Conservatives mulling legislation making it illegal to condone terrorist acts online

DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
The difference between a conservative and a liberal................
You shoot a mugger that was trying to kill a conservative....The conservative thanks you asks you where he can buy a gun like that, and invites you over for a beer...


A liberal will immediately ask you if you have a permit to carry and if your gun is registered and call the cops on you if it is not..
 
WLDB

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Locutus said:
to date (and it will be amended soon):


  • “terrorist activity” means
    • (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
      • (i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,
      • (ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,
      • (iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,
      • (iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,
      • (v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.21) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980, as amended by the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on July 8, 2005 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on September 14, 2005,
      • (vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,
      • (vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
      • (viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
      • (ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and
      • (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or
    • (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
      • (i) that is committed
        • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
        • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
      • (ii) that intentionally
        • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
        • (B) endangers a person’s life,
        • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
        • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
        • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),
    and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.
    “terrorist group”
    « groupe terroriste »
    “terrorist group” means
    • (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or
    • (b) a listed entity,
    and includes an association of such entities.
  • Marginal note:For greater certainty

    (1.1) For greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.
  • Marginal note:For greater certainty

    (1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.
  • Marginal note:Facilitation

    (2) For the purposes of this Part, facilitation shall be construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2).

  • 2001, c. 41, ss. 4, 126;
  • 2010, c. 19, s. 1;
  • 2013, c. 13, s. 6.


Criminal Code
Click to expand...

Because it covers anything that happens in the world that is an extremely vague definition even though it is quite lengthy.

Twila said:
Good question. I'd think if you're needing to use violence against an oppressive government then it might be prudent to seek asylum in another country.
Click to expand...

If that happened every time quite a few oppressive governments would never have been overthrown.

Corduroy said:
The War Measures Act, which Trudeau used during the October Crisis, has been repealed and replaced with the Emergencies Act, which like all laws is subject to the Charter. All the Charter does, though, is add an extra step for Prime Ministers to limit our freedoms. They have to convince the Supreme Court it's reasonable, which is vague enough to essentially mean the PM just needs a compliant court.
Click to expand...

Or can just invoke the notwithstanding clause to suspend everything for five years.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
CDNBear said:
I encourage free speech, especially the kind that exposes people for what they really are and/or make me laugh.
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY it.

First of all, free speech means you can not dictate to people what they say.

Secondly, WHY would you want t drive them underground, where they are much more difficult to watch??
 
P

peoplesadvocate

Nominee Member
Nov 1, 2014
69
0
6
Alberta
Locutus said:
OTTAWA — The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on Thursday that Canada’s law and policing powers need to be strengthened in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. He said work is already under way to provide law enforcement agencies with “additional tools” and that work will now be expedited.

The dilemma faced by law enforcement agencies was highlighted by the case this week of Martin Couture-Rouleau.

His passport was seized by the authorities, who feared he wanted to go overseas to fight but there was not enough evidence to charge and detain him. He was fatally shot Monday, after hitting two soldiers with his car in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

The Conservative MP said the new legislation was crafted before this week’s events and is not “trauma tainted.”

Mr. Rouleau’s website featured a black ISIS flag and rejoiced that “disbelievers” will be consigned to the fires of Hell for eternity.

more


Conservatives mulling legislation making it illegal to condone terrorist acts online | National Post
Click to expand...
This has been going on long before the days of Christ.
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
blow-back... got it in before the new upcoming Harper Conservative legislation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom