Sister of slain soldier delivers emotional appeal for C-51


Locutus
#1
Louise Vincent, sister of Patrice Vincent, says Bill C-51 could have prevented her brother’s death in an emotional appeal to parliamentarians.

OTTAWA—The sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent says the Conservatives’ controversial new terrorism law may have prevented her brother’s death.

Appearing before the Commons’ committee studying Bill C-51 Monday night, Louise Vincent said that the legislation may have prevented Martin Couture-Rouleau from murdering her brother in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

“If C-51 had have been in place on the 19th of October, Martin Couture-Rouleau’s relatives would have warned the RCMP and they would have had more information,” Vincent said.

“Because of the lower evidence threshold (in C-51) . . . most probably Martin Couture-Rouleau would have been in prison, and my brother would not have been killed.”

Conservative MPs have repeatedly invoked last October’s attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the shooting on Parliament Hill as justification for the proposed expanded spy powers, although MPs have been hard-pressed to say specifically how C-51 would have prevented those attacks.

The bill gives the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the ability to “disrupt” threats to national security, including, but not limited to, terrorist threats. Perceived threats to Canada’s economic stability, critical infrastructure or diplomatic relations would also be fair game for spies.



Couture-Rouleau, allegedly after been refused a passport to travel abroad, ran down Vincent with his car on Oct. 19. Police admit Couture-Rouleau was on their radar before the attack, but they had insufficient grounds to detain him.

Serious concerns about C-51 have been raised by opposition parties, witnesses before the committee, and organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association. Chief among the criticisms have been a lack of civilian oversight of Canada’s spies, as well as the possibility of intelligence agencies targeting civil society.

Speaking before the committee, former Progressive Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal reiterated his call for greater oversight. Segal, now the master of Massey College, also warned against giving CSIS the ability to violate Canada’s Charter rights.

“Attempts to keep Canadians safe, the number one job of any government, should not include provisions that make us resemble what we are struggling to defeat,” Segal told the committee.

The committee will continue to study the bill this week, before moving to an in-depth technical reading with proposed amendments later this month. It’s not clear what, if any, amendments the majority Conservatives will consider.


Sister of slain soldier delivers emotional appeal for C-51 | Toronto Star
 
mentalfloss
+2
#2
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#3
How embarrassing. I guess when logic fails, the weak turn to emotional arguments.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

How embarrassing. I guess when logic fails, the weak turn to emotional arguments.

You mean like arm-waving hysterics about Big Brother?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You mean like arm-waving hysterics about Big Brother?

Like arm-waving hysterics about anything yes.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#6
And the left or progressives never, never do it

Gun control anyone???
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

And the left or progressives never, never do it

Gun control anyone???

Do you believe two wrongs make a right?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Do you believe two wrongs make a right?

Do you believe three rights make a left?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Do you believe three rights make a left?

Fu cking lefties. We'll have to make 5 rights
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#10
I don't care if it would have saved his life. We're safe enough already. It's liberty that is more the isue at this juncture.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Do you believe three rights make a left?



Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

I don't care if it would have saved his life. We're safe enough already. It's liberty that is more the isue at this juncture.

When Colpy isn't quoting Benjamin Franklin with libertarian passion, he swings left to support extra security measures like this bill.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+2
#12
The basis of this bill is two incidents of crazies running amok and nothing to do with terrorism. Harpo is the one who tried to make it about terrorism. All I can say is this woman fell victim to Harpo's propaganda, Somebody should whack Harpo's pee pee for lying and spreading hysteria. The bozo is a closet terrorist.
 
petros
+1
#13
Which parts of the Bill do you fear and why?
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which parts of the Bill do you fear and why?



Doorway to treating peaceful, though non-law abiding, protestors as terrorists no longer protected by the Charter.
 
petros
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Doorway to treating peaceful, though non-law abiding, protestors as terrorists no longer protected by the Charter.

If they are peaceful law abiding protestors what do they have to worry about?

Don't break the law.
 
tay
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

If they are peaceful law abiding protestors what do they have to worry about?

Don't break the law.





The CONS want to redefine what the 'laws' are, thereby turning such protestors into offenders.


You really should read up on the Bill.






It was a moving moment. The sister of the murdered soldier Patrice Vincent testifying before committee studying Bill C-51.

But it also symbolized the ghastly way the Cons are running the hearing. For they will not hear from the Canadian Bar Association or the Privacy Commissioner.

But they will turn it into a star chamber, and demand to know whether those testifying are with them or the terrorists.

