Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline 308
New submitter o_ferguson writes As Slashdot reported earlier this week, a lone shooter attacked the war memorial and parliament buildings in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday.
As many comments predicted, the national government has seized this as an opportunity to roll out considerable new regressive legislation, including measures designed to* increase data access for domestic intelligence services, institute a new form of extra-judicial detention, and, perhaps most troubling, criminalize some forms of religious and political speech online. As an example of the type of speech that could, in future, be grounds for prosecution, the article mentions that the killer's website featured "a black ISIS flag and rejoiced that 'disbelievers' will be consigned to the fires of Hell for eternity." A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents. Needless to say, some internet observes remain, as always, highly skeptical of the manner in which events are being portrayed.
(Please note that some articles may be partially paywalled unless opened in a private/incognito browser window.)
Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly there's no way that this legislation passes the Oakes test. Section 1 allows for limitations, but not like this.
Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, but the conservatives keep trying. Harper is what, 0-4 with constitutional challenges?
Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:5, Interesting)
"A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents"
Of course it was drafted some time ago. Harper was just waiting for something like this to get a way to quickly get it passed into legislation without all that pesky complaining that he got last time he tried doing it.
Unfortunately, the opposition and the press are busy deifying the couple of soldiers [well, two soldiers and a glorified security guard at a cemetary] and Harper for being so courageous, for standing up to this terrorist, and not giving into fear, while fighting for Canadian freedoms.
Of course, Harper is wallowing in fear, greatly increasing security around himself, and leaping at the chance to be able to spy on more and more citizens, I mean, terrorists. Nevermind also giving up Canadian freedoms so that Harper can really give it to his wife tonight.
Our supreme court MIGHT overturn this legislation, but who's going to fund the couple million dollars in legal fee's challenging it?
Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. Would have been so much better if the guy could have had some psychiatric help.
It's a shame that the crackhead has given the Conservatives more ammunition to remove our rights, especially considering he was totally under the radar anyways so this legislation wouldn't have helped.
Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither of the wack jobs were "under the radar". they both were on the terrorist watch list, the other one was semi-regularly being followed by the RCMP, this one was just denied his passport to travel to Turkey [they assume to then go to Syria to fight]. So they both certainly having their internet connections, email and phone calls being monitored and listened in on.
But still, this legislation wouldn't help because they didn't do anything "wrong" until they actually went to kill somebody. Which is already a crime. They didn't tell anybody they were planning to kill somebody here. And nobody directly told them to go kill somebody [other than that ISIS video "go attack somebody now now now, yes you, do it now!"].
So, the only way to "catch" these guys sooner is to arrest them for thought-crime, for believing something the gov't doesn't like.
The FLQ crisis was an actual terrorist attack, designed to directly influence the gov't. These were just a couple of screwed up guys doing something stupid, and they both paid with their own lives. The gov't is just using them to push it's own agenda.
Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge (Score:5, Informative)
He was not on any so called "terrorist watch list" - he was denied a Libyan passport (by Libya) because his ID didn't match the name given, they couldn't verify his mother's contact info, and his photos didn't match his appearance. He was never denied a Canadian passport because he only started the process of requesting one - it never had a chance to be denied.
Re: (Score:2)
All the reports I've heard said he wasn't on the terrorist watch list. He was in Ottawa to apply for a Libyan passport and if I remember correctly he was being routinely investigated for the Canadian passport application.
The legislation might help as it creates the crime of bad thoughts and these guys were thinking bad stuff.
Thought crime, coming to our country courtesy of the Conservative government.
Re: (Score:2)
there were media reports that he was on a watch list, and was denied his passport because he was trying to go to Syria via Turkey.
fabulous journalism.
Those ended up being completely bunk - funny enough, they came from an American "intelligence" source. He applied for a Libyan passport (which he had before but expired in 2007), he told them he wanted to go back to Libya to visit friends. It was just a sick individual who snapped for some unknown reason - not a single link to terrorism or any political aim.
Re:Won't past constitutional challenge (Score:2)
If you don't care about constitutionality, you prohibit your legal draughtsmen from reporting on it, and you pass what you want. It's up to your opponents to find a good test case, and figure out how to pay for a challenge when they don't have standing.
Re:Won't past constitutional challenge (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. It's like a different language, but in English.
Re: (Score:2)
yup! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately the Canadian Bill of Rights has some weasel words in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Every word is a weasel word for a big enough weasel.
