threats of terrorism, and still its terrorism casualties pale in comparison with its traffic casualties... do we really want to pay the price by implementing ridiculous anti-terror laws in a place where it's much safer, and where thus this gap is much, much bigger, like Canada? I mean, let's look at Canada. Does anyone know some stats on e.g. loss of life due to terror attacks in Canada for say the past 10 years? I know more than 2.000 people die in traffic every year. I can hardly find any substantial casualties in Canadian terrorism history. I'm familiar with a few shootings where one or two people died. Regular homicide numbers (or e.g. traffic casualties) humble the stats. I remember in the 80s, 30 years ago now, a plane was bombed, not in Canada, over Irish airspace, but it had departed from Montreal so you could call it terrorism in Canada in a way. But that was by a Sikh group who wanted to target India (India Airways airplane going to India) rather than Canada, so you could also argue it was terrorism concerning India. That was horrible in any case, over 300 people died. Other than that, it's been small-time as far as I know. A few (fire) bombings without casualties, some marxist attacks, a soldier attacking members of a political party. In fact I think the worst one (after the aircraft) was an American soldier who killed 3 people. Now of course I appreciate these casualties ought to stay insignificant. The fact terrorism barely registers in stats in most OECD countries is a great thing, and I agree we should keep it that way. But at what cost? We don't ban alcohol or driving either, when they're our biggest threats. We don't shut down factories when global warming will, at current pace, kill billions of future people. I'm completely for fighting terrorism, but I also believe the tools we employ have to be proportional. And this NSA type stuff, surveillance without oversight, detaining without a charge, none of that is proportional and it doesn't seem necessary, either. We have yet to hear of major terror attacks that such programs prevented. Yet government is all too willing to give up a great piece of modern society, a piece that makes these countries great to live in. Anyway that's just my two cents. Apologies for what is obviously a silly comparison (traffic & terrorism casualties), and yes I appreciate terrorism is more than a casualty number. But I'm trying to show here that our legislative response is out of proportion and I hope people see that.
xnull2guest 11y ago
C-51, like the NSA legislation inside the United States, France, the Five Eyes, Germany, Japan, and like the reaches made by Russia and China do not have anything to do with terrorism. Terrorism is the excuse these countries use to get the laws to pass by their citizens. What's going on is that the global order of power is shifting and recent advances in technology have enabled ~40 minute intercontinental nuclear strikes (using hybersonic delivery vehicles, etc). NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions are being challenged and rising populations and emerging economies will soon shift economics for the next half century in favor of nations in the Asia Pacific. By its Wolfowitz Doctrine and by similar postures of allies, the Western world has to do what it can do to land gently (or be the better bombers) into whatever world comes next. Internet surveillance, mass propaganda, high altitude missile defense batteries, satellite kill vehicles - all of this is due to hollowing out of the old institutions of world order and the challenges of a new one. The debate therefore needs to be about how necessary these capabilities are for bringing about whatever new world there will be with as little possibility for violence as possible - not another fake conversation about terrorism.
- zymhan 11y ago
  I got to "Bretton Woods" and realized you had gone off the rails.
  - xnull2guest 11y ago
    I'm willing to defend any statement you find 'off the rails' with evidenced and falsifiable statements. With regard to the Bretton Woods System, the AIIB has gotten sign off from European allies despite the US's efforts to keep the AIIB underwater. Paired with the BRICS bank and Asean trade deals the IMF and World Bank are being seriously challenged in their ability to make strategic infrastructure investments. If you would like an example of what that looks like: the AIIB is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in Pakistan and more broadly Eurasia to build out oil pipelines and trade routes - a land route in Eurasia to pair with South China Sea and Indian Sea trade routes for China's "new silk road". Please feel encouraged to ask more questions.

dmix 11y ago

In addition, it gives our version of NSA, the CSE, more powers to spy on people domestically - more accurately allowing CSE to share the information it is already collecting on Canadians with our domestic law enforcement agencies. So it will no longer simply be a foreign surveillance agency. It will allow police to take down “terrorist propaganda” online. It will create a secret no-fly list in Canada. It will allow our health agencies and our tax agency (CRA our version of the IRS) to share information with our federal police. Among others: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill-c-51-how-the-anti-terrorism-bill-undermines-canadian-privacy/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/03/a-conversation-about-bill... It also includes plans to expand the amount of data-sharing with the NSA and other five eyes. So I'm sure the Americans are backing this bill too, which Harper is famous for appeasing.

