Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

Comments

Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that in Canada, 9/11 is actually 11/9, since they use a different date format system up there, eh?

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[rjshields]

What kind of fucking crack are you smoking? The date system here is the exact same. The only people who choose DD/MM/YYYY are the French.

That's what I love about /., the bounty of well-thought out, balanced, calm, rational argument.

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[Killjoy_NL]

Wow, I speak french and don't even know it then?

Let me try a sentence then "Lik mijn reet!"

Nope, still dutch

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[Skrynesaver]

What kind of fucking crack are you smoking? The date system here is the exact same. The only people who choose DD/MM/YYYY are the French.

We need an "-1 Uninformed insular idiot" mod. All European countries use the more rational DD/MM/[YY]YY format though the ISO YYYY-MM-DD is obviously the best, alphabetic sorting is equivalent to chronological and all that.

The frankly bizarre [M]M/[D}D/[YY]YY format is a PITA to deal with.

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[RMH101]

"All European countries use the more rational DD/MM/[YY]YY format."
Sweden doesn't. They use MM/DD/YY(YY).

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[machinder]

Too late, eh, ya hoser. We're already in your country, photographin' yer houses, eh?

Dudley Doright FTW!

(Dick.)

Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jusDfaqs]

Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.

Yea, like this one, US!

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get too excited, even after the supreme court struck down certain portions of the TERROR! bill, the conservative prime minister Stephen Harper said they would ignore the ruling..
 
 
OTTAWA - Only days after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the security-certificate regime as unconstitutional, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to "sustain" the system used to detain non-citizens believed to pose a national-security threat.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that withholding evidence from individuals detained on security certificates violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
 
What the fuck is the problem with these red-neck politicians from oil rich states & provinces?

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[kinglink]

"The anti-terror laws have never been used"

I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[IceDiver]

I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Anivair]

Clearly they think the too highly of their own power.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jusDfaqs]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ss f?/base/news/117232538430570.xml&coll=2
The court called this a fundamental violation of their human rights.
"The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: Before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in a ruling for all nine justices.
"The secrecy required by the scheme denies the person named in a certificate the opportunity to know the case put against him or her, and hence to challenge the government's case," she said.

wtf?
Going out on a limb here but,

If the laws were never used, then the case would not have reached the justices to be ruled upon in the first place. In this case the five Muslim men held without being allowed the right to mount a defense to the charges, that doesn't work for me. I have the right to be counted as innocent until you prove, in a court of law no less, the fact "I" did willing and with malice violate the law in question. No matter what evidence you have, video, ploaroid, signed confession, I nor YOU are guilty until proven so.

Yea I stand behind the description, "DON'T WORK".

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Onan]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

Oh, that's an easy one. Those two positions are not contradictory at all.

Invasive, authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism (in addition to having many more deleterious effects). But terrorism is a trivial problem in the first place: something that happens with negligible frequency, and harms (on a national scale) a miniscule number of people.

So, yes, the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse. I do have kind of a problem with that.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[DiscoLizard]

Because the US suffered huge amounts of terrorist attacks before the PATRIOT act and the Homeland Security bureaucracy came into being.

I've never been attacked by lions, I guess it's because I have this lucky anti-lion rock in my backyard.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[maxume]

The cigars of doom are on the move!

As you say, there is not reason to call the policy anything other than untested. Along with that, there isn't really any demonstrative proof that only allowing very small containers of fluids on airlines has prevented any more terrorism than allowing small containers of fluids would have, and maybe occasionally, even multi liter containers. It is ye old bear repellent rock; that is, the measurement problem you point out works both ways. Having not lived the last five years under a different regulatory regime, we have nothing to compare the current regulatory regime to.

Setting a very high bar for 'worth it' helps curb the stupidity a little bit. The number of attacks on the mainland of the United States in the five years prior to 9/11 was also 0. Those laws must have been pretty good!

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Proofof. Chaos]

I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work." RTFSynopsis: "The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion." The government didn't renew the laws because they decided that they weren't needed. If you're cleaning your house and find something you bought five years ago and have never used, what do you do with it.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Shads]

The policies in the US are more detrimental to the citizens than what they may or may not prevent.

The fact is... since the laws enactment dozen of times people have demonstrated time and time again how they're completely non-effective.

Bravo for Canada... they're becoming like the us... only with considerably more sanity.

Boston is a good example of exactly what is wrong with the US... blowing up a lite brite... blowing up a traffic counter... etc. The people running the country are running amok and getting out of hand.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[flyingsquid]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

There are three answers:

(1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!

(2) They are busy attacking our allies -as they did in Madrid and London- to isolate us. And quite effectively. Notice how small the "coalition of the willing" is these days?

(3) America is pretty good at integrating its immigrants, so Al Qaeda has very few sympathizers in the United States. Muslim immigrants to the United States tend to like America, identify as Americans, and to pick up our values, and their kids are very well integrated into the culture. They may not like the government but they like the country. However, Muslims in Europe much more often end up isolated, economically disenfranchised, and pissed off at their host countries. That makes them more likely to look to radical Islam and hatch bomb plots, as in London. The way we treat our immigrants, and not the Patriot Act, is probably our strongest defense against domestic terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[kinglink]

Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration? Or are we just forgetting them because they happened more then 6 years ago? Terrorism has always been a problem in the world yet now we are looking for it and it's just not there.

The fact is we have had terrorism all along, just because it's dropped off after 9/11 doesn't mean there wasn't attacks before. And from the sound of their own recordings they'd like nothing more to strike us again on American soil. So if it is so easy to get across the borders like everyone says... what gives? Apparently Homeland security IS working at some level.

The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

Allow me to make an alternate example. Assume I live in a city with another person called Joe. Joe is a murderer and a thief. I own a lot of expensive items, however I also am careful and carry a handgun on me at all time, and have a security system at home that can't be broken into. So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?

This doesn't mean I SHOULD have a gun and a security system, or that it's the best way to handle this. However it was effective in avoiding the problems with Joe, just as the DHS is one solution to solving terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Curtman]

they're becoming like the us

Yes, you can tell that by the U.S. flag all over this topic. The politics theme is badly designed.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Maxo-Texas]

ironically it's easier to get mildly illicit drugs through security than deoderant these days.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[darkonc]

Well, there were a couple of camps: For the Liberals (who passed the law in the first place, and begrudgingly included the sunset clause):

• It hasn't been used in the time it's been in place.
• Other laws have turned out to be enough even to deal with the terrorists we've found (once we placed a focus there).
• The law has a huge potential to be misused. It needs some heavy-duty checks and balances (which the conservatives weren't willing to put into place until the last minute when it was clear that they weren't going to win the fight to get it passed as-is.)

For The Conservatives (currently in power, and fawning at the feet of GB Jr.):

• Just because it hasn't been used doesn't mean that it won't be.
• Just because it hasn't been misused means that it won't be. [[ I kid you not]].
• Not voting for it means that you're (a friend of) terrorists. (they've actually publicly accused the liberals of having their agenda steered by 'extremists'.

Then, of course, there are the NDP (uh, to the left of anything you normally see in the US), and the Block Quebecois (slightly to the left of the NDP, except that they want to separate Quebec into it's own country) who have always railed against the civil rights aspects of the law. (you can guess how they're voting).

Because this is a minority government, the conservatives needed the support of at least one other party to renew this law. They've spent so much time and energy browbeating and insulting people over this issue that it looks like nobody's gonna want to talk to them for quite some time.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Jehosephat2k]

http://www.safetystate.com/

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[iocat]

Yeah, except the worst element of the PATRIOT Act is they can get librarians to say what books you checked out, without a warrant. The Canadian law allowed compelling witnesses to testify (banned under our fifth amendment) and indefinite detention (banned under some other amendments). The Canadian law was SIGNIFICANTLY more authortarian than the PATRIOT Act.

Although I guess how much people freaked out about the PATRIOT Act, shows just how jealously Americans really do regard their freedom. (Although I suspect most of the people who rail against the PATRIOT act have never read it, and wouldn't have protested nearly as vigorously against it if a Democrat was in the White House.)

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[ragefan]

Here is a list of Terrorist attacks within the United States or against Americans abroad.

I count only 4 attacks on U.S. soil before Sept. 11, 2001 since 1920, 2 (possibly 3) of which were by Americans citizens. The attacks outside of our country are much harder to prevent without going outside our jurisdiction.

There were no attacks from 1995 (OK. City until 2001) and the indication is that the potential for the attack on 9/11 was known but ignored. Since that time the first world trade center bombing in 1993 all we get is reactive measures, and very little proactive measures to security. Only now when some detail comes out about a potential threat, everyone freaks out, and there is a larger knee-jerk reaction, and then everything goes back to the way it was 6 months ago. For example, after the attempt with shoe bomb, we had months of taking shoes off before boarding planes, then there was the "explosives" in water bottles, no carry-on containers.

I think the problem is administration wants to be seen to do something, so does the things that affects us the most directly and therefore most visible, rather than the things that prevent then from happening.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[DerangedAlchemist]

"policies that dont work get revoked"

They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?
No. We prevented the terrorist act without using laws that destroy freedom.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Chris Burke]

Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration?

No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.

But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.

The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.

So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?

Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.

But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.

We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, except the worst element of the PATRIOT Act is they can get librarians to say what books you checked out, without a warrant. - "iocat"

Read that statement. Think about it. Read it again. Never mind revoking habeas corpus, wiretapping, invasive snooping into personal financial records, Quaker groups being spied upon as terrorist, rendition of completely innocent parties to foreign countries where they are tortured for a couple of years, then released because they had the wrong guy.

Forget all that. This guy's most worried about the Feds finding out that he's reading bodybuilding magazines and bad sci-fi. Trust me, I doubt you're going to get arrested for taking out "How to Hypnotize Women to Bend to Your Will" for the 5th time.

Anyway, it's good to know that if a terrorist requests "books on blowing up buildings" the FBI will be all over him. But who knows, maybe the reason you've been audited by the IRS two years in a row is because you insist on reading those Howard Zinn history books or Origin of Species.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[thesandtiger]

(1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!

I have to disagree.

Do you know what would be worse than 1000 suicide bombers going after US troops in Iraq or abroad?

5 suicide bombers in the US going after daycare centers.

Anything overseas is overseas. But look at what happened post 9-11. Fear crippled the nation. Now imagine if every couple of days or weeks some random low-value target got blown to smithereens. The entire country would be paralyzed and for *quite* some time.

The whole "invade Iraq" thing only works if we assume our enemies are stupid.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[The One and Only]

Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

Statistically, the sample size is so incredibly low that we can't predict anything with it.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[iocat]

Except Rendition isn't covered by the Patriot Act. It isn't the catch all for "everything the government does that I think is bad." Read the law and understand it before you use it as the focus for all your energy. The Canadian law is simply much worse.

And if you think the government has its act together enough to try and hassle people who read Howard Zinn books, well, you clearly have no idea how incompetant the government actually is, or how it actually works (or how many members of the government are not Republicans). I hate to break it to you, but the government doesn't really care about you. You're not that special. What's scary isn't the governments evil omnipitance, but its total impotence to do even the most basic functions it's supposed to under the constitution.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jinxidoru]

So you're implying that the reason that we haven't had suicide bombers hitting the US since 9/11 is the Patriot Act? On what grounds can you make that claim? I may not have enough proof to show that to be false, but you definitely don't have enough proof to show it to be true. Of course, your answer will be that we haven't had an attack since 9/11, well we didn't have one before either. We didn't have the Patriot Act before 9/11 and we defended ourselves just fine. Also, Al Queda's hatred for us is not a new thing that started on 9/11.

Basically I'm just trying to say that the Patriot Act may or may not have improved our security. The data that I have is pretty inconclusive. That said, the data that I have showing how the Patriot Act is a violation of my freedoms as an American is pretty conclusive.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[h2_plus_O]

Now imagine if every couple of days or weeks some random low-value target got blown to smithereens. The entire country would be paralyzed and for *quite* some time.

I dunno. I expect that the result would be the complete opposite of paralysis. We'd make war.
We have endless tolerance for people far away suffering injustice and genocide, but blow up stuff on our soil? That's a whole different ball game.
We might be arrogant, ignorant, and divided politically, but if we unite, look out.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Cederic]

The perpetrators of the bombings in London were not isolated or economically disenfranchised. And the "coalition of the willing" is small because of point (1) and nothing to do with the chances of domestic terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[rtb61]

So what you are saying if a terrorist kills someone, without anti-terror laws, that terrorist has not committed a crime. So every two bit armed thug can claim to be a terrorist and in countries without anti-terror laws they have to let them free, OMFG, the humanity.

Anti-terror laws were a gross abuse of the legal system and an affront to the rights most citizens would expect in any modern democracy. What is a terror suspect, but some poor sod that some government agent, be they a red neck county mounty or a CIA contractor trying to justify their fees, decides to call them one.

There is no evidence, if there was they would actually arrest for an actual crime.

You stop and think for a second, if an actual terrorist wants to get you to do something that you know is a criminal act, all they have to do is threaten to tell the legal authorities that you are a terrorist if they get arrested and make absolutely no mistake you are fucked and Guantanamo bay bound, and there you will remain until such time as you too confess (1,2,5, what ever years), you nasty little terrorist suspect, I hope you enjoy water sports ;).

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[PopeRatzo]

I agree, iocat. The government doesn't have its act together enough to worry about what people read, and they certainly don't care about me. It's giving an entity that's so incompetent such extensive power that makes me worry.

The PATRIOT Act is not the catch all for everything the government does that I think is bad. It is a symbol of the worst of what power they desire and just a hint of how far they're willing to go to get it.

Incompetence in power is my idea of a horror show. But I guess it could be worse. Who knows what damage might have been done had the current administration actually been able to accomplish what it wanted. But I worry about what happens when someone who actually knows how use the extraordinary powers the Executive Branch has taken gets into office. Think about a pathologically power hungry and ruthless New York senator with unfettered access to the newly minted "Unitary" Executive Branch's power. It might turn out we were better off with a moron.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[thesandtiger]

Uh, no - I never mentioned the PATRIOT Act. Nor did I offer any opinion on why we haven't been attacked here again. You brought up both things. Maybe instead of making shit up to respond to, you could try responding to what was actually said?

I suspect that the reason we haven't had attacks here is not the laughable DHS preparations or the PATRIOT Act provisions, but more because there really *weren't* that many people who were willing, interested and able to get over here to fuck with us and the ones who are blowing up themselves, our troops and Iraqis weren't pissed off enough to do it until we invaded.

The PATRIOT Act and DHS are, in my opinion, worse than useless. It lets people think we're doing something to protect ourselves (when we're no safer than we were before and may be less so), curbs our liberties, and generally has been a clusterfuck in every possible way.

Let me say it again:

We haven't been attacked on our soil again since 9/11 for the same reason we didn't get attacked much on our soil before 9/11: Nobody was trying all that hard and there just weren't enough people with the will and means.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[chrish]

The nice thing is, Harper's part of a minority government; if he starts acting (more) like a jackhole, he'll face a Vote of Non-Confidence and be booted out, forcing an election. We're not necessarily stuck with idiots for their fully-purchased (err, elected) terms up here.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[mdwh2]

"Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago.

So if there was a more recent attack, do you honestly think the response would have been "Well, these laws obviously didn't work, let's repeal them"? Of course not - instead it would be "proof" that yet more laws are needed.

The problem is that every time there is an attack, it's used as argument for more laws - the burden is upon you to show that these laws are working, and going a period of time without any attacks is not sufficient when the same happened before the laws were brought in.

"Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11.

Actually it's the Bush administration which tells us we're in a War on Terror and how dangerous the world is now. I'd be the first to disagree with this.

On the other hand, a lot of the world hates the Bush administration, but political views have nothing to do with supporting terrorism.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[gfreeman]

What's the expiry date on that unused three pack of condoms?

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jinxidoru]

Sorry, your response to my comment is exactly correct. This was meant to be a response to a different comment (your grandparent actually). That said, I agree fully with everything you stated in your comment. Sorry again.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[thesandtiger]

It happens - sorry for saying you were making shit up :)

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[thesandtiger]

Actually, this is *exactly* correct.

You think the reaction to 9/11 was bad? Imagine the police state we'd live in if it had been specifically children that were targeted.

Yes, we would, as someone else said, make WAR, but the cost would be unimaginably higher than we're paying now.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[fatcock84]

No kidding? When did this happen?

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[DevilDoc]

"I cannot think of one 'decision' that that man has made that worked out good for U.S. citizens, let alone other peoples of the world. Don't let it happen to you Canada, I love your country, especially from the ages of 19 to 21, I really REALLY loved Canada. 30 minute drive, 20 minute border crossing, off to the bar!" Really, you can't think of one thing the President of the USA has done that worked for the US? How about we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11, the economy is rolling along, unemployment has been lower than the during the 90's and this includes the post 9/11 and dotcom recession. Our brave military, which was decreased from 18 divisions to 10 divisions under Clinton in order to make the rest of the world happy and creating the vaunted budget surlus, has won a war and transistioned from desert warfare to urban warfare in such a drastic fashion that the enemy has had to change its tactics and is still losing. Mr. Bush's Tax breaks has increased tax revenue which has decreased the deficit from 413 billion to 260 billion in 2 years and this includes the billions spent on the War on Terror during this period. It also include the billion spent in aid to other countries. "By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an alltime low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s." pg 2 paragraph 4 I am most likely wasting all this research on a boozer like you. I just want to point out your lack of insite and patriotism. I suggest that next time you do your "30 minute drive, 20 minute border crossing, off to the bar!" that you stay up there with the rest of the whiny liberals and spineless socialist wannabes. Don't worry, we will come bail you ass out when the shit hits the fan, just like true Americans always have and always will.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[DevilDoc]

So, exactly how many 9/11 type attacks does it take for terrorism to go from trivial to significant? How many Toyko style subway gas attacks or Israel/Iraq style suicide bombs? I challenge you to name how you, personally, have had your civil rights destroyed. My guess is that it has not effected your life one iota other than raise your dander at the meer fact the government dare do something that you don't agree with. You can make statements like "authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism." when the facts point out the opposite facts, we haven't been attacked on American soil in over 5 years! My hope is that, if we let down our guard like you want us to, that I don't loose someone I care about in the next attack. I hope you don't either. I really don't understand your line of thought, people like you make it sound as if we are living under Stalinist Russia with your beliefs that "the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse." I don't know if you live in America but it doesn't sound like the America I live in. I haven't been thrown up against a wall and had a full body cavity search followed by a lenghty stay in a "re-education camp". I haven't heard of any death squads running around abducting people. I would have to say that you probably would know true civil rights violation if it came up and kicked you in the nuts. So go get another Starbuck's triple skim, decaf, mocha, latte, cappucino and put on your beret and Che Guevara t-shirt and thank whatever god you pray to that you live in the USA. Or do us all a favor and move to France.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[Onan]

So, exactly how many 9/11 type attacks does it take for terrorism to go from trivial to significant?