And they will appeal to emotion rather than reason. (link is external)








and




http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...so-thinks.html
Last edited by tay; Mar 24th, 2015 at 12:42 PM..
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

If they are peaceful law abiding protestors what do they have to worry about?

Don't break the law.

They wouldn't be peaceful and law abiding if they're terrorists. You guys see terrorists everywhere.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

If they are peaceful law abiding protestors what do they have to worry about?

Don't break the law.

Bit of a non sequitur. The thing is, if they are peaceful non-law-abiding protestors, they may well be breaking the law, but it does not follow that tehy are terrorists.

Civil disobedience does not equal terrorism. No need to be so frightened.

It doesn't matter much anyways, because (a) the Supremem Court will toss this law and (b) CSIS operates in the dark so they'll go ahead and do what they please anyways.

The liberertarian me has never really bought the line about "as long as you are doing anything that we say is wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" government style.
 
petros
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

The CONS want to redefine what the 'laws' are, thereby turning such protestors into offenders.


You really should read up on the Bill.

It was a moving moment. The sister of the murdered soldier Patrice Vincent testifying before committee studying Bill C-51.

But it also symbolized the ghastly way the Cons are running the hearing. For they will not hear from the Canadian Bar Association or the Privacy Commissioner.
H
But they will turn it into a star chamber, and demand to know whether those testifying aref with them or the terrorists.

And they will appeal to emotion rather than reason. (link is external)

and

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...so-thinks.html


Don't break the law. Simple
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

No need to be so frightened.

Some people just can't help it.
 
tay
#21
Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wonders what will happen when judges start acting in secret.The old adage that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done still holds true. Bill C-51 shreds that basic principle. Mendes writes (link is external) that the bill is a vicious attempt to compromise the judiciary:


Problems with the bill are many, although the one [Ron] Atkey was talking about — one that has received very little attention from politicians and the media — is in the section that would authorize CSIS agents to apply for judicial warrants that could contravene charter rights.


This section would amount to one of the most serious attempts by any Canadian government to compromise the independence of the judiciary by forcing them to be silent partners to unlawful acts. Under C-51, CSIS could apply for permission to break the law — short of causing bodily harm or undermining sexual integrity — in order to disrupt threats to the nation’s security. Court hearings for such “disrupt warrants” would be conducted in secret, with no judicial oversight or review to prevent abuses.



Harper has no regard for the courts. He has disbanded the research department at the Ministry of Justice -- the folks who used to check whether or not proposed legislation would run afoul of the Charter of Rights. And, because no one in the Harper government bothers to ask any more if a law is constitutional, the whole of the warrant process will be struck down:

The tragic irony here is that, by introducing a warrant process that is clearly unconstitutional, the Stephen Harper government is putting the entire framework of disrupt warrants at risk of being struck down. It would have been better for the safety of Canadians, and for national security in general, if C-51 had never been tabled in the first place. C-51’s drafters have not learned critical lessons from the tragedy of the Air India bombings, from the O’Connor Commission report and from our closest allies in the fight against global terror.

But Bill C-51 has never been about protecting Canadians. It's about sabotaging the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- which has always been one of Stephen Harper's prime directives.







Why are we asking judges to break the law in secret?












 
petros
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Bit of a non sequitur. The thing is, if they are peaceful non-law-abiding protestors, they may well be breaking the law, but it does not follow that tehy are terrorists.

Civil disobedience does not equal terrorism. No need to be so frightened.

.

non-law-abiding....

What sort of things do non-law-abiding peaceful protesters do?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The basis of this bill is two incidents of crazies running amok and nothing to do with terrorism. Harpo is the one who tried to make it about terrorism. All I can say is this woman fell victim to Harpo's propaganda, Somebody should whack Harpo's pee pee for lying and spreading hysteria. The bozo is a closet terrorist.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Which parts of the Bill do you fear and why?



 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

non-law-abiding....

What sort of things do non-law-abiding peaceful protesters do?

Sit at the back of the bus.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

non-law-abiding....

What sort of things do non-law-abiding peaceful protesters do?





This?

 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Zipperfish View Post

Sit at the back of the bus.

Which would have been useless.

Quote:

Rosa Parks rode at the front of a Montgomery, Alabama, bus on the day the Supreme Court's ban on segregation of the city's buses took effect.

That my dear is being a law abiding protest.

Follow Rosa's lead.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

This?

Very interesting post considering we already have laws in place to deal with that sort of thing
 
Tecumsehsbones
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

non-law-abiding....

What sort of things do non-law-abiding peaceful protesters do?

Usually trespassing.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Usually trespassing.

Hunt the f&@?ers down.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Hunt the f&@?ers down.

Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be prosecuted.