Trudeau's support of C-51 has some Liberals seeing orange

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Trudeau's support of C-51 has some Liberals seeing orange - The Globe and Mail
Home - The Globe and Mail

Justin Trudeau in Vancouver on June 29. (Canadian Press)

John Fenik is the Mayor of Perth, a picturesque community just southwest of Ottawa. A card-carrying Liberal for more than a decade, Mr. Fenik turned in his membership card a couple of months ago, and is now the NDP candidate for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, one of the bluest Tory ridings in the country.

An uphill battle, for sure, but Mr. Fenik said he couldn’t support leader Justin Trudeau any longer because of his decision to support Bill C-51 – the Conservative government’s anti-terrorism legislation. He felt there had to be another voice in the riding. “It was not easy leaving,” says Mr. Fenik. “I felt my principles and my values reflected more with [NDP leader Thomas Mulcair] who is taking leadership on these issues.” His concerns with Bill C-51 were over the lack of parliamentary oversight and the implications for peoples’ rights and freedoms, he said.

The Trudeau Liberals have been weakened by their support for the bill. They know it. So do the NDP, who are riding high in the national opinion polls and trying to capitalize on the grief Grits are taking over it. The once popular bill quickly lost favour with Canadians and the NDP’s sustained opposition to it looks more principled to some people than the Liberals’ decision to support it but modify it if they form government.

Like Mr. Fenik, Diane Freeman, a professional engineer and veteran city councillor in Waterloo, says she was a Liberal member for the past 10 years – but turned in her membership in March. Mr. Trudeau’s position on Bill C-51 was the last straw. “It fundamentally undermines civil liberties of Canadians. There was no requirement for the Conservatives to need the support of the opposition.” She is now the NDP candidate for Waterloo, a riding held by the Conservatives. She was approached by the NDP to run.

Liberal MPs were not all on the same page initially that supporting the controversial bill was the best tactic. Behind the closed caucus doors, there were “intense” discussions, according to Liberal insiders. But Montreal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler’s support for the bill (with amendments) was powerful – and swayed some MPs. Mr. Cotler is a human-rights expert and it’s hard to accuse him of not being sensitive to issues of rights and liberty, notes a senior Liberal official.

There was also “real concern,” says the official, that the Liberals were walking into a Stephen Harper trap if they joined the NDP in opposing the bill. At the time, there was huge support across the country for the security legislation and some Liberals feared Mr. Harper would call a snap election and then portray himself and his party as the champions of security.

Wayne Easter, a PEI Liberal MP and former solicitor-general under Jean Chrétien, is the lead Liberal on Bill C-51. He says the NDP is using the bill as a “propaganda tool” against the Liberals. “They are using the fear factor and misinformation just as relentlessly on their side to attack us as Stephen Harper was using the fear of a terrorist under every rock on the other side,” says Mr. Easter.

“I think it has hurt us to date,” he says. “But, I also believe that as time goes on and people see through time, the balanced position we have taken. I trust Canadians.”

The Liberal source says that their polling suggests it is “not the vote determiner the Dips would have people believe.”

Mr. Mulcair says he would repeal the legislation but has not specified what he would replace it with. Mr. Easter says it’s well-known where Mr. Mulcair stands on the civil-liberties side of the bill but “where does he stand on the security side?”

“They have never stood for security,” says Mr. Easter. “And nobody really knows where Thomas Mulcair stands yet.”

The Liberals, says Mr. Easter, will amend the law to include oversight provisions; bring in sunset clauses on offensive parts of the bill; and put parameters on the sharing of certain data.

“We can fix bad legislation in the future and we are proposing how we would do that in our platform but we cannot fix infrastructure or a building that has blown up and people are killed. We can’t fix that,” says Mr. Easter.

Trudeau's support of C-51 has some Liberals seeing orange - The Globe and Mail
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
We already have a thread on the problems with the Shiny Pony, title shiny pony...

Please merge the attention wh@re's attention wh@ring.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
What you need to know about Bill C-51 - The Varsity
thevarsity.ca

The Anti-Terrorism Act 2015, also known as Bill C-51, officially became Canadian law on June 18, 2015 after six months of deliberation. The bill was born out of the October 2014 shooting incident on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, when Canadian soldier Nathan Cirillo was shot and killed by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a 32-year-old Montréal man, while Cirillo was on ceremonially sentry duty at the Canadian National War Memorial.,

Following the incident, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the incident a terror attack and vowed to take steps in the future to bolster Canada’s abilities to identify and neutralize potential threats to the country’s security.

In response, the government proposed Bill C-51 on January 20, 2015, the most comprehensive reform of Canada’s security policy since the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act became law following 9/11.
Sweeping and controversial, Bill C-51 has received a lot of exposure through social media, traditional news outlets, blogs, and within academic circles. The bill includes a multitude of amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as new laws to increase the power and scope of Canada’s security network. The new laws are laid out in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act.

Lack of clarity

Of particular significance are the Canada Information Sharing Act, and the amendments to the Criminal Code and the CSIS Act. Both have stoked concern for making use of intentionally vague language which is open to broad interpretation, which some critics believe could lead to abuses.

The Canadian Information Sharing Act grants governmental institutions with the authority to share information — including personal information — about activities that allegedly undermine the security of Canada. However, the act does not specifically define what constitutes terrorist activity.

Paul Finch, a civil liberties advocate and treasurer of British Columbia’s Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU), takes issue with that lack of specificity, noting that ‘“targeted activities’ are too broadly defined, and are based on whether they undermine the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada, or the lives and the security of the people of Canada”.