Re:yup! (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the first article:
1. 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.
Basically, the whole thing is worthless
Re: (Score:3)
That seems to be what they do in the US anyway. The courts just modify the constitution with invisible ink, and then pretend they're "interpreting" it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, not really. A more accurate description would be the courts tend to look at the Constitution (and its Amendments) as if those who created it were alive, sitting next to them, and completely aware of the last 240 years of history when they wrote it.
No, they just blatantly make shit up. If they were doing as you said, mass surveillance would be struck down immediately, free speech zones wouldn't be allowed, and the commerce clause wouldn't be used so ridiculously, among many other things.
While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.
Nothing is wrong with the first amendment; the courts just enjoy modifying it. As for the second, if you really want it changed, then you must amend the constitution. Arbitrarily deciding which modern weapons are and aren't allowed is not something I want the governmen
Re: (Score:3)
A magazine-fed rifle-calibre long gun with full automatic capability.
It's a literal translation of Sturmgewehr, which is 70 years old.
Arms (Score:3)
Does no one read the second amendment? Where does it say firearms? We have laws against switch blades, slung shot, and computer programs (now revoked due to first amendment stuff) and other "arms". Restrictions are all a joke going off of fear and often racism rather than what is logical and the best for society.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about some pretty crazy, messed up people.
With a mental condition. And a crack addiction.
That's unfair - only some of our politicians have crack addictions.
Formatting. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Formatting. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they've said that they knew something like this was going to happen eventually.. If they knew it was going to happen eventually, they should have planned for it. And, if they were happy with the security measures before, why do they need to change them now?
Let's keep this in context.. One guy, seemingly acting alone, shot a few people. Unfortunately he did it on government land, so the instant response is 'Terrorism'.
One guy (well, two if you count our PM), screwing with our freedoms.
Re:Ugh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Shot in the back (Score:3, Insightful)
He was doing a ceremonial guard duty, as an honour. He probably didn't expect to be shot in the back.
The operational bases were on moderate alert, but apparently the PM didn't think he or anyone else needed to be careful...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, they were afraid that the honored soldier would just go off shooting people if he had bullets in his gun?
I don't get that; an empty weapon. Unarmed is great. A sword, if you want to be ceremonial. Why an empty weapon?
Politics. That is gun control politics taken way, out, past any logical, anything. They set him up.
Re:Shot in the back (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a fucking idiot.
The weapon was an old, outdated weapon. It was meant to look fancy for tourist pictures. He was unarmed. Because here in canada, we don't carry guns without cause.
Notice how this idiot shooter was using a shotgun? That's a shit weapon for a shooting spree like this. THAT is the consequence of our gun control. Hunting weapons are fine and widespread. Human killing weapons are restricted.
Re:Shot in the back (Score:4, Interesting)
Shotguns are great for close in work. They are also better for someone who's not all that much of a marksman. If you don't practice with a pistol a lot, and I mean a lot, then you'd be lucky to hit someone at 25 feet in a firefight. I saw a video of a gunfight in a pool hall with a bunch of gang members emptying semi-auto pistols at each other at close range. One guy got hit in the arm out of hundreds of rounds fired. Trigger control on a pistol is everything. If you jerk it you missed unless you stuck it in the guy's belly. The retired Mountie that put him down used a pistol but he was a very experienced pro. I didn't see how many times the shooter got plugged but I bet it wasn't that many times and security fired a lot of shots.
Re: (Score:2)
About the stupidest thing you could ever do is carry and unloaded gun. To an observer you have all of the threat of having a loaded gun and there for become an attackers first target. But in reality, none of the force that loaded gun entails. I'd rather be holding a dildo while waring a clown outfit than being in military uniform while caring an unloaded weapon. That's a death wish.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the deal.
It's expensive to stay on high alert all the time. All those extra guards, guns, maintenance, etc. That costs money. Up here, after 9/11, we maintained high alert at the bases for a couple of years, then decided to go back to more-or-less before. Not quite; back in 2000 I could walk onto the base only flashing my ID, and once I did show a post-it that said PASS on it. As it stands now, I do require an actual valid pass to get onto the base. However, the security on the base itself is l
Re:Ugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't mod, already posted, but this should pretty much end all the of moronic comments on an armed/loaded honor guard. Or any guard. The point of guards is that they are the first line of defense. If you let people legally walk around with guns those guards WILL be shot first and they will have no chance to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
He mostly just shouldn't be there in the first place, all this assignation of military honor guards merely celebrates war. We should be ashamed, not proud, of our war dead.