If we had one every month, it'd rise to the level of severity of traffic accidents.

If we had one every week, it'd rise to the level of severity of influenza.

If we had one every four years, it would rise to the level of severity of deaths caused by falling out of bed.

If we say that there's been one WTC-scale terrorist attack in the last fifty years (to circumvent a discussion about whether Pearl Harbor counts), then the closest cause of national mortality I can find is "contact with hornets, wasps and bees".

I don't live my life in fear of bees. I don't find it acceptable for the government to suspend habeas corpus to fight the dire threat of bees. I certainly don't find it acceptable for the government to spend half a trillion dollars on killing several hundred thousand innocent people in order to protect me from bees.

"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[Baby Duck]

I can finally Blame Canada ... for starting something Good.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[Bob Gelumph]

New tag:
ThankCanada

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[JazzLad]

Oh my gosh, I haven't agreed with a post more in a long time. I think the only way we're (read:USA) gonna get our collective heads out of [fill in the blank: sand/dark smelly place/you get the idea] is if everyone else - even our '51st state' - shows us how asinine we're being. 'Land of the Free, home of the brave' should not be an ironic statement! we've toppled less-totalitarian governments than our own, if only the UK would wise up we'd be forced to realize the truth.

Too bad they are probably even worse off than we are. Perhaps if/when we clean up our act you (read:UK) can follow our example back from the darkside.

Cheers to Bob, Big Cheers to Canada. Read my sig, both groups are opposed to the crap that is going on these days (albeit the ACLU more than the NRA).

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[11011001]

This is one of those times where I am proud to actually be Canadian.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[maxume]

The EFF works along the same lines as the ACLU and will probably put your money to better use.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[JazzLad]

Ya, I suspect the ACLU has more political clout though, and due to sig length limits, I had to keep it to two. Of course there are many organizations that one would do well to join. Heck, I'd like to see a mass exodus from the Repub/Dem parties to Constitution/Lib/Green parties too, but again, sigs can only be so long :) //Mod note: yes, this is slightly OT for TFA, but on topic for the thread direction. Feel free to mod either way, my Karma can take it.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[maxume]

I get a bad feeling exactly from the apparent political clout of the ACLU. My impression of the EFF is that they are more about doing, which I find to be a good thing. Of course, to each his own.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[ceoyoyo]

Sorry, Canada's told the US they were being idiots quite a few times and it doesn't seem to make a difference. One of the most memorable recent incidents was when PM Cretien told them they were full of bull pucky about WMDs in Iraq. Look how much ignoring us on THAT one cost (is costing)!

Once again showing

[teamhasnoi]

that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.

Re:Once again showing

[LunaticTippy]

So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

Re:Once again showing

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it but (pretty much) every American does not understand the nature of what happened ...

This law was not voted down because of some greater principle, this was (mostly) a political action taken in order to make a party that is sinking in the polls (the Liberal party) look better. If the Liberal party was in power they would (probably, being that they created the law in the first place) have voted in favor of the law.

Re:Once again showing

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally disagree. The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, has integrity and fights for what he believes in. Also, the terrorist act goes against our cultural grain - we have a very strong belief in human rights, and the current (minority) government does not represent what the majority feel about this situation.

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Eliot Trudeau, 1969.

Re:Once again showing

[JM78]

That Canadians are more American than most Americans (I'm American which makes me ignorant by association and therefor an expert on the subject).

Re:Once again showing

[Brickwall]

The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, has integrity and fights for what he believes in.

Funniest comment ever. This guy was minister of the environment for four years, and didn't do a thing to curb carbon emissions. Now that he is in opposition, he's Mr. Greenjeans. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist; integrity is one thing he doesn't have.

Re:Once again showing

[JebusIsLord]

Well, if you really need the joke explained to you:

We (Canadians) think of the US as a mass of uneducated, superstitious people who haven't quite grasped the concept of enlightened democracy. Also, we're kind of worried that you'll sneak across the border while we're asleep and make off with our women.

Re:Once again showing

[ArtDent]

4 years? Try 19 months. July 2004 to February 2006.

Not incidentally, that's just 6 months longer than the current Conservative government has been in power. How much progress do you think they will make by September?

In his 19 months, Dion created a plan. The Conservatives cancelled it. What did you expect would happen?

Re:Once again showing

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh crap. I don't think I want to live in Australia any more.

Re:Once again showing

[BobNET]

Once again showing [t]hat Canadians are more American than most Americans

This is true. I've often felt that Canada is "America as it should have been"...

Re:Once again showing

[ShieldW0lf]

Once again showing ... that Canadians are more American than most Americans (I'm American which makes me ignorant by association and therefor an expert on the subject).

Once again showing that Americans define themselves more by what Hollywood tells them that they are than by how they as Americans actually act?

Re:Once again showing

[JM78]

Was that a question? I don't see it having anything to do with Hollywood.

Once again showing that we, as a nation (meaning our governmental and societal policies), continue to move away from the basic principles our founding fathers left us with. We continue to erode the basic human rights of our citizens with sickening speed in the name of security - which, interestingly enough, is more often than not brought upon ourselves by pre-judging and meddling in the affairs of others before making sure our own crap doesn't stink. And boy does it reek.

My comment was simply pointing out my humble opinion that our country, which prides itself so much in our self-proclaimed democratic principles (which are corrupt and full of hypocrisy seeing as how we don't actually have a true democracy... *ahem* republic *cough*), has been increasingly been showed up by our neighbors to the north in their ability to follow the morals and principles our constitution outlines better than we can. It's pathetic.

Re:Once again showing

[dsanfte]

More directly, you really must understand that the environment as a real issue here only skyrocketed to the health-care and economy-level of importance in the last year or so. No political party, not even the Conservatives, will be able to get away with doing nothing now. As little as Dion was able to get done in the Martin administration, I'm sure a Harper administration would have found a way to do less than nothing, if only out of spite.

Re:Once again showing

[Robber Baron]

Also, we're kind of worried that you'll sneak across the border while we're asleep and make off with our women. You can't steal what you can't find!

Re:Once again showing

[Sique]

I always wondered why Santa Claus would set up a workshop at the North Pole... given that he was born in Lykia (in today's Turkey), was bishop in Myra (also in today's Turkey), and finally got buried in Bari (southern Italy) I expected his workshop to be somewhere in the Mediterran. What drives such a person north of the Polar Circle to either Rovaniemi (Finish version), Mo i Rana (Norwegian version) or the North Pole itself (U.S. version)? What sinister conspiracy is going on here? And why does Canada remove the laws that would allow us to investigate? (by the way: the German Santa Claus, as depicted in the Struwwelpeter, does still seem to live in Turkey, at least he's wearing a caftan and a kind of fez.)

Re:Once again showing

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

Not Australia!

Fundamental difference

[the computer guy nex]

This Canadian legislation gave new powers to the government that did not prior exist.

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym) simply applied certain powers the US Government already had to potential terrorists. It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells, which is the reason why PATRIOT ACT will not be completely voided anytime soon.

Re:Fundamental difference

[delong]

My god man, don't you know where you are? You'll be tarred, feathered, and stoned for that comment.

Re:Fundamental difference

[UbuntuDupe]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

And don't forget to capitalize it for Canada's proposed law as well, the MOUNTIE (Marshalling Our Unified Nation against Terrorism Immediately, Eh?) Act.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Evilest Doer]

It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells

Neither of these powers make any sense, nor are they Constitutional. The first Bush pushed the "War on Drugs" which has whittled away our rights, and the second Bush pushed the "War on Terror" which has evicerated our rights. Has noone noticed that both of the big excuses for eliminating civil rights have been pushed by Bushes, a family well-known for and even convicted of helping the Nazis?

Re:Fundamental difference

[bberens]

You're right, it doesn't make sense but not for the reason you're likely professing. Terrorism is not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Terrorism is not a threat. More people die from the use of non-prescription anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin every year in the U.S. than have EVER died from terrorism on U.S. soil. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Aspirin kills more people than terrorism in this country. If the government has more powers to go after drug cartels than terrorists then the solution should be to trim the powers available to go after drug cartels, not grant more powers to after some other random type of criminal.

/Yes, I know that the drug cartels you were referring to have nothing to do with Aspirin. I merely used them as an example because Aspirin is generally considered 'harmless' by most people.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Eric Damron]

The PATRIOT Act (Please don't upper case "act") did amend various laws but in doing so it also altered those laws giving the government powers that it never had before.

Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.

Re:Fundamental difference

[SevenHands]

"Bushes, a family well-known for and even convicted of helping the Nazis?"

I am genuinely curious about this one. Does any slashdotter have a link for this. I do not want to do the search from within my country for fear of repercussions. Just kidding. I am at work right now and shouldn't be using the computer for anything other than work, err.. reading slashdot... must stop confusing reading /. with work.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Sciros]

Dude if I could I'd mod you insightful. Thanks for the info next time I'm in a big crowd in D.C. I'll know to stay the hell away from any Aspirin-popping male senior citizens.

While we're at it let's propose a "War on Natural Causes" because that has also killed way more people than terrorism has in the U.S.

Yeah I agree people need to see "terrorism is not a threat" in print more. What they should be seeing in print is "Tel-Aviv: 12 killed 26 wounded. Aspirin for the lose!"

Re:Fundamental difference

[Yez70]

Here's an old list of Bush's resume: http://www.laughparty.com/view/id/945/

As for the specific Bush/Nazi connection:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,131254 0,00.html

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/

Re:Fundamental difference

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Ask yourself how much changed after a white domestic terrorist like "Timothy McVeigh" was found connected to the oklahoma city bombing? Nothing.
Actually, the FBI started investigating "militias" and just try to order 2 tons of ammonium nitrate through the mail. But don't let facts diffuse your white liberal guilt. Shine on you crazy diamond.

Re:Fundamental difference

[WNight]

No, but you won't get rid of either of them unless you realize that the PATRIOT Act is just a "and the anti-drug stuff, you can use over there too". Fight the real source of the unconstitutional crap, not a mere me-too bill.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Red Flayer]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym) simply applied certain powers the US Government already had to potential terrorists. It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells, which is the reason why PATRIOT ACT will not be completely voided anytime soon.

Umm, no. That's a line of propaganda you've taken hook, line, and sinker.

The PATRIOT Act (FYI, 'Act' should not be in all caps, since it is not part of the acronym) removes restricitons on apprehension of suspected terrorists that remain for drug & RICO suspects. The PATRIOT Act is a wish-list from law-enforcement agencies (including unconstitutional provisions) that was rushed through on the pretext of preventing terrorism -- it's all the the things they wished they could do, but couldn't (even under RICO) prior to 9/11.

Re:Fundamental difference

[bberens]

Look, no one is saying that we don't need to investigate potential terrorist cells in the U.S. or abroad for that matter. I'm just suggesting that the sensational OMGPONIES that occurred immediately after 9/11 is over and we need to get back to reality. And yes, I'm part of the "the war on drugs is stupid" crowd. And no, I do not use illicit drugs. I even avoid prescription and over the counters if I can. I hear aspirin is more deadly than terrorism.

As for the headline about Tel-Aviv, well.. that's a great headline to have. I'm sure there's plenty of people interested in hearing about it. The difference between you and me is that I don't see a story about a bombing in Tel-Aviv and immediately think to myself that the FBI should have greater powers to secretly capture data on citizens who have not had any charges brought against them.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Phreakiture]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

If you are going to insist on correct capitalisation, then use it: USA PATRIOT act. USA is part of the acronym; act is not.

Re:Fundamental difference

[Mister Whirly]

"It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells"

That must be why the DEA held seminars on how to apply the patriot act (screw the capitals)against drug dealers, and why more American drug dealers have had this used against them than terrorists. I mean hell, everybody knows the long haired guy down the street that occasionally takes a puff of marijuana (grown in the US, sold in the US) is definitely supporting terrorists. If you really think about it, cultivating marijuana in the US would be putting drug dealers from other countries out of work. (You know, those badass terrorists from British Columbia!)

Re:Fundamental difference

[Sciros]

Heh, well don't go ahead making up differences between you and me. I think the U.S.'s entire approach to combating terrorism is pathetic and ridiculous. Capturing data on citizens, as you put it, is a tremendous waste of energy and needless invasion of privacy. We know where terrorists are funded from, we know where they go for training. And instead of acting on that knowledge, our government agencies spy on us. WTF. When all we're left to deal with is secrets, then I can maybe understand doing some more snooping around. But we are a LONG way from resorting to anything of the sort.

The War on Drugs is also dumb as heck, I totally agree. I think your point is really about how wasteful our government is, yeah?

As for the Aspirin comment ... well, Aspirin may be "more deadly" than terrorism but that's a bit of a skewed way to look at things. Hippos might be "more deadly" than terrorism for all I know, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING because surely no-one is going to send U.S. troops into the Nile river to bring about democracy to hippos and/or kill them good. You know, whatever awesome strategy our government would come up with :-) The point is, it's in my personal power to prevent death by hippo/Aspirin, but it can't do anything about terrorism. That's where the government (and our troops) comes in. I just wish they'd be more competent and focus on some better solutions.

I once made a comment.. maybe on Slashdot but I forget: if terrorists really want to piss us off, all they have to do is "leak" a "plot" to blow up an airplane using explosive undergarments. Instantly we'd all have to fly "commando" for the next couple of months. Yay for security personnel being too rubbish to do their job and instead trying to cover their asses.

Re:Fundamental difference

[ModernGeek]

It should be USA PATRIOT Act:

From wikipedia:
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

Re:Fundamental difference

[glitchvern]

More people die from the use of non-prescription anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin every year in the U.S. than have EVER died from terrorism on U.S. soil.

By this logic the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a threat since more people in the U.S. have died from terrorism than from the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Re:Fundamental difference

[baboo_jackal]

You're right. And your argument leads nicely into another similar point. Guns are not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Guns are not a threat. More people die by owning pools every year in the U.S. than by owning guns. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Pools kill more people than guns in this country. And, also, being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. People need to see that in print more, too. Being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. More people die violent deaths in Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., or New Orleans than soldiers die in Iraq. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Violence kills more people in U.S. cities than it does in Iraq. And driving drunk is not dangerous. bberens would probably agree with me that people need to see that in print more. Driving drunk is not dangerous. More people die in automobile accidents NOT involving alcohol each year than people that die in automobile accidents involving alcohol. Seriously, think about that for a minute: sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers. Yep, statistics are awesome, aren't they?!?

Oh Canada!

[deadhammer]

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.

Re:Oh Canada!

[mdielmann]

As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

<rant>
My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
</rant>

Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?

Re:Oh Canada!

[lazarus]

We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.
But what is knee-jerk? Creating a law containing sweeping powers to detain and question people related to terrorist activites (whatever that is) in the heated moments after a crisis, or failing to replace said law with something more resonable when it expires?

The answer, of course, is both. I feel that your pride in the Canadian system is somewhat misplaced in that this law was killed because the opposition party (Liberals) voted against it. Of course, *they* introduced it. Ask yourself for a second, if the Liberals were in a majority government position right now and this law came up for renewal, would they have killed their own law?

No, of course not.

This was not about Canada doing the right thing. This was about Canadian politics. The fact that the citizenry benefitted was a happy coincidence.

Re:Oh Canada!

[rainman_bc]

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country

Thing is the ass-hat (Celine) that led the party that voted against this law was the same ass-hat that was a member of the party who created that law.

AND keep in mind that this same ass-hat (again, Celine) who is saying the govt is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the same ass hat who sat as environment minister in the previous government and was also part of that same government for a number of years.

Just remember those facts when you vote Red next election.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Coryoth]

If you think minority governments can be a good thing (and indeed they can be), then support proportional representation for Canada. I'm a New Zealander now living in Canada, so I've seen how proportional representation effected politics in NZ (with both pros and cons) and realistically I believe it would be a significant step forward for Canada.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Original Replica]

Oh sure. Show off your functioning democracy, with your multiple opposition parties, and your voter confidence. Wanna buy some Diebold black boxes?

Re:Oh Canada!

[Floritard]

As yet another Canadian, I myself would also like to express my pride in this beautiful country. I however, am an American, so fuck you guys and your adorable dislike of government jackbootery. It's moot anyway. Remember, we're coming for you when we run out of paper.

Re:Oh Canada!

[r00tman]

Eh!-men brother!

Re:Oh Canada!

[superbus1929]

Well, for one, 9/11 directly affected America. Yes, I'm aware that the entire country of Canada was right there helping America, but it happened in New York. That, and our hyperactive media and likes to trumpet it all the time; I'd imagine the same thing would happen to my native land if Toronto and Ottawa were attacked. This isn't meant to say that America has justification for what it does to their peoples' rights; it doesn't. But that's a main reason why it works in America, while Canadians - and for the sake of disclosure, I am a Canadian native that lives in, and is a citizen of America - have finally rose up and said "if this is protection, we don't want to be protected". Good for Canada.

Re:Oh Canada!

[ShieldW0lf]

No, this was an expression of the fact that increasing centralized control erodes freedoms of the individual but empowers the state, and there are emergencies that can arise where that is in everyones enlightened self interest.

It had an inherent recognition built in that the emergency is a transient state and the measures are not intended to extend beyond that. The reaction wasn't "knee-jerk" at all, it was very wisely implemented.

The attempt by the Conservatives to exploit this emergency measure in a grab for more power over the citizenry wasn't knee-jerk either.

I think the idea of all laws being required to be re-ratified on a regular basis has a great deal of appeal, personally.

They all ought to come with a specification of what societal problems they were originally intended to compensate for.

Really, the very existence of a law represents a problem in society. In an ideal system, there would be no motivation to behave in an anti-social fashion in the first place, because it would be so well designed that there wouldn't be a person in it who felt they'd be better off going it alone than participating.

Not to suggest that we're ever going to live in an ideal world, build an ideal system or get rid of laws, but it's a useful yardstick nevertheless.

Re:Oh Canada!

[WNight]

I agree. We almost passed a trial program here in BC. It was for Instant-Runoff Voting and I prefer Approval voting, but either are far ahead of what we currently have.

Re:Oh Canada!

[mikey_man380]

I would also like to chime in as a proud Canadian today and say that even though there may (sarcasm) have been political motivations behind the striking down of these laws....... it still represents a large step in the right direction for the red & white and that maybe the blue down south can eventually follow suit

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much. As much as I think this is an excellent ruling, the Harper government is working to change the way judges are selected. This way they have fewer problems stepping on civil liberties and fewer problems with the courts striking down laws (see same sex marriage)

Re:Oh Canada!

[Headcase88]

I agree with this. As an example, the Bloc Quebecois earned about 3/5 as many votes as the NDP, but wields about 5/3 the power. Check the table on the right

Re:Oh Canada!

[why-is-it]

Thing is the ass-hat (Celine) that led the party that voted against this law was the same ass-hat that was a member of the party who created that law.

Although I am blinded by your obvious eloquence, I am not quite certain what point it is that you are trying to make.

Did anyone in parliament vote against the bill when it was first passed?

I am mindful that the law was passed in part to demonstrate to the Americans that we too were willing to violate civil liberties in the name of fighting terra.

There is a rare moment of sanity in the house of commons and you protest? Who is playing politics now?

AND keep in mind that this same ass-hat (again, Celine) who is saying the govt is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the same ass hat who sat as environment minister in the previous government and was also part of that same government for a number of years.

Unlike say, the current PM who just a few short years ago publicly dismissed global warming as a socialist plot to transfer wealth from industrialized nations to the third world? The one who now claims that the environment is one of his governments top priorities?

Pot, kettle, black.

Re:Oh Canada!

[evilad]

How do I support it?

Re:Oh Canada!

[$uperjay]

Step 1: Pot
Step 2: Kettle
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Layton!

Re:Oh Canada!

[qazsedcft]

Unfortunately, it's not always so simple. Here in Poland, for example, we have proportional representation so the government is almost certain to be a minority government. Due to this, politicians endlessly fight and argue with each other instead of doing anything useful. Now, you may say this is a good thing because that way at least they don't interfere with what people do. That may be true in a country like Canada. But in a country like Poland, that receives billions of Euros from the EU to build infrastructure, but uses less than a few percent of it because no one can agree on what to do with the money, it may not be such a good thing.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Das Modell]

Well, if you reject anti-terror laws, then how do you propose to combat terrorism? Many people are againts anti-terror measures, but have no better solutions, or any solutions, to offer.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Zeebs]

Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.

And Now an election

[mandelbr0t]

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

Gotta love Canadian politics :)

Re:And Now an election

[gfilion]

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

There's currently an election in Québec. The Bloc (federal) and the PQ (provincial) share the same electoral funds and they don't have enough for two elections the same year. So the Bloc would vote against a vote of non-confidence. Also, Harper is gaining in the surveys, so it's a bad time for a non-confidence vote.

Re:And Now an election

[Bullfish]

Actually, no, it was not a confidence issue. Fret not, his timing is coming to an end anyway. It's only a matter of time.

Re:And Now an election

[Krakhan]

I think the next vote of no confidence will most likely come after the conservative budget if it doesn't get voted through the house.

So, I think there will most likely be an election coming up this summer.

Re:And Now an election

[Phisbut]

There's currently an election in Québec. The Bloc (federal) and the PQ (provincial) share the same electoral funds and they don't have enough for two elections the same year.

I really doubt the Bloc and the PQ share the same funds, and I suspect that would go against some electoral law about funding. Do you have a reference of some sort?

Re:And Now an election

[gfilion]

There's currently an election in Québec. The Bloc (federal) and the PQ (provincial) share the same electoral funds and they don't have enough for two elections the same year.

I really doubt the Bloc and the PQ share the same funds, and I suspect that would go against some electoral law about funding. Do you have a reference of some sort?

I eared it on TV! :-) It was on CBC, so I think it's true, but I don't have it in written. Maybe they said that they were sharing "ressources" (volunteers, equipment, etc) but I think I earing funds.

Re:And Now an election

[superbus1929]

It makes no sense. Everyone wants a vote of No Confidence for everything nowadays; it's worse than American politics. Can you imagine if America did this? We'd have had about 590 Presidents by now! "Hey! I didn't get that funding for the inner cities! I'm starting a no confidence vote!" "Oh no! That Congressman was caught saying something off the record! No confidence!" "Oh lord, our President was caught with his pecker in a fat chick's mouth! No confidence, he obviously has no standards!"

Everyone wanted the Liberals out because of the Sponsorship scandal. Now, everyone realizes they overreacted, and wants to fix it. It seems like every time I log into CBC.ca, someone - usually the NDP - is putting forth one of those fashionable no-confidence votes. They're so en-vogue

Re:And Now an election

[fishboy]

There won't be a vote of confidence in the House until the budget in March, and even then none of the oppostion parties want an election right now. This is Harper's true ace at the moment, he can deliver a budget that he knows no one wants to defeat.

The Liberals want Stephan Dion to work the summer barbecue circuit to improve his english and get over the transition to office. The summer will be a scorcher and they are hoping that Canadians will blame global warming on the government of the day, as Dion is hoping to be the green candidate. The Liberals need to raise some serious coin and get their election machine up to snuff after the leadership convention. So the Liberals want to wait.

The Bloc Quebecois is going down to defeat in the Quebec election whith their PQ counterparts (they share the same electoral machine and platform). They are being squeezed by Liberal fortunes and Conservatives gains around Quebec City. They are at a high-water mark in a minority parliament and will not be eager to go to the polls soon. Spring, summer, and fall in Afghanistan means more casualties for Canadian troops there, possibly in the middle of an election campaign which would be disastrous for Harper, especially in Quebec, the only real place he has to grow.

The New Democrats are being squeezed by the green Dion and the new Green Party, with polling numbers that would spell many defeats for them in the coming, likely highly polarised election. They have a bargaining chip in being able to keep the government afloat, something they won't have in the next parliament. So, they don't want one either. That said, only Jack Layton is stupid enough to rock the boat, because that's what he did last time.

So there you have it folks, no spring election in Canada unless Harper engineers his own defeat, which he is loathe to do as the voters will not be happy going to the polls for the third time in three years.

Re:And Now an election

[fair_n_hite_451]

Here's hoping your analysis is wrong, and the Tories are more concerned about the election than you'd give them reason to be.

Dammit, I want my "income splitting" to be a part of the budget to ensure that none of the other parties would dare vote against it.

Can you hear the campaign slogans? "See, the Liberals voted to defeat the budget and take money out of the pocket of every hard working Canadian's pocket" "The Liberals hate stay-at-home moms" "Vote for the Liberals and they'll use the money they just stole from you to finance another sponsorship scandal to stave off another Quebec referendum"

The Tories have to be practically peeing themselves over the chance to run an election on money instead of the environment and the war.

Re:And Now an election

[ceoyoyo]

I guess one is quite a few....

When there's a minority government everybody likes to speculate about no confidence votes, and there's a lot of threatening no confidence votes, but it's not really such a good idea to just launch them rapid fire. People don't like elections, particularly when they come around every year. If you're going to force one, you'd better have a good reason. The government stealing is a good one. The government trying to turn us into Americans is also a good one. Oral sex? Nope.

Re:And Now an election

[superbus1929]

That's my problem: nowadays, EVERYONE wants an NCV (no confidence vote). I love Canada, and I'm extremely distressed that I have to get my news about my native country from Canoe and CBC, but the political cilmate lately is not a good one. The NDP wants an NCV over Kyoto, for Pete's sake!

The sponsorship scandal set a precident that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. Electing Harper and the rest of the conservatives was a knee-jerk reaction to that. I'm afraid of what is next.

Re:And Now an election

[ceoyoyo]

That's just the way minority governments work. The NCV is a negotiation tactic, reminding the conservatives that they may be the government but they have to stay on good terms with everyone else to remain so. I think it's a good thing -- it seriously limits the amount of damage they can do. I can't think of a better situation in this age of knee jerk reactions. Notice how there has only actually BEEN one NCV.

The Liberals needed to spend some time out of power. The sponsorship scandal just illustrates how much they were taking it for granted, particularly after spending two terms without a serious opponent. The only real alternative was the conservatives, but giving them a majority government would have been seriously scary. Perhaps now the Liberals are ready to form the government again, with a little humility added.

sadly not in germany

[dunkelfalke]

here the anti-terror laws become stricter and stricter because our minister of the interior is a fascist. and not only the federal minister of the interior is one, also ministers of the interior of all the german federal states increase the police mandates with the new police laws.

life here starts to suck. i would move to finland but the language is just too difficult (still have nightmares from learning estonian, which is more or less simplified finnish with some german influences).

Re:sadly not in germany

[saskboy]

You seem to write english pretty well, maybe you'd consider coming to Canada instead? We just struck down the laws you're saying are too harsh in Germany, and many, many Canadians came from Germany.

Re:sadly not in germany

[twilight13]

Ja, Canada is always looking for educated immigrants because of our demographics issues. I have read that 3 in 10 people in Canada are of German ancestry. Ich lerne Deutsch an die Universität. Sehr gut!

Re:In other news...

[the_womble]

Well the percentages may be because of the strong wording - "not at all" and "no sympathy" - may be a lot of the rest felt there was "little justification/insufficient justification" and had "little sympathy".

Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[jmagar.com]

The sunset clause kicked in and it has rightfully expired. But what amazes, and impresses, me most is that a number of MPs chose not to vote. Abstained. Their reasoning: The provisions have not been used, and thus can be argued to be not needed. But the conflicting position is that since they were not used, they were not abused. The environment that existed to warrant the creation of these provisions has not gone away, and since we have not abused the provisions, then we should keep them... just in case.

Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[DoofusOfDeath]

A good day for all Canadians.

Heh... true in a funny way. A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[fizzup]

This argument, that since they were not used they were not abused, drives me nuts! Every time someone says it, I hear this: these rules haven't been abused yet, so just give us one more chance. Lets renew them and see if we can figure out how to abuse them.

Oh, and how's this for abuse: the Prime Minister calls into question the reputation of the father-in-law of an Opposition Member of Parliament who is allegedly about to be compelled to testify, even though the identities of those questioned without charge are supposed to be kept secret.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[natophonic]

And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.

If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

By the same token: If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and civil liberties of Canadians were never effectively squashed, then that's a pretty shallow victory for citizens.

Really I think this is an insignificant victory in any sense if you're looking at real world impact. It's a victory of principle, and an important victory of principle. As a Canadian, I'm glad to see that many politicians are doing a good job in preventing civil liberties from sliding away. Admittedly the bill was defeated out of politics rather than principle, but nonetheless, principle did win a victory.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[why-is-it]

A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.

Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.

There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.

Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts, we deserve to lose because our values of peace, order and good government are less than worthless platitudes.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[jmagar.com]

Interesting take on the abuse argument. Valid. Although in my opinion the lack of abuse is evidence again of what it means to be Canadian, and that our public servants are doing a reasonable job. I mean the people on the front lines. CSIS types, RCMP, and others. They investigate, monitor and react with purpose. So far they are getting the job done, and don't need the "supper powers" that just expired.

The PM's posturing was disgusting. The Conservatives are not playing nice, and are doing a very good job beating up on the Liberals. But the Liberals deserve it, they need some time in the penalty box for the cronyism from Cretian and Martin. As long as Harper is stuck in a Minority we're okay.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[TubeSteak]

There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.

That's what it sounds like when someone wants to treat Terrorism as a Law Enforcement issue.

Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts,

That's what it sounds like when someone wants to treat Terrorism as a Military or National Security issue.

Many countries in Europe have ended up with a Law Enforcement solution for dealing with domestic terrorists.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[antiMStroll]

"Both are sane positions..."

Don't confuse coherent logical structure with sanity, the latter ties back to reality. Maintaining draconian, abusable and potentially destructive to democracy laws alive 'just in case' is only as sane as keeping a loaded handgun on the bedside table because nothing bad has occured yet.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[ceoyoyo]

If the system is so bad that you need to circumvent it to catch criminals ("terrorists") then perhaps it should be scrapped. It's not. It works, and it always has, which is why the provisions in that bill were never used.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[ceoyoyo]

Terrorism is a law enforcement issue. If you treat it like a military issue, you end up declaring war, which makes your opponents, by definition, no longer terrorists but a recognized (if non-traditional) military force. See "US War of Independence" for a historical reference.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[Das Modell]

Not necessarily a recognized military force. A "military force" that wears no uniforms and adhers to no rules is hardly legitimate, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[Das Modell]

That's not a very good comparison. Me keeping a handgun next to my bed isn't going to harm anyone, and yes, the idea of carrying a gun, wearing a seatbelt or buying a fire alarm is to pre-empt problems, and there's hardly anything insane about that.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[Das Modell]

You have no children I'm guessing.

No. A lot of people don't have children, and a lot of people who do have children either store their gun in a safe manner or teach their children not to touch it.

Ignoring that sealtbelts and fire alarms carry no risk to users while a loaded gun very much does misses the point at a stratospheric level.

A gun doesn't carry a risk either, if you are trained to use it. If firearms were such a huge risk to the user, I think the Finnish Defense Forces would have pretty bad mortality rates.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[ceoyoyo]

That's the point. Such a "military force" is a criminal organization. You don't declare war on criminal organizations. By declaring war on them, you declare that they ARE a recognized and legitimate military force (you just recognized them).

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[Das Modell]

I think that's semantics... the US has declared war on terrorists, and they are certainly not treated as legitimate combatants.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, it is semantics. It's important to use words properly. Otherwise you get the current insanity, where anyone you don't like is a terrorist.

In case you didn't get the point, the US's declaration of war on terrorists was silly (not to mention hypocritical). This thread started with the assertion that terrorists should be treated like the criminals they are. A few people throw in with the mob, but not nearly as many, or as enthusiastically as sign up with a revolutionary army.

Hold the phone...

[micromuncher]

The anti-terror legislation was TEMPORARY to be evaluated every 5 years. So its 5 years was up, and the majority of opposition (not just liberal) voted against renewing the measures. These measures are CONTRARY to our charter of rights an freedoms, specifically to detain and search ANYONE WITHOUT EVIDENCE on SUSPICION of terrorist activity. And the caption here is WRONG. There are at least 5 individuals (I know of, not personally, just through the CBC) here in Canada that were placed in jail without arrest because of this legislation. SO...

Its a good thing this abhorent measure is gone, because it was a crutch to avoid the due dilligence in proving guilt before innocence.

Re:Hold the phone...

[Erioll]

The security certificate legislation (which is almost-certainly what you're referring to with your "5 individuals" statement) is different I think. Not the same thing. Could be wrong on that though.

Re:Hold the phone...

[Cocoshimmy]

Yes it certainly is bad that these 5 people were held against their will. However, I think they used Security Certificates in this case and not the new anti-terror legislation to hold these foreign nationals. Security certificates have existed since at least the early 90's. IIRC the 5 people currently being held were entering the country and Canada suspected them of something (of what, we don't know because it was secret). Anyways, Canada DID give them the option to return to their own country with no jail time. Had they chosen to stay they would have been held for an indefinate amount of time. This is no different from most other countries which hold terror suspects indefinately except that in many cases they DONT give them the option to return to their home country. So while it is bad that they were held against their will it isn't as bad as what other countries have.

Re:Hold the phone...

[micromuncher]

Since when do we have different laws for foreigners within our jurisdiction?

Re:Hold the phone...

[fishboy]

The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.

The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.

Re:Hold the phone...

[Blappo]

"majority of opposition (not just liberal) voted against renewing the measures"

Um, WHAT the HELL does THIS MEAN? Wouldn't ALL of the OPPOSITION vote AGAINST renewing the MEASURES?

Re:Hold the phone...

[fishboy]

Since when do we have different laws for foreigners within our jurisdiction?

hmm... since deportation laws, voting laws, access to healthcare laws, social assistance laws, taxation laws... oh my god, all sorts of laws came into existence. Citizenship status certainly defines what services you have access to, and what taxation levels you are subject to. If you commit a crime just about anywhere and you are not a citizen, landed immigrant, or have permanent resident status, chances are you will be deported back to your own country.

Re:Hold the phone...

[micromuncher]

Not really talking about rights of citizenship... talking about things like murder. When you commit a crime on foreign soil, usually you're tried by the laws in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime (unless you have some funky diplomatic immunity like that russian diplomat who killed a woman dui and fled the country.)

Re:Hold the phone...

[fishboy]

If you commit a crime just about anywhere and you are not a citizen, landed immigrant, or have permanent resident status, chances are you will be deported back to your own country.

so yes, that would have been cleary if it had read: "If you are convicted of a crime just about anywhere and you are not a citizen, landed immigrant, or have permanent resident status, chances are you will be deported back to your own country, after being tried, found guilty, and serve your sentence in Canada." The point I was trying to make was that the law is definitely different for foreigners. Not only cam you be deported instantly, but you can essentially be declared a 'foreign element', an enemy combatant if you will, depending on what suspicions the police might have. You can be held without charge, without the government allowing you access to legal counsel, without revealing to the public that they have detained you. You can be tried without many of the basic basic rights that citizens have, such as habeas corpus, and never be allowed to even hear the charges, or know the evidence, for reasons of national security. You can be deported without ever being charged.

Those sound like a very different set of rules than the ones you and I live by, and aren't those the laws that we are talking about in this thread? I don't see how 'citizen laws' are somehow off-topic, it would be very difficult to hold a Canadian citizen indefinitely in Canada without charge, isn't that the whole point of what we are talking about, different laws for foreigners, ones with less rights?

Re:Hold the phone...

[Der Reiseweltmeister]

Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.

Do you know where I could find more information about these laws? I'm curious now.

Re:Hold the phone...

[micromuncher]

If your point is that non-citizens can be treated much worse, then I agree with you that this is unjust. My original thought (maybe not in my first post) was about application of the terror measures to citizens thats contrary to our charter - regardless of if they're immigrants or not.

Well, only active because of the Mounties

[wwwrench]

Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country.

Well, just to put this in context...

The Mounties, scared the hell out of Canadians by announcing that these people acquired three tons of ammonium nitrate, and were quoted in their press conference as saying "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[flyingfsck]

That is nothing - Nelson Mandela collected 140 tons of real ammonium nitrate and 250,000 grenades 40 years ago and he went on to become president of South Africa...