According to Finch, the issue is defining what exactly constitutes a ‘threat’ to Canada’s security. The vague interpretation of this statement allows for many different types of activity to be classed as potential threats, including events deemed to interfere with Canada’s financial and economic stability — namely, social protest, environmental activism, or labour unrest.

It would appear that the vagueness of the wording allows the government to conduct surveillance on Canadians with unprecedented ease and without citizen consent. If a department deems there is credible evidence of ‘terrorist activity’, they are allowed to conduct surveillance on citizens and share that information with all levels of government. The concern for Finch is that the act will “legitimize the mass collection of warrantless surveillance data on Canadian citizens” without proper consent. This coupled with insufficient checks and balances to insure that the information spread is reliable is a “serious cause for concern.”

The changes to the Criminal Code are in line with many of the Bill’s other objectives, incorporating new language to quantify terrorist activities for the sake of counteracting terrorism. This new language includes criminalizing the avocation and/or promotion of terrorism and an amendment to curb the spread of terrorist propaganda. The Bill also changes the conditions, which govern whether or not someone can be detained without evidence, and probable cause for arrest, both of which lower the legal threshold for jailing suspected terrorists drastically.

Similar to criticisms of the CSIS Act, the lack of clarification in the amendments to the Criminal Code has not gone unnoticed. “[The] wording is too broad and vague, and the conditions by which people would be charged or held too uncertain.”

Potential breach of charter rights

The amendment to the CSIS Act facilitates the transformation of the agency from one of intelligence gathering to one that actively engages in anti-terrorist activities domestically and internationally. According to the Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) report on the Bill, the amendment would allow CSIS to “employ undefined measures within or outside of Canada to reduce a threat to the security of Canada.”

The responsibility to determine what constitutes a reasonable course of action in the effort to make Canada more secure ultimately lies with the government and, more directly, CSIS. The agency now only requires a warrant to act against suspected terrorists if they deem it necessary, and only when the action taken will violate a charter right or Canadian law. However, anything the agency does not deem unlawful, or to be a violation of the Charter, does not require a warrant under the new legislation.

The CBA notes that this is the first time any act has allowed for the potential breach of a charter right, as these rights are normally understood to be inalienable. The CBA’s report notes, “judicial warrants for search and seizure are meant to prevent, not authorize Charter violations.”

Academic and intellectual freedom

How the Bill will affect students specifically remains unclear; however, as third year peace, conflict, and justice student Mariam Jammal points out, those students who are actively engaged in social, environmental, or political justice may be easy targets.

“We do not have enough experience to be aware of what types of activities we should avoid, or how to avoid them. Without knowing it, we could be placing restrictions on our future selves,” said Jammal. “We may not be the direct target, but that doesn’t mean that we wont do something ‘stupid’ that could come back and bite us in the future.”

Finch is inclined to agree, but added that the Act threatens “academic and intellectual freedom” due to the threat of surveillance, potentially hindering a students ability to conduct thought provoking, or original and independent research, in topics deemed potentially threatening under the guidelines of the Act.

The Act, in full, is available on the government website.

What you need to know about Bill C-51 – The Varsity
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
This is about the dynamics between the two parties as a result of the bill and what it means.

It is a different discussion than simply the detriments of the bill.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
This is about the dynamics between the two parties as a result of the bill and what it means.

It is a different discussion than simply the detriments of the bill.
Is that why you put Justin in a starring role, and then posted the detriments of the bill?

Maybe you should have a shower, and wash of some of that salt. Drink plenty of water too.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The title mentions the relationship between both parties and the general C51 article was posted as remedial information for cross referencing.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Great, then actually discuss those dynamics instead of perpetually moaning about Harper... It's really old and really tired
He doesn't discuss. He gets all salty, starts being snarky and then posts memes. Even when people try to have a genuine convo with him.

That's the problem with hipster douchebags. They really aren't open to discussion.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I'm still trying to understand the bill myself.

What I do get is that there are strong opinions from some of one party's supporters that were not reflected in this decision and so they moved to the party that greater represented their views.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
I'm still trying to understand the bill myself.

What I do get is that there are strong opinions from some of one party's supporters that were not reflected in this decision and so they moved to the party that greater represented their views.

LMAO. You could get that from the title of the freaking article!

Do you even read these articles you post?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I'm just making the point that I am not the foremost expert on why a certain segment of that party's supporters decided to change their minds on terrorism.

All I know is that the general trend is that people see terrorism as less of a threat than they used to.

The real question is why?
 

relic

Council Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,408
3
38
Nova Scotia
I think Trudeau supporting that piece of sht was the only thing he could do, no one could stop it because of harpers "majority" so instead of posturing like the NDP he made the logical choice. I can't believe so many people can't see that. Except conservatives of course, they just believe whatever steve tells them to
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I'm just making the point that I am not the foremost expert on why a certain segment of that party's supporters decided to change their minds on terrorism.

All I know is that the general trend is that people see terrorism as less of a threat than they used to.

The real question is why?
I think it has more to do with the Bill's powers than a genuine threat of terrorism.

I think Trudeau supporting that piece of sht was the only thing he could do, no one could stop it because of harpers "majority" so instead of posturing like the NDP he made the logical choice. I can't believe so many people can't see that. Except conservatives of course, they just believe whatever steve tells them to
I love how you can make excuses for Trudeau.

An ethical and principled leader would stand his ground, not make what you call "the logical choice", lol