It doesn't celebrate war, it gives people a way to remember the horrors of war and the people who gave their lives to make ours a bit freer.
Anyone who thinks that we should be ashamed of our war dead doesn't have a CLUE as to what they did to ensure our freedom.
I agree that war should be vilified and as well as any politician who puts troops into harms way without a major verified threat. But to put this on the war dead is just plain immaturity in understanding.
Re: Ugh! (Score:3)
Someone died. In an ideal system (and probably one that exists only in imagination), no one would die (except may be the terrorist). Working towards a better ideal system is not a bad thing at all. I personally don't consider this a better system. I do understand that some people do. Why change anything is an ideology you should refrain from adopting.
Re: Ugh! (Score:5, Insightful)
I do understand that some people do.
I don't. You can't claim to be a free country if you sacrifice your fundamental liberties to stop a few bad guys. The people who believe otherwise would be better off moving to already existing police states and seeing what their nonsense will ultimately bring about.
Re: (Score:2)
Harper talked to the PM of Israel before talking to Canadians which shows his priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard it on CBC radio along with him talking to Obama as well. I can understand talking to Obama but the Israel PM? But then Harper loves the Israelis, even said that any criticism of them is antisemitism and was right on side with their reaction to those 3 teenagers getting murdered.
Re: (Score:3)
the Slashdot crowd cries foul and talks about police states. Give it a rest.
Actually, smaller-scale corruption can be seen in police forces abusing what powers they do have. What makes you think giving them even more sweeping powers will lead to good results?
You've been crying foul for years and nothing like that has happened
It has already happened numerous times throughout history. That you are utterly ignorant of history and cannot comprehend how something can be a slow and gradual process is not anyone's problem but your own.
But yes, *this time* the government is and always will be full of perfect little angels who will never make mistakes or ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, they've said that they knew something like this was going to happen eventually.. If they knew it was going to happen eventually, they should have planned for it. And, if they were happy with the security measures before, why do they need to change them now?
Let's keep this in context.. One guy, seemingly acting alone, shot a few people. Unfortunately he did it on government land, so the instant response is 'Terrorism'.
One guy (well, two if you count our PM), screwing with our freedoms.
Sounds to me like this was planned. Push a crazy psycho into doing something really dumb on Government property, or to a soldier/government worker. Then push thru agenda you want.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact is you can never make anything 100 percent safe. It's just not possible. Anyone willing to die can cause havoc because really the only thing stopping them is the fact they'll die in the process. You can pass law upon law upon law and it doesn't matter because if someone is willing to kill and be killed then obviously the law doesn't matter. Laws are most effective on the law abiding so they end up punishing those who aren't a threat anyway. If we were a truly evil society then a law that respo
Re: (Score:2)
You sound reasonable.
Drafted prior? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
cancel their passport
Yes! What are we trying to set up in the free world . . . another East Germany, where people were not allowed to leave the country?
Take away their passports when they enter the Islamic States. But let them out! They can get new passports when entering the Islamic States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I've got an idea.
Actually, David Cameron had the same idea, but the EU said it would be against human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already happened -- just in a different fashion. What do you think the "no-fly list" is about?
Fourth possibility... (Score:5, Insightful)
They've ALWAYS had a draft like that. And any excuse will do to try to push it through.
If there is no excuse, try to push it through anyway.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not a coincidence. They are not waiting for or furnishing events.
They see such events as INEVITABLE. It is a part of their view of reality. It is their life philosophy.
Their BELIEF SYSTEM.
They think they're the good guys.
And once you look around, you'll notice that in other groups of people as well.
Gun nuts really do believe that government is after their guns.
Rich people really do believe that poor people are all lazy.
Hippies really do believe that all people are good, just misunderstood.
Justin Bieber fans really believe that he can sing.
Re: (Score:2)
They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. As soon as Harper got the chance to go to war against ISIS, he started talking about terrorists and introducing this legislation. He's a war munging control freak who really believes he is the good guy.
This guy tried to rob McDonald’s with pointy (Score:5, Informative)
Sweet! (Score:2)
Seriously, this is just nuts. Are people really this easily scared into giving ground on basic rights?
Re: (Score:2)
An Opportunity fo r"reform" (Score:2)
waiting for the right time (Score:5, Insightful)
Its introduction was obviously waiting for a trauma to capitalize on.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been trying to pass such legislation for almost seven years. Remember a certain MP claiming that if you opposed that legislation, you were "with the paedophiles?"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. I had the quote wrong. From http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/08/vic-toews-resigns_n_3561532.html [huffingtonpost.ca]:
Please (Score:2)
This is not some random thing. The authoritarians are scared of the internet, and they have to sell the *war*. The work of the propagandist is never done.
It's a trap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey Canada, It's America,
We gave our guys all these fancy abilities. Well, they took them and we didn't complain, which I guess is the same thing. Anyway, they haven't actually managed to CATCH anyone yet. Well, they've found some impressionable people with mental issues, chatted with them online, gave them a plan, weapons for the plan, talked them into it, and then instead of just getting them some mental help they "caught them" so they could tell us what a good job they were doing....
Never mind that I could bring my city to it's knees with $100 and a trip to Home Depot. We're kind of wondering if there are any actual real Terrorists out there at all. They're probably bogarting all the Ebola. I mean, we've got deranged people with guns but those are impossible to find beforehand and so far we just clean up after them and use them to pass new laws.
Don't fall for it. Sincerely,
Americans
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind that I could bring my city to it's knees with $100 and a trip to Home Depot.
Oh, just please tell the truth . . . you have just "shorted" Home Depot stock this morning, and are now profiting because the Home Depot stock is now tanking! :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are roughly 300million Americans. Are you saying only a third of the country is with you? Also, you ironically misspelled Dumbass. Also, I think you maaay have missed what I was saying.... I hope? Unless you're saying that all this security theater and warrantless wiretapping was a GOOD idea and it's caught loads of terrorists?
Re: (Score:2)
Which, I guess since you called me a "Moonbat American" (which I had to look up. TIL "Moonbat is a term used in United States politics as a pejorative political epithet referring to progressives or leftists." ) means you're probably a rightie (should have known from the spelling, my bad.) and I guess you probably DO think all the security theater and warrantless wiretapping is a good idea and it's caught loads of terrorists....
BTW, I kid. I AM a dirty liberal, but I have conservative friends. We all agree
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
ONE person dies and they go full retard? WTF? This was one guy with a gun. It's no reason to engage in national hysterics. They have managed to outdo us in US by a country mile.
Re: (Score:3)
It's front-page news for a soldier to be killed on duty in Canada. Believe it or not, it's also front-page news when an RCMP officer was killed on duty a few years back.
Canadians usually die from car accidents (or are eaten by polar bears (;-))
Re: (Score:2)
I thought cabin fever was the big one up there.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect? as long as Harper is in power our rights will slowly go away. Now excuse me, someone's knocking at the door...
Re: (Score:3)
Then there's another Jihadist who attacked two police officers in NYC with an axe: ... But these two aren't reported as heavily because they didn't use a gun, and the liberal media are against guns.
No, they're not related because they're not related.
This "jihadist" thing is just a hook for a certain slice of the crazies to hang their hat on. We will always have crazies doing antisocial things. Ordinarily they would be called "crimes by crazy people." But as soon as a crazy says "jihad", it's "terrorism"
We have always been at war with Oceania. (Score:5, Informative)
Under the table Winston's feet made convulsive movements. He had not stirred from his seat, but in his mind he was running, swiftly running, he was with the crowds outside, cheering himself deaf. He looked up again at the portrait of Big Brother. The colossus that bestrode the world! The rock against which the hordes of Asia dashed themselves in vain! He thought how ten minutes ago -- yes, only ten minutes -- there had still been equivocation in his heart as he wondered whether the news from the front would be of victory or defeat. Ah, it was more than a Eurasian army that had perished! Much had changed in him since that first day in the Ministry of Love, but the final, indispensable, healing change had never happened, until this moment.
The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Re: (Score:2)
He loved Big Brother.
Please confine yourself to references to the title of that book. Quotes from the text invariably give me the creeps.
Fuck I hate that book. I wish I'd never read it.
Re:We have always been at war with Oceania. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why it's good that you read it.
Terrible Summery (Score:5, Informative)
The bill in question Bill C-13 was introduced almost a month ago and passed two readings in parliament before the attack. Canada has been debating this bill in parliament and in the media for some time. I don't agree with this bill, but to label it a reaction to the shooting is completely wrong. Especially bad is the fact that a quick google search would have been enough to identify the mistake.