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[jdevivre]

...undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

Well, if I were able to "fake" ammonium nitrate, but not C4, I also would "encourage" them to buy the ammonium nitrate.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[Anonymous Coward]

Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

That's how propaganda and falsehoods from government work. Publish, promote, and shout a huge lie. Retract it quietly later.

People remember the lie, and don't even see the retraction. The government doesn't get held accountable for the lie because they retracted it (and due to the propaganda model). We've seen it over and over again.

That Brazilian "terrorist" who was killed by UK police in the tubes for running away while carrying a bomb? He wasn't a terrorist. He wasn't running. He didn't have a bomb.

The "liquid bombing plot?" There wasn't an imminent threat. They didn't have a target. They didn't have the materials. They weren't even really in the planning stages for it. They were encouraged to do it by undercover operatives. By the way, the plan wouldn't have worked even if they had executed it perfectly (the *boom* wouldn't have been big enough). But we still aren't allowed to bring toothpaste onto airplanes.

Your example is just one of many.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[kbahey]

Moreover, several of the suspects have been freed on bail, one youth had the charges stayed, and some had the charges reduced to "training with a terrorist group".

Two informants (both Canadian Muslims) were in on this, including one who made national TV. One of them (the anonymous one probably had money as a motive to be a snitch.

More links to news articles at Canada May 2006 terrorism arrests.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[why-is-it]

IIRC, nobody has been convicted of terror-related charges in Canada since the FLQ crisis in the 1970's.

Has anyone been charged with any offense (much less been convicted) of anything since then?

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[Maxo-Texas]

They have a great Get Smart with a terrorist cell that turns out to be comprised of CIA, FBI, Scottland Yard, etc. secret agents. The only real terrorist had been arrested or died years earlier but none of them knew the rest were all phonies until Smart broke up the cell.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[fyoder]

Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

"Come on, five bucks."

"Nah, we thought about it, but we'd have to go all the way to Ottawa, and scope things out, and there's all the planning... Man, it's a lot of work, we're gonna pass."

"We'll throw in a case of beer."

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[ceoyoyo]

Depends on what you consider terrorism. Ontario nabbed Wiebo Ludwig but let him go on the condition that he move to Alberta where he shot at some oil wells and shot and killed a teenage girl. He was charged and tried for both those things.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[Das Modell]

These same terrorists also planned to storm and blow up the Parliament, take hostages and then behead them if their demands were not met. They weren't simply buying nitrate for no apparent reason.

Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties

[Das Modell]

That Brazilian "terrorist" who was killed by UK police in the tubes for running away while carrying a bomb? He wasn't a terrorist. He wasn't running. He didn't have a bomb.

Yes, I think everyone knows that by now.

Your example is just one of many.

Except, of course, that they were Muslim terrorists who were preparing to launch a terrorist offensive for religious reasons, and they had equipment, they had trained for it and they planned for it.

It must be interesting to live in a world where every single instance of Islamic terrorism or planned terrorism didn't really happen or was staged by the government.

Not all the anti-terrorist laws

[Bullfish]

The anti-terrorism act is still there. Just a portion of the laws are being allowed to expire. Frankly, I never saw the point of the laws in the first place. If there ever was a real terrorist issue, we have enough criminals laws to deal with them. That is what they are... criminals. Sometimes they are better armed and organized than the average bear, but they can also be three kooks with an ax to grind.

If the threat was more widespread, we always have the emergencies act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act ).

Re:Free reign

[koreth]

Yeah, because without anti-terror laws, I'm sure it's perfectly legal to plot to behead a public official in Canada. How could they possibly have let that gaping hole in the criminal code reopen?!?

Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time. The Liberal party is simply trying to bring up the minority Conservative government for obvious political reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill. You can be sure this bill will come back in one form or another introduced by the Liberals if not by the Conservatives. You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Anonymous Coward]

"This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill."

Many? I only counted one, MP Tom Wappel.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist! Dear sir, rights (be they Freedom of Speech or otherwise) do not exist in a vaccum. I fully understand your apprehensiveness when laws are passed which limit your rights but you must remember that *no* right is unlimited. If you allowed people to abuse democractic rights to undermine that same democracy you will end up with no rights to talk about before very long. One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature. I am not calling for your rights to be limited ad-hoc but rather I am saying that there are many reasonable limitations on rights which exist to safeguard those same rights you take for granted. Please do not misinterpret my intentions, I keep on saying *reasonable* limitations. I simply don't understand people who refuse *any* limitations on rights and they somehow believe that the world will take care of itself. History has proven time and again that it will not.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[ArcherB]

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[timeOday]

Not being informed on Canadian politics, I find your comment very confusing. (What does it mean to "bring up" the minority government?)

"You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist." By that you mean terrorists? Canada has made several major terrorist busts over the last few years, more than the US it seems to me. The US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties in the war on terror (or at least in the name of the war on terror), while Canada has had virtually none. That statistic counts for a lot in my book. I don't see why a Canadian would be so eager to step into the ring and take up the fight when there is nothing to win but peace, which you already have.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I agree with everything you are saying... however

I simply don't understand people who refuse *any* limitations on rights

I consider giving the government the power to indefinately in prision people without a fair trial and "coerice" confessions or testimony, etc, etc FAR above and beyond *any* limitiations. I certainly cannot think of ANY other rights we should fight for more? Having given up those rights, no other rights really matter.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen]

One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature

Yes, they should. And everyone else is free to spread anti-hate literature that points out the small-minded flaws of the hate literature. It's a good thing for hateful people to make known the extent of their insanity, so that the rest of us can guard against it. Make it illegal, and they go underground, and they feel that their rights are being oppressed, and they are more likely to become violent. Picture a water balloon, with the balloon being the hater and the water being the hate. Leave it alone, and nothing is likely to happen. Squeeze it, and it'll pop.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[ezzzD55J]

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view. Sure. But how do these laws help against 'bad people'?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[MightyMartian]

How exactly is the economy better?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Where to begin? For one we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others. You may not realize it but you have also lost this guarenteed right. If you wait until the loss of that right actually personally effects you ... well, it'll be too late. You'll be locked up some where and you won't even be able to complain about it on /.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[mayns]

By "many" you mean 1 right? Because MP Tom Wappel was the only liberal to vote with the conservatives on this.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[fishboy]

Only one Liberal, Tom Wappell, broke ranks with his party and voted for the renewal of the legislation.

And yes, the bill did die for political reasons. The Conservatives failed to heed not only a parliamentary report suggesting changes to the legislation, but also a senate report. For six months they have sat on these and done nothing, suddenly waking up last week to try and show up the Liberals and other parties for being soft on terrorism. So it's politics as usual, but don't think that it's not an opposition doing its job and a minority government trying to act like it has a majority.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Kandenshi]

The US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties in the war on terror (or at least in the name of the war on terror), while Canada has had virtually none.

We've had casualties, including fatalities...
"Canada has suffered the second highest number of combat casualties of any nation in the Allied Force."

Remember, we're fairly involved in the fighting in Afghanistan... It's not just about Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_ invasion_of_Afghanistan#Fatalities/

Re:Article ignores politican context

[KillerCow]

Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time.

... because circumstances and opinions never change.

This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill.

There was exactly one: MP Tom Wappel (source).

Re:Article ignores politican context

[shma]

The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time.

The law was a temporary measure that was up for renewal this year. Since it hadn't even been used once, they decided it wasn't worth keeping on the books. It's ridiculous to complain that they're somehow being hypocrites by repealing laws which serve no purpose.

his has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill.

Really? Because the CBC says a grand total of one Liberal voted for the bill.

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.

Not every law is a good law and not every law helps fight crime, no matter what the intentions were when the law was put into place. The fact that most of parliment recognizes this shows that they are at least less ignorant than you.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

Also significant in the political context is that the Liberal Party is deeply divided by this issue. I am sad to say that it is also largely along linguistic and ethnic lines. Senior Liberals in English Canada such as former ministers like John Manley and Anne McLellan, as well as current members such as Bob Rae argue that this legislation was necessary, while a large number of French civil libertarian MPs as well as minority MPs representing ethnic communities argued against it. To resolve this imbalance, Dion used the sledgehammer of Liberal party discipline and invoked a 'three line whip' which basically means that Liberals voting with the gov't on this bill would be subject to harsh party discipline up to expulsion from caucus, expulsion from the party, or refusal of the leader (Dion) to sign nomination papers. This virtually means that any Liberal MP voting against this would basically be ending their career as a Liberal MP. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives played politics on this, and I dislike it about both of them, but for the Liberals to force their members to vote in this way is undemocratic in my opinion. They make a big stink about protecting civil liberties by striking down a law that passed constitutional review by the Supreme Court, and act in an undemocratic way to do this, violating other civil liberty principles.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Selfbain]

Ya because Canada has so many issues with violent racists.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen]

The first person convicted under Canadian anti-hate laws was a teacher that brainwashed an entire class that Jews control the world and the Holocaust never happened.

That is a failure of the school that hired him. A teacher could say any crazy thing to pollute the minds of their students, and if the school isn't monitoring the curriculum, they'll get away with it. The guy should have been fired and disbarred from teaching. The guy who hired him should have been fired for not properly pre-screening a teacher. In the age of open communications and the internet, it is impossible to silence any voice. Go to the Timecube website (http://www.timecube.com) if you doubt that. Making it illegal just means that it'll appeal to rebels and the disaffected, and it will give legitimacy to their claims that there is a government conspiracy against them.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[kabocox]

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

You missed the memo. We are living in a near Nazish, police state that started a religious crusade only because a Republican is a president and that Democrats didn't control congress at the time. If Gore were President, the same or similiar laws would have been passed. He'd would have been declared a Nazish forcing us into a police state by all the republicans, but you wouldn't hear that on slashdot though because of our liberal bias. We'd declare a Democrat's anti-terror measures to be protective for the general citizenry similiar on how network admins need to implement policies to restrict users access to most resources for their own good.

If Gore didn't "do something" after 9/11, then he'd have been impeached since both the Democrats and Republicans would have been forced to nail him for their own political good. Of course, Gore would have "done something" to really hit the entire middle east by spending $100+ billion on sustainable non-foreign based power plants instead of the war on terror. I could easily have seen a campign "Let's not spend a penny on foreign oil!" under Gore that would have had more drastic short and long term changes for the US and the globe as the US virtually stopped buying any middle east oil. The public anger would have taken much longer to work out of our system, but we'd all be feeling like we were indirectly hurting them rather than directly hurting them.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

I'm trying to make two points beyond the ones you made: 1) The teacher shouldn't have just been fired and disbarred but rather put in jail for at least ten years. They interviewed his students ten years after the incident and the vast majority of them said the only reason he got into trouble was because "The Jews control the media". This guy just brainwashed an entire generation of kids. He should pay severely for that kind of thing. 2) I'm not saying we should make it *impossible* for racists to post hate-literate. I'm saying we make it exceedingly difficult for them to get people to look at it once they post it. I don't care if they post millions of pages of crap if no one is able to find it. It is comparable to posting propeganda on YouTube versus posting it on a cryptic site most people won't run across. I don't care about the latter.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[khallow]

You keep saying "*reasonable* limitations and then gobblygook like "hate literature". Seriously, is there any proof that "hate literature" (especially as it is defined to be these days) undermines democracy? I don't buy as an example, the final days of the Weimar Republic. There was far more wrong there than a few nutcases blaming Jews for Germany's ills (ie, the anti-semitic variant of hate speech and literature). Most people know of reasonable exceptions (eg, advocate commission of serious crimes, incite public panic, or disturbing the peace). These are cases where the harm is obvious. Hate speech doesn't fall into those categories. And by permitting such speech, you bring into the light the attitudes behind the speech rather than letting it fester in the dark. Finally, persecution can be used as positive proof of correctness. After all, if the authorities expend considerable resources to crack down on my righteous warnings about THE JOOS, then I must be right. Certainly, I just got a lot of free press.

The very serious problem with laws like the Patriot Act and its Canadian counterparts is that curbing rights doesn't necessarily protect society, but often has the opposite effect. IMHO there's no indication that the US is any more effective at stopping terrorist attacks with these powers than without. The key issue is whether the various bureaucracies, which are charged with protecting society from terrorists and criminals, do their job or not. Laws like these might make it easier for them to perform various maneuvers to gain access to information or to detain people, but that doesn't automatically translate into more effective counter-terrorism. Note also that you are effectively rewarding a bureaucracy for failure. That can mean more bureaucratic failure in a play to get more power. This is a tactic that was effectively used during the final days of the Weimar Republic.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[moeinvt]

LOL.

It seems that you never heard about the case of Tomas Winnicki(sp?). The guy was thrown in a Canadian PRISON for posting "hate speech" ;-( on a message board!

". . . hatemongers target people who don't know better."

So you're saying that 99.9% of your population consists of "laymen" that are too dumb to filter through all of the information they happen to be exposed to? Thank goodness that they have intelligent people like you to protect them and decide what they should and shouldn't be allowed to see/hear/read.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

Wow, you're a prophet of alternate realities. I wish I had the brilliance to determine what the entire world would be like, going back 6 years, if things were drastically different, but I don't so I'll listen to you.

Fuck those democrats, we speculate that they would have screwed everything up just as bad!

PS: It looks like you might have a liberal bias of your own!

Re:Article ignores politican context

[quantaman]

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing. Well be glad you name isn't Mahar Arar.

I'm sure there were a lot of people in Nazi Germany as well who didn't notice their rights were being infringed because they never got on the wrong side of the state. If you're a productive, well-behaved citizen I doubt there's a police state in existance that would hassle you. Liberties are what you're left with when you go against the state, when you happen to have a tenuous connection to some possible terrorists, or to expose an obvious and glaring security hole, those are the things that are vanishing from your country.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Quilted Porcupine]

This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill. This is true. Well, it is if by 'many' you mean 'one' (of the members present one voted for the measures, one abstained and the rest voted against keeping the measures). While the Liberal party did introduce the measures, they also built in a sunset clause in to the measure. So now, five years later, most of them feel the clauses are not necessary and they allowed them to expire.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[moeinvt]

"A teacher could say any crazy thing to pollute the minds of their students,"
"The guy should have been fired and disbarred from teaching."

Yeah! A long time ago in Tennessee there was a guy named John Scopes that polluted the minds of his students by suggesting that man might have evolved from apes. Fortunately, there were good people "monitoring the curriculum" and laws on the books to protect the minds of the poor children from being corrupted.

Unfortunately, the damage was done. Even to this day, EIGHTY YEARS later, people still believe the lies and propaganda that Scopes spread to his students.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[khallow]

This is stupid. If you want uncritical sheep for citizens, then sure shield them from all the speechcrime that is out there. If you want people who can think for themselves, then you're just going to have to ease up on hate speech and other bad ideas.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

So, just so I'm clear, I've lost rights, but I can't wait till I've lost those rights, because then I will have lost those rights.

Sorry but your reading comprehension skills must be very poor. Here is what I said:

You may not realize it but you have also lost this guaranteed right. If you wait until the loss of that right actually personally affects you ... well, it'll be too late.

Allow me to try to translate this in simple terms for you. Please don't take this personally, its just an example.

1) Assume we pass a law saying anyone with the /. id of Blappo can never have sex with any other humans.
2)I'm sure you have lots of trouble getting other humans to agree to this anyway, so years could pass without this actually affecting you.
3)Now assume many years from now you manage to get a girl (or guy whatever you prefer) REALLY drunk and finally have a chance to have sex with another human.
4)If you wait until that magical moment (MANY years from now), it will be too late to complain about the law because that is probably your one and only chance right then. By the time you complain and try to get the law removed, the other person certainly would have sobered up.

See? Thats what I'm saying! Even though you've already lost a right, it may not personally effect you right away. If you wait until it would effect you, it will most likely be far too late.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Jerry Rivers]

There was also one abstention and several no-shows.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Alchemar]

First, you must put "Freedoms" into context. Most freedoms are not rights that you must use every day. A freedom is something that is there when you need it. Freedoms were not made to protect people as a mindless mob, but to protect each individual so that there individual ideas could be shared with the "mob." Freedoms are by no means unlimited, but must only be taken away with due process. That was the reason for a jury by peers. When you are convicted of a crime, then you will have some freedom removed. The constitution was not written to grant what freedoms that you have, but to limit the power of the goverment so that those freedoms could never be taken away without due process. With that in mind, if just one person has or can lose a freedom without due process, then you can also be denied that freedom. You may not need it now, but it is no longer protected for when you do.

Your freedom of speech has been severly limited. This does not mean that you are going to be arrested for saying something bad about your president. It means that if you go to a rally, you will be escorted to a "Free Speech Zone" where the only one you can pass your message on to, are the people that have heard it and agree. It means that you are not allowed to have your lawyer talk to the press and explain why you were accused of being a "terroist" because it would "incite violence" Why do you think are forefathers held the freedom of speech special enough to make it the first bill of rights. They didn't want to let everyone know that they were being oppressed and needed to write there congressman^H^H^H^H King a letter and tell him that you don't like the new tax he passed. It was to get people organized to FIGHT for there rights.

There are several people that are being convicted as "terrorist" for "weapon violations" What part of "the right to bare arms shall not be infringed" states that only "good" people can have a gun. I am not saying that terrorist should be armed, I am saying that I feel it is cyclic logic to state that they are terrorist because they had weapons illegally, but that having weapons is only a crime if you are a terrorist.

You have lost the right to be free from searches without a warrent. All they have to do is say that you had communication with someone that was a suspected terrorist, so you are a suspected terrorist and everyone you talk to will be added to the list.

You have lost your right to face your accuser. If you are investigated under the patriot act, then it is illegal for anyone to even tell you you are being investigated. How can you defend your self under those conditions? How do you preserve innoccent until proven guilty.

The big problem is that all these new laws and/or executive orders have wording that is similar in effect to 'associated/commincated with a suspected terrorist person/group/organization' There is no good definition of who this may be. By posting on slashdot, you have commincated with a few people that are know to have anti-goverment sentiments, so why would you think that these new 'regulations' could never be extended to you personally? Just because they haven't yet, does not mean that you still have those freedoms.

