Stephen Harper proposes policy to end 'terror tourism'
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
main stream media is to blame for some of the domestic terrorism just because they describe in detail how a terrorist device is made in their stories
What an idiot lol
Obviously, it's not such an urgent matter if he's waiting until after the election to implement the policy. :lol:
Obviously, it's not such an urgent matter if he's waiting until after the election to implement the policy. :lol:
There's something sad about a conceited screwup claiming that someone else'sdoes not have the experience to do what he has done to Canada
All governments leave stuff to the next term to improve their chances of getting re-elected. Kathy Wynn did same with provincial election too.
If it was as important as he says it is, he would make it happen now.
This just proves we should worry more about his cat Fluffy, than terrorism.
This just proves we should worry more about his cat Fluffy, than terrorism.
I don't think it proves that at all. You are grasping at stuff as you usually do and trying to make stuff fit your agenda.
I'm not grasping at anything and it's perfectly plausible logic.
Harper can't simultaneously urge Canadians about the dangers of terrorism and then postpone his own policies meant address the dangers of terrorism.
The idiot did it to himself lol
Harper can't simultaneously urge Canadians about the dangers of terrorism and then postpone his own policies meant address the dangers of terrorism.
The idiot did it to himself lol
It is only plausible in your mind.
That all being said, its not necessarily a great policy. But I can see the intent of it. We don't want to become another Britain while 1/2 their citizens are off joining ISIS.
Yes, I'm sure Harper also believes 50% of Britain is joining ISIS.
Which is why their Conservative majority government is taking the same loonie-bin steps ours is.
Also, put down the pipe.
Which is why their Conservative majority government is taking the same loonie-bin steps ours is.
Also, put down the pipe.
I believe in the Constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence. A Canadian should be allowed to leave Canada to travel wherever he wants. If he picks up arms against Canadian forces in a war zone, then we'll treat him like we do anyone else on the battlefield in conformity with the Geneva Convention. However, it is not up to us to find him guilty of treason just because he was somewhere and expect him to prove his innocence rather than require us to prove his guilt. The presumption of guilt is a dangerous slippery slope.
Let's take another parallel example. Up until recently it was illegal to be in a bawdy house. I am for making prostitution a fineable offence and in my opinion both parties in the transaction should be fined, and the fine should double for each repeat offence. That said, no one should be found guilty of prostitution for just being in a bawdy house. Maybe he's a plumber or electrician who got called in. Maybe he's the pizza delivery man who showed up just before the police raid. Maybe the residents hired her as their personal maid to clean, cook, and run errands. Maybe it's the prostitute's friend or family member visiting her for her birthday out of concern. There could be myriad valid reasons for being in a bawdy house. Making it an offence to just be in a bawdy house was struck down by the Supreme Court along with other prostitution-related laws and rightfully so.
If we want to make it easier to fine prostitutes and their clients, we could make the advertising of sexual services and adultery fineable offences but prohibit the police from spying to catch someone in the act and require at least two witnesses to or equivalent proof of the act. This would eliminate the need to prove a financial transaction while still protecting those having sex with their girlfriend in the privacy of their bedroom, affecting only those having sex in open public, and still protecting the presumption of innocence.
In the same way, we can make the promotion of terrorism, recruitment into a terrorist organization, training for the purpose of committing a terrorist attack, and many other such acts criminal offences. Never should a person be charged just for going or being somewhere given the myriad valid reasons for doing so. How would a person prove that he went to Iraq to see a friend? Why should he even need to prove it? Given the suffering ISIS has already caused him, why would the Government of Canada want to add to that suffering?
The day we abandon the principle of the presumption of innocence is the day fanatics win yet one more victory against us as we forego yet one more of our "Western values."
Let's take another parallel example. Up until recently it was illegal to be in a bawdy house. I am for making prostitution a fineable offence and in my opinion both parties in the transaction should be fined, and the fine should double for each repeat offence. That said, no one should be found guilty of prostitution for just being in a bawdy house. Maybe he's a plumber or electrician who got called in. Maybe he's the pizza delivery man who showed up just before the police raid. Maybe the residents hired her as their personal maid to clean, cook, and run errands. Maybe it's the prostitute's friend or family member visiting her for her birthday out of concern. There could be myriad valid reasons for being in a bawdy house. Making it an offence to just be in a bawdy house was struck down by the Supreme Court along with other prostitution-related laws and rightfully so.
If we want to make it easier to fine prostitutes and their clients, we could make the advertising of sexual services and adultery fineable offences but prohibit the police from spying to catch someone in the act and require at least two witnesses to or equivalent proof of the act. This would eliminate the need to prove a financial transaction while still protecting those having sex with their girlfriend in the privacy of their bedroom, affecting only those having sex in open public, and still protecting the presumption of innocence.
In the same way, we can make the promotion of terrorism, recruitment into a terrorist organization, training for the purpose of committing a terrorist attack, and many other such acts criminal offences. Never should a person be charged just for going or being somewhere given the myriad valid reasons for doing so. How would a person prove that he went to Iraq to see a friend? Why should he even need to prove it? Given the suffering ISIS has already caused him, why would the Government of Canada want to add to that suffering?
The day we abandon the principle of the presumption of innocence is the day fanatics win yet one more victory against us as we forego yet one more of our "Western values."
WTF is wrong with this douche?
Liberal, NDP anti-terror strategy just 'dropping aid on dead people': Harper - Winnipeg Free Press
Liberal, NDP anti-terror strategy just 'dropping aid on dead people': Harper - Winnipeg Free Press
Sorry but if he is using this kind of rhetoric, something must be up.
The conbot coffers just aren't doing it anymore.
The conbot coffers just aren't doing it anymore.
So how is this latest Harper announcement different than the previous one?
May 7, 2015
The Honourable Steven Blaney, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Chris Alexander, Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister, today announced the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act and changes to the Canadian Passport Order (CPO):
Amendments to the Canadian Passport Order will provide the Government of Canada with a strengthened ability to cancel, refuse or revoke passports as a preventative measure against high-risk travellers and transnational child sex offenders, in alignment with the Criminal Code of Canada.
With the amendments to the CPO, passports could be cancelled, refused or revoked for national security purposes, terrorism, or for transnational child sex offences in order to prevent individuals from travelling abroad. In addition, the maximum period for refusal of passport services is now set at 10 years.
Measures proposed under the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act would enable a Federal Court judge presiding over proceedings for passport cancellation, refusal or revocation decisions related to national security or terrorism to protect sensitive information from disclosure, but also use that information in making their decision.
more
Harper Government Introduces Measures for Passport Cancellation, Refusal and Revocation of High-Risk Travellers - Canada News Centre
May 7, 2015
The Honourable Steven Blaney, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Chris Alexander, Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister, today announced the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act and changes to the Canadian Passport Order (CPO):
Amendments to the Canadian Passport Order will provide the Government of Canada with a strengthened ability to cancel, refuse or revoke passports as a preventative measure against high-risk travellers and transnational child sex offenders, in alignment with the Criminal Code of Canada.
With the amendments to the CPO, passports could be cancelled, refused or revoked for national security purposes, terrorism, or for transnational child sex offences in order to prevent individuals from travelling abroad. In addition, the maximum period for refusal of passport services is now set at 10 years.
Measures proposed under the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act would enable a Federal Court judge presiding over proceedings for passport cancellation, refusal or revocation decisions related to national security or terrorism to protect sensitive information from disclosure, but also use that information in making their decision.
more
Harper Government Introduces Measures for Passport Cancellation, Refusal and Revocation of High-Risk Travellers - Canada News Centre