steamy 11y ago
So, the Parliament shooting was a false flag to take away the people's rights?
- clord 11y ago
  Unlikely. It was a terrible thing that is being taken advantage of by politicians to advance their agenda of increasing their own power.
  - steamy 11y ago
    They either had prior knowledge of the matter and let it happen so they can reap the benefits of the police state, or they helped the perpetrator whether directly or indirectly to commit his crime and then stage this soft coup.
    - fysac 11y ago
      Where is your evidence of that?
      - steamy 11y ago
        A plausible theory, that's all!
        yarrel 11y ago
        You're clearly an agent provocateur. Hey, it's a plausible theory...
        themartorana 11y ago
        Before Snowden, I would laugh at him with you. Now... I have a hard time dismissing anything as conspiracy theory nut-baggery...
        mcantelon 11y ago
        False flags, although risky, are probably the cheapest way to create an atmosphere conducive to change. Was the Parliament shooting a false flag? Who knows. The bottom line is govs seem to have repressive legislation sitting around to push whenever bad things happen. My guess is the West's governments anticipate unrest as a long-term consequence of economic globalization and they want to consolidate power in advance.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        The bigger loss is that even if we think a false flag operation to be extremely unlikely, we no longer rate it as impossible. Then again, anyone who was rating them as impossible pre-Snowden hadn't been paying attention to history.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      Sigh... Someone should write up a list of ways to evaluate the plausibility of conspiracy theories that actually has a basis in game theory and the way organizations work.
nota_bene 11y ago
We have just set up a Campaign for email encryption (join it!): https://www.iwoulddo.it/en/campaigns/2949/email-encryption https://www.iwoulddo.it/en/campaigns/2949/email-encryption This Campaign allows for a coordinated migration of your "social network" towards encryption b/c: Encryption can't be done alone and is often prevented by the fact that people ignore if/when their friends are willing to join them in their effort - an answer we can generate using the "conditional pledge" ("I'll set up encryption if Alice, Bob and Chris encrypt as well").

badloginagain 11y ago

The political context the bill is being pushed through in is interesting. It's an election year (9(?) months away) and the bottoming out of the oil market has put a lot of pressure on the incumbent Conservative party. The Conservatives have had a perception of being good for the economy, and weak oil prices have really hit their base (Alberta's economy has completely stalled in the last few months, and a provincial election going on there right now has the 42 year incumbent party in third place). The Conservatives are in damage control mode, trying to shore up there base with this Anti-terror bill, a balanced budget, and attack ads.

badloginagain 11y ago
Just to add an addendum to this, the decade the Conservative party has been in power has transformed the economic landscape in Canada- it is now wholly dependent on the strength of the oil industry. The Albertan tar-sands is an especially expensive form of oil extraction- break-even prices around the $70-$80 mark. With the loss of the Keystone XL and continued pressure on the Northern Gateway pipelines; Canada has a lot of over-priced oil and limited means of shipping it. The problem with a oil dependent economy is that it's at odds with the "classic" Canadian economy- manufacturing/production and trades that directly benefit from low Canadian dollar. If oil does well, it raises the dollar and stresses one side of the economy; if oil does poorly manufacturing is strengthened but the overall health of economy falters. It's a very precarious position that the Canadian government has put itself in and could result in some very long-term (on order of decades) problems to fully develop.
- cbowal 11y ago
  Out of curiosity - isn't an economy more diversified (and thus stabilized) by having both manufacturing (which benefits from a low $CAD) and oil (which benefits a high $CAD)?
  - afarrell 11y ago
    yep, but without a large pool of internal demand to buffer things, these two work against each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