At what point is someone a terrorist or someone defending there rights to religion? If bombing a country is not an act that creates terror, what is. "Shock and Awe" does not mean you impress people with your skill to use minimal force to take out only those targets essential to eliminating a military counter attack with minimum loss of civilain life. Most people say that a terrorist intentionally attacks civilians and doesn't wear a uniform. If someone came into this country and started sooting people because they were christian, would you take the time to have a uniform made before grabbing a gun to defend yourself, just to make sure you were protected by the coneva convention. I am not saying that is what the US has done, but that there are definately examples where haveing a un

Re:Article ignores politican context

[sukotto]

I also live in the United States (legally able to work, but not a citizen which I believe gives me a measure of objectivity that many citizens seem to lack). Off the top of my head, it looks like we've/you've lost the:

• Right to assemble (esp. when trying to do so anywhere near the President. You're required to assemble in "Free Speech zones" which are fenced enclosures with lots of security cameras pointing at them ... several miles away from the prez. I suppose this doesn't mean you've lost the *right* to assemble... but it's so profoundly chilling that you might as well have. I believe this practice was started by Clinton)
• protection from unreasonable search and seizure and the implied right to privacy
• right to due process (if you're "vanished" as a suspected terrorist or if you're blocked from traveling due to being placed on a secret watch list)
• Right to trial by jury (likewise if the government labels you a "terrorist")
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment (possibly lost... according to rumours out of the secret detention centres like "Gitmo")
• Right to travel (implied by the 9th amendment)
• Right to face your accuser and to be presented with all the evidence to be used against you in a trial.
• Right to actually *have* a trial

Some of those were under attack during the Clinton era, but nothing like what I see now.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Chris Burke]

The primary difference that I see if Gore had been president instead of Bush is that we would not have gone into Iraq. Afghanistan was the "you must do something about this attack now, damnit!" war. Iraq was the wet dream of the neo-cons.

In 2000 I didn't see any significant difference between the two. In 2007, with hindsight, even just the difference of Iraq vs no Iraq is huge. Think if we could have been devoting all our effort to Afghanistan these past years.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

Haha. Newsflash for you: most citizens *are* sheep. Most people don't watch the news, read newspapers or anything of the sort. They are routinely approach by idiots on the street or otherwise peddling them conspiracy theories. Most people don't know enough history to know better and don't put in the effort to double check their sources. That's life. You might dislike it but most people aren't intellectual geniuses :)

Re:Article ignores politican context

[TrekkieGod]

The teacher shouldn't have just been fired and disbarred but rather put in jail for at least ten years.

No, no he shouldn't. That teacher demonstrated that he is not qualified to teach. He should be fired, and nobody else should hire him. That's where it should stop.

They interviewed his students ten years after the incident and the vast majority of them said the only reason he got into trouble was because "The Jews control the media".

If true, that indicates a much deeper problem than one teacher spewing bs. They weren't locked with the guy for months, were they? These kids have other teachers, they have parents, they have the culture around them in the form of tv and music. No one teacher has that much influence over his students. The brainwashing must have been reinforced at another level.

It is comparable to posting propeganda on YouTube versus posting it on a cryptic site most people won't run across. I don't care about the latter.

If I see hate propaganda on YouTube, I'm not suddenly going to listen to it. Sounds like you wouldn't either. The solution isn't to prohibit speech (any speech). It's to teach people to become resistant to propaganda like you and I. You want people to be have the ability for critical thought, instead of simply being told what's right by you (we need to prohibit these types of speech) or by hate-mongering teachers (jews control media). No one should be told what to do, they should have access to all information, unhindered, and make their own decisions.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[PenGun]

A selective reading of Garth's blog but at least you are paying attention. I'll point out a 3 line whip is "standard" refor&&servative practice and a very rare liberal one.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

These are cases where the harm is obvious. Hate speech doesn't fall into those categories. Excuse me if I humbly disagree. I have talked with countless people who have been duped into believing hate literature they were peddled on the street and on campuses simply because they were not very history-aware. I routinely see people peddle lies laced with truth on campuses and most people *do* believe this stuff and it *does* harm society when a whole slew of people get brainwashed into hating an ethnic group simply because of libel. If people were passing out hate literature about black people on campuses you can be sure they would be *tons* of noise about it, and rightfully so. Why should it be any different for other ethnic groups? You repeatedly assume that words don't make a difference but they make a *very* big difference. The Holocaust didn't start with gas chambers, it started with words. Do you honestly believe that the Jews of Germany didn't try to counter the hate literature as you suggested? It didn't make a difference. It is very difficult for a minority group to defend itself from hate literature distributed amongst a majority population. Governments have to step in to protect all minorities from this kind of hate literature because they're the only ones with the power and responsibility to do so.

The very serious problem with laws like the Patriot Act and its Canadian counterparts is that curbing rights doesn't necessarily protect society, but often has the opposite effect. And where is *your* proof? :)

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Dexter Alan Ux]

The economy under Clinton sucked. First of all, we were running a bugetary surplus, which means we were not increasing the national debt. Increasing the national debt is a good thing because that's usually accomplished by selling savings bonds, which people can buy as safe investment tools. Secondly, we had the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. This means that I had to pay a premium for high quality American labor, thereby driving up my company's costs. To top it all off, a gallon of gas cost only 99 cents. How much margin is an American oil company supposed to be able to make on that? Bush, on the other hand, has helped curtail inflation by keeping stock market growth (DJIA) limited to an average of 2.8% per year over the past 6 years. In contrast, under Clinton, the Dow ran amok from roughly 3500 when he took office to approximately 10,600 when he left. That's an increase of almost 15% per year for eight years! By the time he got through with the economy, stocks were too expensive for the average person to buy!!

Re:Article ignores politican context

[multisync]

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives played politics on this, and I dislike it about both of them, but for the Liberals to force their members to vote in this way is undemocratic in my opinion.

Sometimes it is necessary to protect minorities from the will of the majority. That is why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[PenGun]

Well the provincial government hired the teacher and runs the schools while the feds pony up most of the cash. So the federal response was at least appropriate. We kinda are a more inclusive society so we tend to treat this kind of thing seriously.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[rawtatoor]

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

Well to paint it in broad brush strokes for you, in my estimation every amendment of the original Bill of Rights, from 4 to ten, not including 7, have been infringed in some way due to terror fever.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Jherek Carnelian]

Your attitude is the root of fascism. -- If people are not competent to take care of themselves, the state must do it.

At least you are consistent in your beliefs, just don't start pretending you put any value on personal freedom.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[vertinox]

Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better.

I take it you haven't had to fly on a plane for the past 5 years?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

Which is why a group of people challenged some of the provisions of this legislation, and the Supreme Court found while it did impinge on some charter rights, it was still lawful. I was satisfied by that process. There are many situations where rights of an individual are balanced against the well being or rights of society. The mechanisms that protect the rights of individuals and minorities were used in relation to this legislation, and the law made it through.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[edschurr]

The hate legislation seems fine to me. The idea isn't that an individual isn't allowed to "hate" a group and communicate that "hate", but rather to prevent and punish the incitement of breaches of peace. People are punished for their actions, not their thoughts. For example, from Criminal Code section 318:

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

People are also responsible for inciting hate even if it wasn't their intent but, I presume, they should have known better. However, an individual can communicate "hate" under various conditions, many of which mention "good faith". What is hate?

"hate propaganda" means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319;

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

WHY??? Why did you lead me to read Garth's blog?? WHY!?!?!?! What a pile of BS. Its funny that he claims that there was no influence by the whip in the Liberal caucus, but that Jay Hill was busy on the gov't side. Its odd that this directly contradicts every media report on the situation. To quote Warren Kinsella about the downfall of the Liberal Party lately: "[There's been a shify], how Tories used to be (ie., eat the leader, factional, divided, disputatious) and how the Grits used to be (ie., the leadership principle always prevailed, united, disciplined, organized) [are] now reversed." You will never learn anything remotely interesting about inside politics by reading the blogs of MPs. Stick to the professionals, for whom the accuracy of the reporting is what matters, rather than the spin.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

If true, that indicates a much deeper problem than one teacher spewing bs. They weren't locked with the guy for months, were they? These kids have other teachers, they have parents, they have the culture around them in the form of tv and music. No one teacher has that much influence over his students. The brainwashing must have been reinforced at another level. Wow, you obviously haven't dealt much with kids. They're far more likely to believe anything the teacher tells them than adults are. How can you honestly expect elementary or early high-school students to doubt what they're being taught? Most kids eat this up. You'd be extremely hard pressed to find elementary students in *any* country that do not do this so don't tell me this is a problem of lack of critical thinking :)

Re:Article ignores politican context

[khallow]

Do you honestly believe that the Jews of Germany didn't try to counter the hate literature as you suggested?

I'd say it was wildly successful. But the truck doesn't turn on a dime. There's far less anti-semitism in the US and Europe these days. You can't change attitudes by banning speech, but a focused effort over more than 50 years with common sense reasoning (and a lot of hefty propaganda, to be honest) did the trick.

And where is *your* proof? :)

My proof? The US government has a long history of causing substantial harm to its citizens. It has a record of abusing power once obtained. And the same holds for other governments. Further, when you consider the Patriot Act, there's no power there that the US government needs to perform its duties. And a lot of crap like getting book lists from libraries and such (hint: if law enforcement has probable cause they can easily get this information with a warrant). And finally, these laws just don't pass common sense reasoning. You need to impose on the rights of hundreds of millions of people so that your job of finding the bad apples is slightly easier? How about you first do your job and catch these people. If the evildoers are actually using strategies that make it impossible for law enforcement to catch them, then those strategies will come to light and we can fix that problem.

Also, there seems to quite a record of bungling concerning the 9/11 terrorists. Several of them had entered on expired visas and FBI agents had been searching for a few of these people at the time the attacks occured. If the government had been competent and responsive, they would have caught several before the attacks (they did catch one to be honest). Might not have stopped it, but it would have made the hurdle higher. Also, I think the security of the pre-9/11 plane (particularly the unsecured hatch to the cockpit) didn't help.

Finally, there's the approach to security of appearance. For example, appearance of security is more important than security. When Mr. Reid tried to blow up a plane with plastique in his shoes (in December 2001), suddenly all US passengers had to remove their shoes. This "security measure" continued for quite some time. I still found reports from late 2004 where people were still being required to remove their shoes when passing through airport security. For example, here's a story on airport security breaches in the two year period after 2002. Note the number of "terminal evacuations" for relatively trivial matters like improperly searching a piece of luggage or someone walking away from a security screening area without being fully cleared.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

You're putting words in my mouth. Using your line of reasoning you are implying that the US medical system must be better than the Canadian one because with the former each citizen manages their own funds whereas in the latter the government does it on their behalf. Most people I've ever talked with would strongly disagree. There are some things that the state should butt out of and there are others it should not. All within reason. If you wish the state to butt out of everything then you are an anarchist and will never be happy no matter what your government does. Freedom of Speech is there to ensure that you are allowed to say things which offend other people's beliefs without fear. It is not there to allow bigots to spread racism. The former allows me to question other people's religions and beliefs whereas the latter takes it one step further by allowing me to advocate violence against a group of people. Abusing Freedom of Speech for the sake of violence is criminal. If I question whether Jesus really existed and a bunch of radical Christians say I should be burned alive then I consider this criminal. Equally so if I have to go underground because people want to kill me for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed. Freedom of Speech for the sake of discussion is one thing, when it is for the sake of violence it is another thing altogether.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[khallow]

Using your line of reasoning you are implying that the US medical system must be better than the Canadian one because with the former each citizen manages their own funds whereas in the latter the government does it on their behalf.

No, a private insurance company handles the money. It is novel when someone pays for themselves.

Freedom of Speech is there to ensure that you are allowed to say things which offend other people's beliefs without fear. It is not there to allow bigots to spread racism.

Sure it is. You aren't qualified to make that distinction.

Freedom of Speech for the sake of discussion is one thing, when it is for the sake of violence it is another thing altogether.

In most places, violent acts are criminal acts. If someone advocates violent crimes, then that should be in turn a criminal act. And it usually is.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[multisync]

I used a poor example to make my point. I was attempting to comment on your statement that the Liberal party forcing their members to vote along party lines is undemocratic.

I don't have a problem with the leader of the party instructing their members how to vote, and sanctioning members who don't toe the line. It is a leader's job to lead and - on key issues - the party needs to take a position and enforce it so the voter knows how to vote. If you want a free spirit as an MP, vote for an independent. Chuck Cadman was a great example of what can be accomplished even if your party abandons you. He polled his constituents to determine whether or not to support the 2005 budget.

I also don't have a problem with a member of a party taking a principled stand and defying the leader. They should just be willing to accept the consequence, up to having to sit as an independent. If they have views that differ from the official party position, they should make that clear to potential constituents during their campaigns, so people who may be voting based on party affiliation can be aware of issues where their candidate might vote contrary to the party position.

I don't think this is undemocratic. The voter makes his or her choice on election day, often based on which party the person they are voting for belongs to. I would be very unhappy if my MP decided to go renegade and do something completely contrary to what I expected of him when I voted for him. Then again, maybe I feel that way because of who my MP is.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

Freedom of Speech is there to ensure that you are allowed to say things which offend other people's beliefs without fear. It is not there to allow bigots to spread racism.

Sure it is. You aren't qualified to make that distinction.

In most places, violent acts are criminal acts. If someone advocates violent crimes, then that should be in turn a criminal act. And it usually is. How can you disagree with me in the first part yet in the second part state that advocating violence is indeed a crime? The two are one and the same in my book.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

Quoting Parent: I don't think this is undemocratic. The voter makes his or her choice on election day, often based on which party the person they are voting for belongs to. I would be very unhappy if my MP decided to go renegade and do something completely contrary to what I expected of him when I voted for him. Then again, maybe I feel that way because of who my MP is. But by this argument, doesn't that make it even more wrong for a Liberal MP to vote against a law that they developed and passed? A voter would expect a Liberal MP who had previously voted for this to continue to support it. This the reason that I am particularly hard on the Liberal when it comes to this issue. The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc all stayed with their initial positions, while the Liberals pulled an about face officially, with many MPs and former cabinet ministers speaking in favour of the legislation. Even the deputy leader (Iggy) has mentioned that he would have liked to come to an agreement on this in order to maintain this anti-terrorism provisions. However, at least partially as a result of Harper's asshole move lastweek in regards to Mr Bains, the Liberals decided to vote against renewing the bill, not as a matter of civil liberties, or in conformance with their previous stance, but because they thought that they could score some political points. So, is it a matter of Liberal principles or Liberal politics. If the Liberals are willing to let this die for the same crass, political aims that the Conservatives had for setting up this confrontation, then how are they any better? Dion speaks about policy and principles, but I've seen a lot more politicking out of him than anything else.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[khallow]

Bigots spreading racism aren't automatically advocating violent crimes. That is one of the distinctions you aren't making.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[multisync]

The Liberals voted against a Conservative motion to extend a law that was a direct response to a specific incident, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, for that reason, was supposed to expire after five years. You may be right, the Liberals may have strictly political motives for reaching the (IMO) correct decision. I wasn't debating the merits of the motion, or how they arrived at their stance, with you.

I don't recall the question of whether or not to extend this law coming up in the last election. Maybe it was there, in among all the muck slinging. If Dion said last week he would support a Conservative motion to extend it, then flip-flopped, you might have an argument with him. If you intended to vote for him but he flip-flopped, write him a letter telling him why he (or your local Liberal) won't be getting your vote in the next election. I suspect he wasn't going to anyway.

Does Stephen Harper let his MPs vote their conscience on every issue? He may. I don't know. If he does, I guess you'd better get to know your MP real well. To know where he/she stands on every issue. And your MLA, city councilors, parks board members, school board members ...

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

Quoting Parent:

I don't recall the question of whether or not to extend this law coming up in the last election. Maybe it was there, in among all the muck slinging. If Dion said last week he would support a Conservative motion to extend it, then flip-flopped, you might have an argument with him. If you intended to vote for him but he flip-flopped, write him a letter telling him why he (or your local Liberal) won't be getting your vote in the next election. I suspect he wasn't going to anyway.

The issue isn't necessarily whether or not it came up in the election, or whether every politician should have to detail their positions on everything, but rather that there must be a much greater level candor from politicians, and less politics. The issue with the flip-flop isn't that Martin campaigned on it in the election, or that Dion talked about it in his campaign, but rather that a large portion of those Liberals voted for it when it became law, and were a part of the government that wrote it. If the law violated the principles of the Charter, then they should have spoken up then. If they were ignored, and it was a matter of people's rights, then they should have voted what they thought was right. For people like Dion, who were there and are now leading voices against that legislation, that's a flip-flop to me. If its a matter of politics, which I think it is, then the Liberals have acted in an undemocratic way for a matter of politics. If it was principle, then they abdicated their responsibilities as MPs because they voted against their conscience. Either way, without a good explanation of what has changed, or how they were wrong at the time, its just not good enough.

While acting in this type of way can be political suicide, its still better to do the right thing. People of principle such as Chuck Cadman are hard to fault, and could gain the respect of their constituents by sticking to their principles. Even someone like Mike Chong, who resigned from cabinet rather than participating in a fad motion about Quebec is hard to assail. To me, that is politics done right. Voting against your own former government's legislation purely to be contrarian while silencing the voices of others exemplifies what is wrong with popular politics.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[ZoOnI]

"I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

You should go stand with some of the US citizens in Guatanomo bay.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[kisak]

state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better.

No wonder you are moderated as funny :).

Oh, and I think we all know what you are missing.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

I guess you are right, there is a distinction, but I still disagree with you that bigots should be allowed to spread racism even if they don't explicitly advocade violence. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen]

I was homeschooled for all my years of schooling, up until 17 years old when I joined the military. My parents were constantly brainwashing me to convince me that Satan controls the world governments, Christianity is the only way to go, every other religion is a lie by Satan to deceive people away from salvation, 7-day Creationism is Truth, Evolution is another of Satan's lies, and more. As a result of 17 years of their imprinting their beliefs on my malleable little mind...

I'm a pagan now. Success!

So you can see why I doubt the ability of a mere teacher to permanently f*ck up the mind of anybody capable of independent thought.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

That's because Christians don't threaten or kill people who convert away from the religion or become less religion nor do they do the same to people from other religions. The same can't be said of other religions. You moved away from Christianity because you could. There have been people stoned to death in Muslim countries from converting to Christianity and there have been people stabbed to death in western nations for "insulting Islam". Brainwashing enforced with threats works just fine, especially in isolated communities which imply that people with differing opinions not only are wrong but rather they are evil. I'm just saying that there is a line beyond which there is very little opportunity to step away from brainwashing.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[multisync]

a large portion of those Liberals voted for it when it became law, and were a part of the government that wrote it.

They also voted for that law to expire after five years. What arguments has Stephen Harper put forward that have convinced you that new legislation to extend the law is necessary? Why do you think it is the role of opposition to support the government in this new initiative?

Voting against your own former government's legislation purely to be contrarian while silencing the voices of others exemplifies what is wrong with popular politics.

You seem to be really stuck on this. They were not voting against their own legislation; they were voting against a Conservative motion to extend something that was not intended to be permanent.

You have no idea what Dion's motivation was to oppose this Conservative motion. You ascribe it to "playing politics" and being "contrarian." Okay. Were you as hard on Stephen Harper in 2005 when he tried to bring down the government by attempting to block the Liberals from passing their budget?

Or is "playing politics" ok when it's directed at the Liberals?

And as for "silencing the voices of others," which was the original point I was replying to, I do not see this as "undemocratic." The MPs are in the position they are in because of the effort, support and donations of their party's supporters. If they don't like being compelled to vote a particular way on certain issues, they are free to do their own fund raising and campaigning as an independent. If you don't like Dion telling his MPs how to vote, you are free to not support him in the next election.

That is democracy.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen]

So the teacher was threatening to kill his students if they didn't accept his whacky belief that the Jews control the world?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[cowwoc2001]

No, as I've already stated: kids will believe anything you tell them at a young age. I'm talking about two different kinds of brainwashing.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Froster]

I guess what it boils down to for me is that legislation of this type was somewhat untested and new, and there was (rightly) a sunset clause placed on it. To allow that bill to sunset, I would expect that a party that was in favour of it previously should describe how it failed in its initial intent. To me, its something that the RCMP is about to use to help investigate the Air India bombing, and the groups representing the families of the victims of that bombing, and the families of 9/11 victims both feel that it is necessary to maintain this law. To me, it feels like the concern that we all had at the time has faded off, and we are not doing what we reasonably can to respond to the concerns of those families that intimately know the effects of terrorism.

As for the issue of a non-confidence vote, that is different. A non-confidence motion, or the defeat of a budget is by definition a political vote. There is no law that is being created or defeated in those cases. I agree that it was pretty distasteful last year, but this is different. In essence, when it comes to a law-and-order bill that affects the rights of the population, I expect MPs to be on their best behaviour, which neither the Libs or Cons were. What angers me about the Liberals is that they were clearly divided, with many current and former MPs voicing their opinions prior to the vote, but when it came down to it, only one voted against. Liberal MPs have spoken about a vigorous debate in the caucus room, but that's not good enough. That debate, and voicing of opinions should have been reflected in the House.

If every party agreed in the backroom about how they were going to vote, then just quietly went into the house to vote, would that be democratic?

P.S. if you want to read a good article about the undemocratic nature of whipped votes, David Kilgour has a very good one on his website, including a discussion on how to preserve stability once you take off the whip.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[multisync]

I'll check out David Kilgour's site. And thanks for the discussion.

I am sure my opinions are coloured by my distaste for the legislation in question, and you have obviously arrived at yours after much thought. My fear with legislation like this is exactly that it will be used (abused) by the RCMP for things like investigating the Air India bombing. For goodness sake, if they can't investigate a 20+ year-old cold case without violating the Charter (my opinion again, and I don't really know what I'm talking about I suppose), then I fear for our democracy.

But I didn't lose any family members on that plane, either. Maybe I would feel differently if I had.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[TrekkieGod]

Wow, you obviously haven't dealt much with kids.

Guilty as charged. However, I played the part of one years ago ;)

They're far more likely to believe anything the teacher tells them than adults are...Most kids eat this up.

No doubt. I especially thank you for using the qualifier "most". What is it that the others have that makes them question what they're told? How do we instill that in the majority?

Either way, my point was that they should have been receiving conflicting information. The teacher wasn't their only source. They had other influences which supposedly would tell them different things. Given conflicting information, there's no reason they should believe the guy they spend 50 minutes with every day over the people with whom they spend the rest of the day with. They will question him. Or question the other information they have. They'll talk to their parents, they'll talk to other teachers. That's probably how people came to find out that the teacher was trying to brainwash them in first place.

That's also why brainwashing techniques involve breaking all contact the person being brainwashed has with other sources. That's why cults have camps and stuff.

You'd be extremely hard pressed to find elementary students in *any* country that do not do this so don't tell me this is a problem of lack of critical thinking :)

I wasn't insulting or separating Canada by any means. I do think teaching children to think is something that is universally lacking. From my own experiences, it appears to me that school is designed to be a place where students should believe that teachers are always right and shouldn't question what they're told. What I am implying is that the solution to that problem isn't to limit the amount of information people get, good or bad. It's to teach children that no source of information is infallible. It's to teach them that people, even adults and teachers, can be wrong. And that they can willfully lie, if it will suit their purposes. Children can understand that. How young do they have to be before they themselves start lying about little things in order to get what they want, or to avoid getting in trouble?

Actually, when I was TAing an university class, I asked another graduate student who had been TA of the class before me about an idea I had to tell the students to perform an experiment in a different way. The conversation went something like this:

"Don't do it."
"Why?"
"It might not work."
"So what?"
"If something you tell them to do doesn't work, they'll lose trust in you. They'll start thinking that you can be wrong, and start questioning everything you tell them."

It should be noted that this was the other student's own thoughts, and not university policy or anything. However, I think that line of thought to maintain authority is somewhat common, and I think it leads to more impressionable people, even beyond the elementary school level.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Jherek Carnelian]

I guess you are right, there is a distinction, but I still disagree with you that bigots should be allowed to spread racism even if they don't explicitly advocade violence. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

You can go ahead and believe that all you want, that's part of freedom of expression, no one is stopping you. But don't pretend that you believe in freedom of expression because what you are advocating is censorship of expression that offends you.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Malakusen]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the 24/7 brainwashing I got was more of a challenge to through off then their 8/5 brainwashing, and I managed it.
(8 hours a day, 5 days a week, assuming Canadians don't school longer)

Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[AJWM]

... when you can invoke the War Measures Act?

That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Wiki link you gave:

"The War Measures Act (enacted in August 1914, replaced by the Emergencies Act in 1988)"

So no, they can't invoke the War Measures Act.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Jerry Rivers]

Yes Canada did invoke the War Measures Act in 1970 to deal with a serious (and murderous) terrorist insurrection. Most Canadians outside of Quebec hardly noticed. It may have been akin to squashing a fly with a sledgehammer but it was nevertheless very effective and, dare I say, supported by the majority of Canadians (even those in Québec) who had little sympathy for what amounted to a relatively small band of self-serving pseudo-intellectual thugs who resorted to kidnapping and murder to try and strong-arm their way into power. The leader who invoked the Act is today seen as one of the greatest leaders the Country has ever known, even by those who still disagree with many of his economic and social policies. He was also the man who was the driving force behind the repatriation of the Constitution and its embedded Bill of Rights.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Idarubicin]

... when you can invoke the War Measures Act?

It's a good thing that they can't invoke the War Measures Act, then. It was replaced by the Emergencies Act in 1988, no doubt in large part because the provisions of the War Measures Act would have been deemed unconstitutional under the Canadian Constitution (in particular, the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982).

The Emergencies Act is more circumscribed in the powers which it grants. Declaration of a 'state of emergency' is subject to a review and vote by Parliament. Uses of the Act's powers are subject to judicial review, under reasonably strict constitutional tests.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Jerry Rivers]

Well, according to the CBC's Greatest Canadian contest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Canadian) Tommy Douglas was the greatest leader ever, not Trudeau, who finished 3rd. That's certainly a result that left me and many others shaking their heads in disbelief. But, I suppose that result is reflection of those who listen to the CBC and participate in their informal polls.

I never said EVERY Canadian figured P.E.T. was the greatest. Many do though.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[PenGun]

Oh there are quite a few of us. The Charter was an act of genius and has frustrated legislatures trying to restrict citizens rights ever since.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[delepster]

Wow! Perfectly put, also that Trudeau has been able to put the blame on Quebec's PM for getting the army in the streets...

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[Jerry Rivers]

Tanks in the neighbourhoods of Montréal and soldiers on the streetcorners, along with the arrest of some 497 people (62 were charged, 32 refused bail, 3 were charged with kidnapping and murder, 5 were deported to Cuba), effectively brought an end to the FLQ. There have been no significant terrorist acts since.

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act...

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, but didn't Don Cherry win as overall greatest Canadian? Or at least stay in the running for WAAAY too long?

I realized it was a joke when I saw the nominees.

Oil pipelines?

[Erioll]

How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.

Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.

Re:Oil pipelines?

[poticlin]

Overall canada represent 23.4% of the US' export 23.4% https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /us.html

Re:Oil pipelines?

[CastrTroy]

Per country, yes, it seems that Canada is the largest supplier, per country. However, The US also gets 19% (as compared to Canada's 18%) from the middle east, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Phisbut]

In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

Best News all Day... Well, Sorta...

[Plekto]

Of course, it's *not* happening in the U.S. - so... same old crud here as usual. Sigh.

Sometimes I really wonder how long this country has at the rate we are going. Just take a look at Democracy Now or any alternative site - or better yet, just go to news.yahoo.ca/ for a slightly less baised mainstream news look at the U.S.(far less filtering than the stuf we get from Reuters/CNN/Fox/etc main newsfeeds). The sad thing is that it's the working class what will take the brunt of any retaliation for what we are doing - be it military, terrorist, economic, or otherwise.

Re:Free reign

[grub]

Heheh I've been giggling over this comment for a few minutes now. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Coryoth]

I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

The plan was to bomb major buildings in downtown Toronto, so yes there were significant targets, and yes they were Canadian targets. As to cells being in place to attack US targets - well that implies or assumes some sort of overall governing strategy which simply doesn't seem to be the case. The Canadian terrorist plot that was foiled was, much like the London bombings, a case of home grown terrorists who were simply "inspired by", but had absolutely no links to, Al Qaeda. The claim that there is some worldwide terrorist network that is out to get the US seems to be more a phantom created by certain US politicians than anything. The reality seems to be unconnected groups who, inspired by the publicity given to "global terrorism", decide that terrorism seems to be a way to take out their personal (and often local an homegrown) frustrations. There is no terrorist mastermind behind it all. And that's one of the reasons why local law enforcement is already sufficiently empowered to deal with such groups without any special provisions for "terrorists". We need to stop treating "terrorists" as anything significant and start treating them like the common criminals they are.

Coyne brings up an interesting point

[twilight30]

Generally, I don't agree with Coyne, but, he is pretty sensible for a Conservative, and I respect his opinions. Today's Post column brings up a good point:

It is a sign of the oddly disembodied nature of the debate that most of the points advanced could have been made by either side -- could and were. The sunsetted provisions, it was pointed out, one allowing police to arrest suspects without warrant and hold them for up to 72 hours, the other empowering judges to compel evidence at special investigative hearings, have never been used. Ha, says one side, so they're unnecessary! Ho, says the other, so they've hardly been abused, have they? In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[hooded_fang]

Yeah the Liberals proposed and passed the legislation but it was never meant to last forever. Most people agreed that it was needed at the time but due to the haste in which it was made law it was obvious that it would need to be changed. I really dont dig the fear politics that Harper likes to use. What scares me is the possibility of losing my freedoms and rights so that a perceived security can be achieved. What security is that where most of the laws can actually be used detrimentally to the people they are trying to protect. Yes anti-terror measures need to be in effect but we have the time now to look at the original provisions and make the necessary changes. I dont think that noone has abused them in the past is a good reason for keeping them as is. Harper's been busy changing the system to politicize it (ie: police having influence on judges/how is that fair if the police have been abusing the citizens) and even though things may not have been abused in the past, this doesnt mean that they won't in the future. I live in a city that was recently branded as having the worst police in North America (yay another badge of pride for Vancouver) and it chills me to think that people like that should influence my rights. What happens if a power hungry cop takes out someone cause he can't control himself. It happened to a guy who happened to be walking by a police action during a riot in Vancouver a few years back. A police officer who was a bit too amped decided to broadside a guy in the mouth for being nowhere near the action. The guy lost his teeth and the cop got suspended without pay. If you give the cops an influence of the way the courts run then the cop stands the chance of having no punishment. I for one would rather relook our rules than slip further into a police state. If we just say "it's to punish terrorists" when will those rules be changed to come after other unworthies? After all its easier to be a conservative in a liberal society than a liberal in a conservative society.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[fishboy]

The Liberal Party of the day enacted the legislation largely to appease the Bush administration during a time when no one was really sure of the extent of global terrorism. They also sought provisions that would ease the minds of the Canadian public. Wisely, the inserted a sunset clause that called for renewal every five years.

Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legislation to expire in a world where global terror events have actually fallen since 9/11. Also, bear in mind that the ruling Conservatives voted for the legislation, along with the other opposition parties at the time, passing it 190-47, hardly what I would call a 'divisive' piece of legislation.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[xnderxnder]

In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.

The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[Ubergrendle]

One point I need to clarify -- it was the CONSERVATIVES that asked for the 5 year expiry, it was not initially volunteered when the Liberals introduced this legislation. Thankfully they realised that the LIBERAL party couldn't appear to be more intolerant/harsh than the conservatives, so they implemented the 5 year expiry.

This current vote is very curious. The conservatives wanted to renew, on the basis of existing investigations, but the Liberals declined. So either the Liberals either admit a) they overreacted the first time, or b) are playing politics.

The Liberals in Canada have a history of being soft on terrorism. They took forever to add Hamas to the federal watch list, and the same with the Tamil Tigers -- groups that had significant immigrant community groups donating large amounts of money to the Liberal party (see: Richmond BC and Brampton ridings for starters). Ontop of that, the Air India bombing is STILL being investigated 20 years later and a the Liberals never committed crown commission for the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

I'm of two minds on this whole issue...carte blanche for the Conservatives will take us down a Republican party path that the US has followed and I don't want that; on the other hand I'm tired of the apologist, relativist Liberal party policies where they put politics ahead of good government.

Note to American slashdotters -- its not as good up here as you might think. We're just not in Iraq right now thankfully.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[donweel]

Also don't forget it was the liberals who invoked the "War Measures Act" which invoked military law to deal with the FLQ a French Canadian Separatist group accused of kidnaping a british diplomat in the 70's. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-162-429-11/on_this _day/conflict_war/

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[fishboy]

Well, if you want to go back into history, the Air India Bombing occurred in 1985, during the couple of years of the Progressive Conservative's eight year stint of power. The screw-ups from the RCMP happened under their watch (the RCMP even trailed one of the suspects and watched him test his detonators in a field the week before the bombing!) and no one from the government investigated or charged the RCMP in the following six years. It took a Liberal government to finally call an inquiry fifteen years later. The Conservatives have called a useless Royal Commission just one one year after the public inquiry concluded.

Now that's what I call politics.

Note to American slashdotters: things are way better up here than down there, believe me.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[gstoddart]

In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

This is much more about everyone moderating back to reasonableness instead of the big, paranoid, reactionary crap which happened after 9/11. You could probably have passed anything in the aftermath of that. Countries everywhere went squirrely with fear, and fell over themselves passing laws which violated their citizens rights.

In the wake of Supreme Court decisions which have ruled security certificates in violation of the Charter, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they allowed those provisions to lapse -- they're provisions Canadians don't agree with, and are bordering on (if not outright) illegal.

This is less of a partisan issue than collectively realizing we don't want to be a nation which allows for indefinite holding of a person without charges.

As much as Mr. Harper would like us to believe that this makes the Liberals and everyone else look "soft on terror", I think he's skating towards more angry backlash than anyone else. I don't need to be "anti-Tory" to think Harper is an ass who models himself on the worst sort of American politicians -- IMO, he's comitted more aggregious crap since he came into office than his PR people would like me to remember. And, despite his whining about the 'democratic deficit' before he got elected, he's pretty much an autocrat. And, he keeps trying to shove things down our throats that only a small amount of Canadians voted for (like changing the age of consent, trying to get the judiciary changed, and a bunch of right-wing stuff that the majority doesn't agree with.

This is a very un-Canadian thing to say ... but I think Harper need a good thrashing -- or, at least, a stern talking to and some finger wagging to let him know how much most of us disapprove of his policies.

Cheers

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[Headcase88]

I gotta agree. Right now in general the Liberals are just totally inept and wasteful, it's hard to objectively deny that, while the Conservatives are competent but I don't like many of their policies. With 3rd parties you can read their stated policies but don't have much of an idea of how competent they are (aside from how nicely they've laid out said policies).

Damned if you do...

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[Pig Hogger]

The Liberals in Canada have a history of being soft on terrorism.

Of course they are: they have to be; they're terrorists themselves.

During the 1960's and 1970's, they remote-controlled through the RCMP the FLQ "terrorist" group (which was heavily infiltrated by the RCMP) to put bombs here and there, and, most importantly, to kidnap a Québec minister (Pierre Laporte) days before he was to be indicted of influence peddling for the mob, thus sparing the newly-elected liberal government much embarrassment.

In addition, this proved a golden opportunity to declare martial law and suspend basic civil liberties, during which 400 political opponents of canada prime minister Trudeau were rounded-up and jailed without trial.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[ceoyoyo]

That's you vote for the NDP. I was REALLY tempted to vote for the Communist party though. They were even first on the ballot. How's THAT for a protest vote!

Actually, I thought the way the election worked out was a stroke of genius. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have to suck up to the NDP to get anything done. Well, they could suck up to the BQ I guess, but that would taste even worse.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[ceoyoyo]

He's trying to change the age of consent? To what? Really, I do think 14 is a bit young....

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[Shaper_pmp]

I'm of two minds on this whole issue...carte blanche for the Conservatives will take us down a Republican party path that the US has followed and I don't want that; on the other hand I'm tired of the apologist, relativist Liberal party policies where they put politics ahead of good government.

I'm not an expert on Canadian politics (just the UK and USA takes up more than enough of my time), but I was under the impression that you were not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, hadn't suffered a serious terrorist attack in years, and haven't had much trouble from al Qaeda ever since they first rose to prominence after 9/11.

You're also retiring your over-the-top anti-terror legislation in favour of more sensible, well-thought-out laws, and seem well on track to putting the entire present world problems behind you.