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-13/
Re: (Score:3)
This summery is appalling.
That's because it's now autumny (at least in the North).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course (Score:2)
No doubt. Legislation is written all the time and filed away until the public is sufficiently swept away by momentary passion. In the US gun control proponents have cabinets full of bills they pull out, like ghouls, every time there's a school shooting, just as the government has legislation that trims away privacy rights ready to go the next time th
It worked so well in the United States (Score:2)
It worked so well in the United States that Canada has to follow suite in one more lock-step Me-Taoism.
Well, that sure didn't take long. (Score:2)
I figured they'd wait until next week before the Harper regime tried a `Patriot Act'-style takeover of Canadians' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this law has been in progress since March of this year.
They're just using this incident as an excuse to try to fast-track it through Parliament without any further debate.
#notterrified (Score:2)
Guy was a crackhead not a terrorist, a man with no plan other than death by cop. If he wanted to shoot up Parliament he wouldn't have shot the soldier.
Nobody would listen to him so he came up with some topical way to make them.
Disproportionate response (Score:4, Informative)
In Canada no-one is using the word 'terrorism' (except the usual suspects who would have pulled out the terrorism card no matter what). We honour a soldier who died in the line of duty, but this is a drug use issue, not a security issue.
Politicians who try to exploit fear will likely reveal themselves, and themselves alone, to be weak-minded cowards.
This is the Conservatives we're talking about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmm... I'm Canadian.
And I wouldn't vote for the Liberals either.
some other legislation that wasn't kneejerk (Score:2)
PATRIOT (drafted in 1995 by Joe Biden and signed into Law 45 days after the WTC incident with barely a single word having been changed)
Before 1914 one of the more unusual features of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution was its lack of any specific provision for civil and military emergencies: in particular, the government lacked the power to proclaim a state of emergency, and thereby free itself to govern by regulation, suspend civil liberties, and impose martial law. Under the common law the Britis
Racial Bias (Score:2)
this happened in the USA too (Score:3)
This happened with john ashcroft and the PATRIOT act. Same bullshit, different country. Fuck these tyrants.
Re:i lose my civil rights cause a crazy fucktards (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're angry about losing your civil rights, maybe you should be angry at the people taking advantage of situations like these and trying to take them?
Re: (Score:2)
Because we never had people trying to wipe us out before Muslims came along...
Re: (Score:2)
Because we never had people trying to wipe us out before Muslims came along...
True. We also had communists, and we weren't supposed to notice that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harpers a Christian, not a Muslim.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One man (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the idea that you have to keep Canadians "in check" is pretty funny. I've lived in Canada and have never met a people who were less "out of check".
I mean, what are there, about four homicides a year in Ottawa? And three of those are probably mercy killings. The other was a guy who wore a Marian Hossa jersey to an Ottawa Senators' game. Even criminals in Canada are polite.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are not a racist for noticing that the perpetrator is a muslim. You ARE a racist for infering that all muslims are terrorist because of the action of one person. Any time you're making a broad generalization about an entire people based on the actions of a tiny few or one, yes, you're a racist... and possibly funny, but still racist.
Except, of course, that Muslim isn't a race. It's a belief system.
And in its mainstream forms, it's a very public-oriented, all encompassing belief system, that is not at all content with people simply choosing not to believe in it.
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair, if I was a terrorist, this went exactly as I'd want. I convince some stupid kid to do something horrible. -> Right wing Political Types start frothing at the mouth. -> Target country spends a bajillionty dollars on nothing and winds itself into a fervor. If I'm lucky they'll invade the wrong country and drive more people into my arms. If I'm really lucky, I'll be able to take all those extra people and take over a bunch of territory in the middle east to create a new Islamic Caliphate.
Do
Re: (Score:2)
And all this simply proves just how deluded these terrorists truly are. The deaths of our soldiers is tragic, but do they really think bumping off some of our politicians will get under Canadian's skin? I think not. We might even thank them.
Humour aside, I am nothing but impressed by the security response on the Hill. Within 4 minutes of the first shot being fired [nationalpost.com], the assailant was dead on the ground. Aside from the initial victim, there were no other serious injuries.
I used to be an activist, and had occasion to protest (and get arrested) on Parliament Hill. Ask any activist and they will tell you that the Hill cops (who are all federal, not city police) are the ones you want to arrest you. They are trained and highly skilled, and know every
Re: (Score:2)