omfg... can we please have a body count in western countries proposing these laws. And can we then please put that into perspective? (e.g. compare it to traffic casualties) And then look at the price we're willing to pay (ridiculous amounts of corrupting power without oversight that affects mostly innocent people)? For example, let's take one of the countries with the gravest terrorist threat: Israel. Its civilian deaths from any mortar attack from Gaza (let's assume 100% terrorism) in the past 14 years? 30. Now how many people die in traffic in Israel every year? Today about 260, in 2000 about 450, let's average that at 350. Alright, so in 14 years, 30 civilian deaths from rocket terror attacks, and about 5.000 people dead in traffic. Now obviously, that's 30 and 5.000 to many, respectively. And if we can prevent them, we should. But when these are the numbers for a country under what is considered some of the greatest threats of terrorism, and still its terrorism casualties pale in comparison with its traffic casualties... do we really want to pay the price by implementing ridiculous anti-terror laws in a place where it's much safer, and where thus this gap is much, much bigger, like Canada? I mean, let's look at Canada. Does anyone know some stats on e.g. loss of life due to terror attacks in Canada for say the past 10 years? I know more than 2.000 people die in traffic every year. I can hardly find any substantial casualties in Canadian terrorism history. I'm familiar with a few shootings where one or two people died. Regular homicide numbers (or e.g. traffic casualties) humble the stats. I remember in the 80s, 30 years ago now, a plane was bombed, not in Canada, over Irish airspace, but it had departed from Montreal so you could call it terrorism in Canada in a way. But that was by a Sikh group who wanted to target India (India Airways airplane going to India) rather than Canada, so you could also argue it was terrorism concerning India. That was horrible in any case, over 300 people died. Other than that, it's been small-time as far as I know. A few (fire) bombings without casualties, some marxist attacks, a soldier attacking members of a political party. In fact I think the worst one (after the aircraft) was an American soldier who killed 3 people. Now of course I appreciate these casualties ought to stay insignificant. The fact terrorism barely registers in stats in most OECD countries is a great thing, and I agree we should keep it that way. But at what cost? We don't ban alcohol or driving either, when they're our biggest threats. We don't shut down factories when global warming will, at current pace, kill billions of future people. I'm completely for fighting terrorism, but I also believe the tools we employ have to be proportional. And this NSA type stuff, surveillance without oversight, detaining without a charge, none of that is proportional and it doesn't seem necessary, either. We have yet to hear of major terror attacks that such programs prevented. Yet government is all too willing to give up a great piece of modern society, a piece that makes these countries great to live in. Anyway that's just my two cents. Apologies for what is obviously a silly comparison (traffic & terrorism casualties), and yes I appreciate terrorism is more than a casualty number. But I'm trying to show here that our legislative response is out of proportion and I hope people see that.

xnull2guest 11y ago

C-51, like the NSA legislation inside the United States, France, the Five Eyes, Germany, Japan, and like the reaches made by Russia and China do not have anything to do with terrorism. Terrorism is the excuse these countries use to get the laws to pass by their citizens. What's going on is that the global order of power is shifting and recent advances in technology have enabled ~40 minute intercontinental nuclear strikes (using hybersonic delivery vehicles, etc). NATO and the Bretton Woods institutions are being challenged and rising populations and emerging economies will soon shift economics for the next half century in favor of nations in the Asia Pacific. By its Wolfowitz Doctrine and by similar postures of allies, the Western world has to do what it can do to land gently (or be the better bombers) into whatever world comes next. Internet surveillance, mass propaganda, high altitude missile defense batteries, satellite kill vehicles - all of this is due to hollowing out of the old institutions of world order and the challenges of a new one. The debate therefore needs to be about how necessary these capabilities are for bringing about whatever new world there will be with as little possibility for violence as possible - not another fake conversation about terrorism.

zymhan 11y ago
I got to "Bretton Woods" and realized you had gone off the rails.
- xnull2guest 11y ago
  I'm willing to defend any statement you find 'off the rails' with evidenced and falsifiable statements. With regard to the Bretton Woods System, the AIIB has gotten sign off from European allies despite the US's efforts to keep the AIIB underwater. Paired with the BRICS bank and Asean trade deals the IMF and World Bank are being seriously challenged in their ability to make strategic infrastructure investments. If you would like an example of what that looks like: the AIIB is investing hundreds of billions of dollars in Pakistan and more broadly Eurasia to build out oil pipelines and trade routes - a land route in Eurasia to pair with South China Sea and Indian Sea trade routes for China's "new silk road". Please feel encouraged to ask more questions.