Given even the UK is in Iraq and Afghanistan, has suffered al Qaeda-linked terrorist incidents and has a prime minister who right at this very moment is trying to do to us what the Republicans did the the USA, and the USA is more fucked militarily, politically, economically, strategically and in terms of international reputation than it's been in a long time, how isn't it better in Canada?

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point

[Ubergrendle]

Canada is in Afghanistan today. We have our largest contingent of troops deployed since the Korean War. They're currently responsible for the Khandahar province.

I need to find a link, but IIRC our casualty rate is about 12x worse than an average US soldier in Iraq. Canada is on the front lines against the Taliban. Our deployment is relatively small though (commensurate with our country's population) of about 3000 troops.

But no, there have been no Taliban / Al Quaida attacks on Canadian soil. We lost many citizens in the WTC bombings though.

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Coryoth]

"a cold molson"?
A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.

ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[mikelieman]

If it's IMPORTANT it'll get renewed. If it's NOT IMPORTANT it'll just go away.

I don't see a downside. Anyone?

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[Loadmaster]

ALL laws? EVERY year? I don't know, that may involve working more than 1/4 of the year which 1/3 of that is how big my raise should be. That dog won't hunt, sir.

Sincerely,

US Congress

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[WNight]

It would encourage there to be less laws... But we'd have to trust out politicians to always be writing new laws - the potential abuse there is huge. Especially when they find a must-go bill (renewing the murder laws) and attach some crap to it as a rider.

'For the purposes of this law, the suspect^Wguilty shall be assumed to have murdered a person if they have imbibed more than one "joint" or "marijuana cigarette"' or something else.

We'd need a system where laws weren't enacted for a year anyways. We should never need legislation before that. And let it be cancelled with only a 33% vote during that time. If a large portion of the nation isn't behind a law we shouldn't all live under it.

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[cparker15]

And let it be cancelled with only a 33% vote during that time. If a large portion of the nation isn't behind a law we shouldn't all live under it.

While we're at it, why don't we apply this same suggestion to the country's top-elected officials, such as the President and Vice President? I, for one, would welcome our new Democrat overlady.

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[dcam]

Yes. You tie up the government with constantly renewing laws. This would mean either nothing would get through or, more likely, laws would just get rubber stamped.

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[Dirtside]

One year is too short a time for a lot of laws, especially ones that have been around a long time and have a high level of agreement -- it's a waste of effort to renew laws against murder, burglary, and arson every year.

For any law that passes, the sunset duration should be the subject of a separate vote, where each legislator picks a duration (from say 1 to 20 years), and they use the mean duration, rounded to the following January 1st. So if a bill is signed into law on June 15th 2007, and the sunset vote says 3.4 years, that adds to around November 2010, and would round up to January 1st 2011.

That way, even legislation which must pass RIGHT NOW may still need to be revisited soon if those who voted for it think that it might only be needed in the short term.

Not all legislation makes sense for sunset provisions, of course, like budget bills, which specify a one-time event anyway (they essentially have an implicit sunset).

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year.

[fyoder]

For any law that passes, the sunset duration should be the subject of a separate vote, where each legislator picks a duration (from say 1 to 20 years), and they use the mean duration, rounded to the following January 1st. So if a bill is signed into law on June 15th 2007, and the sunset vote says 3.4 years, that adds to around November 2010, and would round up to January 1st 2011.

Easier still, 1d20 plus an additional year for every point of charisma beyond 16 of legislator proposing the bill.

As the french say

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, chill. As my good friends from Quebec like to say:

    Je me Souvien

Which translates roughly to

    I am Soup

Words that we call all live by.

Re:As the french say

[Yaotzin]

Hilarious!

Re:As the french say

[Damastus the WizLiz]

is that like I am a doughnut

Re:As the french say

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. The speaking french eliminates your sense of humor.

Re:As the french say

[o'reor]

This thread has style. It turns out that the Monty Python were a bunch of Canadians, not Brits, after all :-) Thanks for the fun. A la prochaine !

Re:As the french say

[Tragek]

I love it.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[psychrono]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US. Yes, along with around 50% of the fresh water supply to the states as well.
There is definately some things in Canada that the US cannot live without; literally.

The laws were used

[flyingfsck]

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

Re:The laws were used

[Midnight Thunder]

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

Canadians seem to be much more concerned that their human rights are being defended, than their neighbour. Canada seems to try its best to be a place where all people can feel safe living there, though it does not always find it easy between defending what it is being Canadian, and taking into account the needs of the various sub-cultures that make up Canada.

Re:The laws were used

[fishboy]

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

That is a seperate issue, the five individuals of which you speak were being held on security certificates, which has nothing to do with the Anti-terrorism Act and its sunset clause. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Atlantis-Rising]

Toronto tends not to export oil...

You're looking seriously farther west for that.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[MightyMartian]

I think to the extent that there is an organization to Al Qaeda, the nebulous and largely independent cells is exactly how it is supposed to function. There is no doubt that there has been some centralization as far as training, and that some attacks may have come from a more central "command" (if you will). The whole point behind such a structure is that knocking out any individual group will have little effect on others. Catching guys planning to bomb Toronto isn't likely to get you a lot of intelligence about someone planning an attack in France. Al Qaeda and its affiliates (including all the local yokels inspired by bin Laden and his ilk) are all about throwing as much shit at the wall as they can manage, with the hope that a few find their way to completion (9-11, the London and Madrid bombings for instance).

That's what makes it so hard. It isn't like the bad old days of the Soviet Union, where you knew some Soviet provocateur was involved at some point. Nor is it like the drug cartels or the Mafia, where there was a centralized command structure. A diffuse enemy, who may in fact be several unlinked or only casually linked enemies, is a lot tougher to fight. And since the WEstern intelligence community, by and large, went to sleep after the fall of the USSR, there were no sleepers, no moles or even a lot of information about these networks until after spectacularly successful attacks. Then everyone woke up and realized "wow, we've got a problem!"

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[CohibaVancouver]

is anything in Canada a true target?

yep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_flight_182

Re:Free reign

[fatcock84]

I think the idea behind the laws was to make it easier to discover such a plot.

Although I'll grant you that the laws are unnecessary in Canada; what significance could there be in attacking Canada?

Well...

[powerpants]

It's aboot time!

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Phisbut]

Toronto tends not to export oil... You're looking seriously farther west for that.

True. Toronto's incident was only one threat. "Farther west" also seems to be in their crosshair.

Brings a tear . . .

[rodentia]

to moy ee, Mortimer. But I still say America made Pamela Anderson what she is today.

Wait for it!

Re:So now that terrorism is legal in Canada...

[andy314159pi]

I disagree with the above post, but it's a political expression and this is a political topic. It's definitely NOT TROLLING. Abusing your moderating points to promote your political point of view is not good.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[TubeSteak]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

The U.S. imports about 19% of its crude oil from Canada
The next runner up is Saudi Arabia with 15.4%

Honestly though, the oil market is so tight & unstable that serious disruptions in any large country's output would have a dramatic effect on the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Consider that Canada's total (not just crude) oil production is ~64% of Iran's.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[jdevivre]

Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.

For our globally-challenged American readers: Toronto does not have (many?) sugar maple sugarbushes. Picture L.A. with a small fraction of the following: "marine layer", vanity, and racial tension (just the lingering reflection of the racist crap promoted by American entertainment and media). Lived in both. Same traffic. Less guns.

In your face, PM Harper. Face it, you don't even look American...

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians can be Slashdot moderators, too. Just like their date convention is backwards, they read the comments backwards, too (from newest to oldest). Just go change your preferences.

funny

[cybrthng]

They have been like that for decades, yet we have had president after president support them. Why change now? I guess when you create turmoil it creates inflated prices from products that come from the region and thus we artificially pay more for oil than what we should because of the risk involved.

Really, terrorists only mean something when you choose to give them that much credit. Your giving them power by recognizing them as something they're not.

Christians, Catholics and many other "mainstream" religions have all fought holy wars that killed millions of people. This is simply a situation we are doomed to repeat because it works well for a select few. Its all about power, politics and money and absolutely nothing to do with "terror" or "fear" unless your gullable enough to actually BELIEVE THAT

Pro Terror

[coren2000]

So we have finally gotten rid of these anti-terror laws... but what about passing pro-terror laws? I wish we could pass some pro-terror laws, instead of just rejecting the anti-terror laws.

Re:Pro Terror

[coren2000]

Well i think we need more. I just don't have that fear in my belly that makes me spend all my cash, live for today, and ignore my future plans.

Re:No Hope At All

[Doctor Crumb]

Terrorists != Extremist Muslims, nor vice versa. Please turn off Fox News and actually learn about geopolitics before you attempt to discuss it again.

summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary says "The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely", but the article says "The measures allowed suspects to be detained without charge for three days", which is a huge difference. And that had to be personally approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by a judge withing 24 hours.

Plus the comment about it being used to detain 5 people is wrong - that was security certificates, which were not part of this act, and were struck down last week by the Supreme Court.

Re:Good to know

[darjen]

That there is still one free country in North America.

Letting a small part of their laws expire doesn't necessarily make them "free". I'm sure there are lots of other laws in Canada that restrict people's freedom in completely un-necessary and intrusive ways.

Re:w00t

[alexandreracine]

I wish we (the US) were as cool as Canada.

Well, yeah... we do live North, so it is cool. Very cool. Like -40 Celcius cool :)

Looks to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...like all the Canadian Slashdot readers got the mod points today. Anything even slighly mocking Canada is getting modded "Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, Offtopic" Yet anything attesting to the superiority of Canada is getting modded up.

Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.

Heck, you might as well mod this as flamebait, too. I don't care. It's your mod point to waste.

Re:Looks to me...

[multisync]

Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.

Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, or this one.

(Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).

Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Headcase88]

In your face, PM Harper. Face it, you don't even look American...

I knew I liked him for something aside from the GST cut.

(j/k, I don't like him)

"Soft on Terror"

[SandwhichMaster]

"...that the Liberal Party was soft on terror"

How is it that everyone not willing to give up Civil Liberties is considered "Soft on Terror"? People are cowards if they don't vote for every anti-terrorist bill? If you ask me, the people who will so readily give up their freedoms, and even send a nation's youth to war, are the real cowards.

Re:Maybe....

[xTantrum]

I guess i must be more of a canadian patriot than i thought because i don't think that link was even mildly funny. As a red-blooded canadian i can tell you many people up here feel the best thing about the states are their movies. An empirical q & a will show you we don't approve of their politics nor do we want to become another "state"

For many years, the U.S. and Canada have had a strong relationship with both countries serving as each others largest trade partner. The two countries also share, except for the Province of Québec, a similar culture with the same genres of music, movies, television, and, from the U.S. to Canada,...

this quote is pretty retarded too, considering that quebec isn't separate from canada. I'd love to know how the commiter for this piece got this information. especially considering this recent news

This guy is the type of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.

Canada just doesn't have its head up its ass and is also not afraid of the united states. Unlike ass kissers like blair and whoever else in the world that bob likes an idiot when the u.s comes to town. Thats why even though we do deliver justice to terroists and other crimminals when its due, we still try to follow the law At least submitter noted that canada was doing a good job.

Re:Yes, I noticed that...

[Erioll]

As much as I think the Liberals are immoral yahoos, Paul Martin was from Quebec too (well, he had a Quebec seat at least), and that didn't save him. Dion is just more "obviously" french.

Re:Maybe....

[kidcharles]

The 52nd state is Iraq, and boy does it soak up a lot more federal tax revenue than it contributes.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[fishboy]

Yeah, I'm not sure if a lot of peope know this, but before 9/11 the largest terrorist attack was in Canada, the bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 people in 1985, 280 of which were Canadian citizens. It remains the worst singel air disaster ever.

Mod parent UP!

[IgLou]

What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.

What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.

I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.

Re:Mod parent UP!

[antiMStroll]

Having just recently been relinquished of toxic and deadly materials - Crest, Head and Shoulders and hair gel - twice in the course of a simple inter-province business trip I got a full taste of the madness which ensues when Harper-types get their way. He might as well call an election now and get it over with before the rest of his PNAC wannabees get too settled in. His governement is well past the best-by date.

Re:Mod parent UP!

[machinder]

What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.

What makes matters even worse is that Harper stood up and accused the Liberals of voting down the down the law in order to protect one of their own, called them weak on Terror, and suggested they are putting every Canadian life at risk. Personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric ... sounds far too much like the kind of "debate" you see mocked on the Daily Show every day for my tastes.

How about we try keep it civil, Mr Prime Minister? (Or return to civility, since the last year has seen a marked deterioration of the national discourse.)

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[ashitaka]

Nope. Canada wasn't the target, Indian Hindus and moderate Sikhs were.

The perpetrators just happened to be living in Canada.

Re:"He SAW Jedi 17 times, eh?"

[KatchooNJ]

To be slightly anal...

The line is, "He saw Jedi 17 times, eh?" ;-)

The line is extra interesting because Jedi wasn't even released yet when Strange Brew was shot.

Re:Good to know

[Malakusen]

True, I don't agree with their lack of free speech.

Coryoth Slips In Nonthinking Commentary

[MSTCrow5429]

"Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

Way to shameless editorialize, without even bothering to think of an argument in support of your apparently thoughtless position.

Re:Coryoth Slips In Nonthinking Commentary

[Petrushka]

Ummm ... why shouldn't a blog editorialise? Isn't that what blogs are for?

Re:Coryoth Slips In Nonthinking Commentary

[MSTCrow5429]

What blog are you talking about? The uber-parent has two links to the BBC and CNN, neither of which are blogs, and neither of which support Coryoth's random commentary.

Re:Coryoth Slips In Nonthinking Commentary

[Petrushka]

What blog are you talking about?

Slashdot.

Re:Coryoth Slips In Nonthinking Commentary

[MSTCrow5429]

Oh. Slashdot isn't a blog. Or at least I don't think it is. It's supposed to give us news, not unsupported opinions that are only tangentially related to the uber-parent's cited articles.

"ACT" isn't an acronym

[Comboman]

PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

"PATRIOT" is an acronym; "act" is not (unless you mean "Assholes Can't Type").

Re:Unbiased news posts

[jorgevillalobos]

It sure is nice to come to Slashdot and get unbiased news coverage, eh?

Well, blame the poster, not the editors. I don't think they changed the original post one bit, although I would like to replace("fo", "of"). Spell checkers people, if your browser doesn't have them, well, it sucks.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[Kandenshi]

Indeed, if I wanted "Fair and Balanced" news coverage I'd be reading the Fox News[TM] website of course!
I'm here to read about Kubuntu and perhaps something to do with the new thoughts on application of tinfoil in fashion. Editorializing in the summaries is a close third though.

Re:So now that terrorism is legal in Canada...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Actually, you might agree with me. It's just that I misfired. My intention was to target was the newspapers presenting a headline that sends the message that Canadians are anti-anti-terror and hence pro-terror. The Canadians have, of course, rejected certain specific laws rather than anti-terror laws in general. (But I have to admit, for some reason I find it easy to visualise Osama knitting and couldn't help alluding to it.)

Re:No Hope At All

[crabpeople]

"They're here to die for Allah's greatness and get the fast pass into Paradise."

The FLQ were muslims?

"You can't talk with them. You can't reason with them."

Ok now I'm sure your talking about quebecois. Relax dude, they are people too. Sure they may be terrorists, but even they deserve to have their crazy no right-turning systems of belief.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[ergo98]

I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

We've been one of the most active forces in Afghanistan, and were there from the start. And if you believe that terrorists hate freedom/the West/women without veils, then we're obviously as much of a target as the US.

Oh, and we're a member of the G7, a major resource exporter, and the only country that Osama explicitly threatened that hasn't seen related terrorist bombings.

In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[zoftie]

Al Quaeda is a suggested name by security agencies to tie in all evidence and prosecution flow under one name for political purposes. Anything muslim and criminal would be labeled with this, just because it had certain zing, and a roadway for promotions and bonuses. Al Quaeda doesn't exist, it is a scam by Mostly CIA agency , just like proof of WMD weapons in Iraq documents. Just like those fake Bin laden video and audio tapes. Just like Serbian genocide, justification of renewal of many stockpiles of aging weapons and punishment of yugoslavia for not cooperating with IMF, Wold bank and their demands.

Just look to people who sponsor the massacares both ways - weapons industry in United States. Primariy white supremacist clan of old boys, in ways of which if you stand you will get shot and your whole family marginalized and persecuted under some security directive.

Living in Toronto, I did follow the investigation and foundation for the cases were weak, and contrived. I applaud the decision of minority government to fight and let laws like these be the victim.
These are the times we live in.

You have one thing incorrect

[Loundry]

You either convert -- or die.

The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.

Re:You have one thing incorrect

[shutdown -p now]

The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.

The third option is technically only available to "People of the Book" (Christians & Jews). Pagans and atheists are not included. Pagans might slip through since it happened in the past (e.g. for convenience, Hindus were treated as dhimmis), but atheists - very unlikely.

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[mandelbr0t]

Oh come on. That was definitely funny. I'm laughing.

It matters not

[Loundry]

Beer contains alcohol and is thus haraam. Hence, your pro-Canadian comments are Islamophobic (pbuh).

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Joelfabulous]

Also, the formerly Canadian beer companies are now mostly owned by their (mostly) American counterparts...

So "Molson Canadian" is an oxymoron now, I guess. I hate the marketing too...

Re:No Hope At All

[Beetle B.]

"I don't hope for that at all. Anyone who feels this way doesn't understand the terrorist mindset. They're not here to live and let live a good life. They're here to die for Allah's greatness and get the fast pass into Paradise. You can't talk with them. You can't reason with them. You either convert -- or die. They even intentionally target and kill others of their own faith in this struggle. Under these circumstances, conventional ideas of freedoms are just weaknesses to be exploited. This is a War, and we either fight it as such, or lose!"

Thanks for parroting others without checking the facts.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Socguy]

Well,

You pick your target on the basis of what you are trying to accomplish. If you wish to engage in economic warfare you target the infrastructure that supports the economy (energy installations, major trade routes, stock exchanges etc. maybe even try to overwhelm the local economy with counterfeit money). If you wish to engage in a culture war then you might target seemingly random, unexpected, unimportant (even neutral, friendly or your own people!) locations in order to generate maximum public shock. With any luck, a relatively small 'strike' can generate culture wide ripples leading to knee-jerk, run-away, self-defensive (and self-serving I would argue) reactions on the part of the state which eventually cause more internal damage than what a handful of extreme individual could ever hope to achieve on their own.

S.

No, you're wrong.

[baboo_jackal]

Where, indeed, to begin, with your statement?
 

we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others

1) We "all" haven't lost the "right" of Habeas Corpus. The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. So unless you're a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, you haven't lost anything.

2) Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege. (before you respond to this point, make sure you understand what a fundamental right is, and is not, and please read a little about procedural (derived) rights, too.

3) You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?

Re:No, you're wrong.

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens

Sure it said that. However, like any other power given to a government they immediately abused it and also held US citizen (at least one off the top of my head) until the Supreme Court over-ruled them (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld)

suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism

Again fine in theory, however this again is often blatently abused and the government just calls all kinds of things "terrorism" related.

Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege.

Never said it was a fundamental right. I said it was guarenteed (as the supreme court has held). Anyway the Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.". The English common law this refers to is here. Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. However, since its in the constitution I will consider it pretty "fundamental".

You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?

Sheesh! How many rights do you have to loose exactly before it worries you? Is it 2? Is it 7? Anyway, since you asked for another how about privacy (warrentless wire taps, etc, etc)? BTW, please don't bother lecturing me on exactly what type of right "privacy" is. I'm good, thanks anyway.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[ArcherB]

It states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.".

A terrorism suspect qualifies as the exemption far as I'm concerned. Now if they start calling drug dealers or jay walkers "terrorism suspects", then I'm with you. As of now, I have neither seen nor heard of that happening.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[antv]

Now if they start calling drug dealers or jay walkers "terrorism suspects", then I'm with you. As of now, I have neither seen nor heard of that happening.

Will you hear or see that happening ? With jay walkers not being able to face their accusers in court, because their right to habeas corpus is suspended ?

Once our justice system stops being transparent, how could you possibly know if it is being abused ?

Re:No, you're wrong.

[ArcherB]

Will you hear or see that happening ? With jay walkers not being able to face their accusers in court, because their right to habeas corpus is suspended ?

Like we haven't heard about Jose Padilla?

Of course, we all know that once it gets suspended (not that it has), we'll never EVER get it back. Good thing it has NEVER happened before!

Re:No, you're wrong.

[antv]

Like we haven't heard about Jose Padilla?

Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent ?
Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
Checks and balances are there for a reason.
Besides, if the govt could actually prove in court of law that suspect is indeed a terrorist, habeas corpus won't help him in any way.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[stinerman]

Hi.

The American people are not rebelling (although, they might want to take a look at it) and we are not being invaded. No, a handful of religious fanatics does not constitute a rebellion.

Therefore, the suspension of habeas corpus Congress has passed is unconstitutional.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[ArcherB]

Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!

Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?

How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent
What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?

Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours

They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
OK, let me pull the hat off.
Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well.
The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.

But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[baboo_jackal]

BTW, please don't bother lecturing me on exactly what type of right "privacy" is. I'm good, thanks anyway.
That's about what I figured. Look - you're saying, "They're taking away our Rights!" but then you refuse to even talk about (or show that you really understand) what "Rights" are.

To be sure, if one of our fundamental rights, say like the right to life, liberty, or property, were taken away, that'd be cause for an outrage, kind of like the ongoing debate about Eminent Domain. But saying that something is a "Right" doesn't make it one. It's not like the concept of limits to our behavior, or rules about the procedures in our justice system are anything new. You've just picked one that you don't like and called it a violation of our fundamental "Rights," giving you the illusion that you're arguing from some sort of moral high ground.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

but then you refuse to even talk about (or show that you really understand) what "Rights" are......that'd be cause for an outrage, kind of like the ongoing debate about Eminent Domain.

Listen, we can slice and dice and categorize rights until we're blue in the face if you'd really like to. However, as long you are OK with the government having the power the throw people in jail without evidence, use "aggressive interogation", and spy on its own citizens but will get all upset if the county siezes the first 14 inches of your property line to expand a road we will NEVER come close to agreeing so whats the point?

Re:No, you're wrong.

[meringuoid]

I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full

Well, no, not quite. It was ignored because they were old, degraded and not capable of causing mass destruction.

Weapons of A Rather Nasty Toxic Puddle On The Floor don't really cut it, now, do they?

Re:No, you're wrong.

[ArcherB]

OK, I won't even contest that point as it really had nothing to do with the substance of my post. What about the rest of it?

Re:No, you're wrong.

[baboo_jackal]

... and as long as you ignore that just governance requires rational thought, and attempt to substitue rhetoric and hyperbole for reasoned argument, you'll probably continue to be confused and frustrated with me. So I guess we're in agreement on that much.

Re:No, you're wrong.

[ArcherB]

Since it got modded out of existence because of the brownshirts that don't agree with it:
Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!

Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?

How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent
What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?

Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours

They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
OK, let me pull the hat off.
Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well.
The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.

But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[R2.0]

"In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world."

No, just apparently underwhelmingly funny/satiric.

Oh well, can't get it right every time.

Two entirely separate pieces of legislation...

[Hamster Lover]

The security certificate provisions and the anti-terrorism leglislation are two entirely separate pieces of leglislation passed into law decades apart from each other.

The security certificate legislation was passed in 1978 and forms part of Canada's immigration law. It was not passed specificially to deal with terrorism , but the five suspected terrorists that are held under those provisions are being held for various immigration related offenses such as entering the country with forged passports.

The Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in early 2001 and was an omnibus bill that amended a wide variety of pre-existing legislation. As I understand it, not all of the provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act sunset after five years. The sections of law that specifically prohibited taking part in or financially aiding a terrorist group and the those that outlawed specific terrorist organizations remain in effect.

As for the controversial preventitive arrest and compulsory testimony measures in the law, there was an attempt to strike a balance between civil rights and public order. For example, it was automatic for a suspect arrested on suspicion of terrorist activity to have their detention reviewed by a judge within 24 hours of arrest. Also, witnesses that were compelled to testify before a judge on a terrorism related investigation could not be prosecuted for crimes based on their own testimony (which is a right that is already entrenched in our Charter). The law wasn't perfect, but it also wasn't the draconian beast it was made out to be. And there are many common sense provisions to the law that remain in effect.

Mistake in Summary

[FriendOfBagu]

The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely

Actually, the law that was voted on only included provisions to hold terror suspects for 72 hours, not indefinitely.

The law about holding suspects indefinitely which the article mentions (and the article is clear that it's a different law) was struck down by the Supreme Court last week.

The law that could hold a suspect indefinitely required a "security certificate" to be issued by the government, and it only applied to foreign suspects.

They don't have to!

[Chris Burke]

Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

Well the last attack by foreign terrorists on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, so eight years. Clearly the policies initiated after 9/11 were not necessary to provide 8 years of no attacks. Arguing that 5 years of no attacks since in any way validates those policies is the most falacious of reasoning.

And why have attacks not been more frequent? Well first there is the planning involved -- again, 8 years between the failed WTC bombing and 9/11. And more importantly, since 9/11 there has been no need to attack the US on its own soil!

Let me make this as clear as possible: Afghanistan and Iraq have caused more harm to the United States that a hundred attacks like 9/11. In response to 9/11, the U.S. did to itself more than al Qaeda could ever dream of doing just on its own capacities. Not only in material costs but in the all-important propaganda war. The credibility the US has lost in the last 5 years is a huge boon to our enemies. Our status as world leader is

It's a classic strategy, and the same one used by Hezbollah against Israel. You can't effectively attack the giant on its home turf, so you poke at it to enrage it and lure it into your home turf where the giant is at a disadvantage. In their attempts to stomp you out, the giant innevitably stomps on the innocent and thus further increases resentment of the giant. Two wins, military and PR, from one strategy.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to make your enemy crazy-stupid with fear. The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.

Re:They don't have to!

[Chris Burke]

I believe the point of attacking America isn't to kill Americans. It is to change our way of life. They have done that by attacking us on our own soil.

Yes, they turned us into the frightened hateful warmongers that all their propaganda said we were. Again, the reason they don't have to attack us again is because we gave them exactly what they wanted.

As for no need to attack the US directly since we have made it so easy to attack us abroad, isn't that a good thing? Keep the battle off our soil?

Uh, I wouldn't call one one attack every eight years a "battle". This is exactly the kind of crazy-stupid illogical thinking that led us to attack Iraq as part of the War on Terror. What, you think that if we didn't invade Iraq, that we'd be facing exactly the same degree of warfare over here? Are you really that crazy-stupid?

We have created a net increase in the amount of battle going on in the world. Some would consider that a bad thing. If the tradeoff was attacks in the U.S. that killed between 6 and 3,000 people every 8 years (average: 375/yr) then I'd say that was a good idea.

The analogy that we are the giant lured from our own land is totally rediculous.

That's a weird way to spell "apt". But hey, let's just keep getting beat up in Iraq, a land we don't understand and can't blend into so we're constantly harrassed by insurgents, losing people, money, and influence every day. It isn't an analogy, it's a strategy, and it's working perfectly for our enemies.

As for killing innocents, that is only a rule that the US and Israel must follow, or apologize to hell for should someone "innocent" die. Terrorists kill innocents the majority of the time. They TARGET innocents.

WRONG! It is not a rule the US must follow, it is a REALITY that the US thinks it can absolve itself from. Everyone knows that when you kill innocents, the survivors will hate you. Al Qaeda knows they're fucking hated by every Shia (and many Sunni) in Iraq, but they don't care. Pratical countries like Israel or Russia just deal with the fact. The U.S. is the only one who thinks that the survivors should love us even though we killed innocents, because we're the good guys! The U.S. is the one who thought that the people of Iraq would thank us for bombing them! It's insane.

You really want to prove how morally superior the U.S. is? Do you believe that we are? Well I do to, but the only thing that can possibly show this is actions. So how about this: When terrorists kill innocents, we don't kill any innocents in return. I know it sounds crazy -- what, don't lash out randomly in a blind rage when someone hurts you? -- but I think it would work.

But that's ok, cause if we stick our heads in the sand maybe it won't be us that gets attacked. Unfortunately for you, it was us.

You aren't paying attention. If you follow what I'm saying, I'm saying that if we ignored the terrorists, if we stopped invading Arab nations in the name of terror, then we WOULD be attacked again. If we stopped giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted in response to 9/11, then it would be worth their while to attempt to do it again and get the crazy-stupid behavior that we've been showing for the last 5 years.

So when that happens, you have to ask yourself: Are you going to give the terrorists what they want? Are you going to dance to their tune? Are you going to become, once again, that which they say you are?

And the blame for all our actions, right or wrong, is the fault of the terrorists.

Well, you could certainly call the invasion of Iraq an effect of the terrorists' actions, for sure. Yet I don't think you're going to win any hearts and minds in Sadr City by telling them that soldiers are shooting at them because of Osama bin Laden.

Re:They don't have to!

[Jherek Carnelian]

The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.

Uh, that sounds like an argument in support of the PATRIOT Act. As long as we keep it, then we will be safe from further terrorist attacks.

Re:They don't have to!

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, you could consider it an argument in favor of our current path, if you belive preventing an attack on the U.S. is more important than anything else. I realize that. One thing, though, is that to truly accept my argument you would have to believe that our current actions are playing right into our enemy's hands. In which case it's hard to also believe that we should continue with this course of actions.

But really, USAPATRIOT is a domestic thing. It doesn't really affect terrorists either way, but it does make our lives worse. It's part of the government's usual opportunistic power grab mentality.

Re:They don't have to!

[Zixia]

The analogy that we are the giant lured from our own land is totally rediculous.

That's a weird way to spell "apt".

It's a weird fucking way to spell 'ridiculous'.

Re:In other words...

[Fantastic Lad]

Look, our retarded cousin up north gets offended easily, so please stop.

Retarded? --Now put a civil tongue in your mouth or we'll grab our hockey sticks and burn down your Whitehouse. Again.

-FL

Re:Unbiased news posts

[Yvanhoe]

Are you kind of... new, here ?

And by the way

[KKlaus]

Don't feel too good about the economy either. The bush presidency only seems to have done a good job if you can't think of anything other than what's immediately in front of you. Things are fine now, but the huge trade deficit, the budget deficit, and outsourcing combined with insufficient education to make next-gen jobs available to the average US citizen are all going to come home to roost soon. Social security issues, soaring medical costs, and particularly that trade deficit should all scare you pretty badly. People seem to think that because we've been rich for so long God somehow guarantees that wealth. Well he doesn't, and if it starts to go away everything goes with it. So please, vote for responsible and long term economic polocies (or the people that support them).

Re:And by the way

[ArcherB]

While I agree that the some of items you mentioned are problems, none of these are really Bush's fault and the attempts to fix them have been blocked by Democrats.

huge trade deficit
Nothing new. An economics professor told me once that a trade deficit is a sign of a good economy. Besides, I don't know if this is really that much of a problem. Can you remember the last time the US had a trade surplus? I can't. Yet we are still doing much better better than those that have a surplus over us.

budget deficit
Nothing new. The US gov't has been in debt since World War II.

outsourcing
Nothing new.

insufficient education
I disagree. If you want a good education, the opportunity is there for you. Most of the reasons that students are not learning is because they simply don't put in the effort. That is a parental problem, not a department of education one. Granted, there are schools that just suck, and the students have no choice but to attend those crappy schools, but that has been fixed (or at least it would have been had "vouchers" not been blocked by Democrats).

Social security issues
Bush tried to fix this, but again, blocked by Democrats who, for some reason, prefer the status quo to a limited privatization of Social Security. While the Democrats were busy screaming about how it wouldn't work, the good citizens of Galveston Texas are proof that it would. Didn't matter since it was a Bush plan, Democrats must oppose it (see my sig for another example).

soaring medical costs
Nothing new. Still, I'd rather pay too much for health insurance that too much in taxes!

Re:Unbiased news posts

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

A UCLA/Stanford media study found Fox News to be the most centrist, so yeah, you would read Fox News. Citation or reference, please.

Re:Silly.

[^_^x]

Please provide a link to this latest "evidence." I don't believe either the BBC or CNN would collaborate with something like 9/11.

I am however quite certain that the towers were VERY professionally done controlled demolitions though, as the odds are almost impossible that even one of the towers would collapse so neatly in one shot. That, and I've seen various footage of them falling: "*popopopopopopop* *WHOOSH!*" If it were a simple crash & burn, it would have decimated the burning floors, maybe removing the top of one tower.... then the fires would be put out and they'd repair the building like every other huge multi-floor skyscraper fire. If something DID damage them enough to fall, there is no way they'd collapse neatly into their own footprints like that, and for all the debris there was already (of course...) there would be more large pieces, especially given the buildings' construction.

And even if that whole last paragraph is to be ignored, like you said, the official stories are still more holes than facts.

So I'm pretty much on board with you, but please provide a reference for this "new evidence."

Also, as a Canadian, I both agree with the decision AND think our gov't is too soft on terror/ists. Truth is, the act was useless and should be trimmed out, but we should do a LOT more to screen immigrants/refugees with serious criminal records both coming and going from the country because yeah... we ARE a weak spot for terrorist immigration to the USA. It's improving, and it'll take time, but mind-boggling dumb mistakes have been made. Still, especially for the incredible rarity of any serious attack, we should (almost) NEVER SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY as we'd end up with neither every time. (Sorry, but I can't remember the original author of that statement... Thomas Jefferson?)

Re:Unbiased news posts

[ResidntGeek]

Spell checkers make you a worse speller. Why remember which letters are doubled? The spellchecker can do that!

Video Evidence.

[Fantastic Lad]

Please provide a link to this latest "evidence."

here.

Cheers!

-FL

Evidence also here. (This from CNN.)

[Fantastic Lad]

Also here.

It looks like CNN was even earlier than BBC to mis-report the event which hadn't at that point happened yet.

-FL

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[gobbo]

Labatt's is owned by Interbrew, a Belgian transnational.

The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[dcam]

This is one of the issues with the Bush rhetoric about the war on terror. It assumes that because there have been terrorist events/cells in different countries that they are linked. In many cases there are no links at all. In almost all cases the issues are local issues and the groups have nothing in common except their methods.

The war on terror is a joke because there is no enemy. Saying that the war on terror is a war on a tactic almost makes more sense than the idea that there is a global network of linked terrorists who are all trying destroy the US.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[dcam]

In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world.

Just say he is an average American. Same meaning, shorter phrase.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[abigor]

You are probably thinking of this: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

If so, you are wrong.

Key quote:

"Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[CohibaVancouver]

>The perpetrators just happened to be living in Canada.

Yes, and they targeted two flights originating in Canada full of Canadians. The Canadians happened to be Hindus and Sikhs, but it was still a terrorist attack against Canadians launched in Canada. The attack might have been much worse, but the bomb meant for Air India Flight 301 (which had been put on board CP Air Flight 003 in Vancouver) exploded 'prematurely' at Narita airport.

Re:Allah Ackbar!

[Jerry Rivers]

"...i am glad to see the nutty left are still well represented on slant.!"

The "nutty left?" You call them that because they have a federally mandated universal health care system? Nevermind that the current minority federal government is Conservative, or that only two of the ten provinces have a socialist government, while four out of ten are Conservative and four are Liberal. I know that for some people anyone left of far right is consider a nutty far-leftist, but really Canada is a moderate country, not a socialist one.

Post-disaster legislation

[AlHunt]

Yeah, really - there almost ought to be a law against passing any new laws for 30 days after a disaster. Politicians always want to jump n some kind of bandwagon after something like 9/11, pass garbage legislation and then we live with it forever (except in Canada, apparently).

you're proud of cowardice?

[SuperBanana]

The sunset clause kicked in and it has rightfully expired. But what amazes, and impresses, me most is that a number of MPs chose not to vote. Abstained. Their reasoning [www.cbc.ca]: *politcal spin garbage snipped* A good day for all Canadians.

The move was purely selfish: the MPs knew that if there was any sort of terrorist attack in Canada or involving Canada (ie, Canadian citizens attacking the US, or terrorists using Canada to get to the US, etc) and they had voted against the legislation- their political careers were over. If they voted for it, they wouldn't get re-elected.

The whole point of being elected is to represent the populace that chose you. Not participating in a vote defeats that. Nevermind the political climate appears such that your representatives appear to place their own jobs in front of, well, doing their jobs. Either through intimidation, or pure self interest. That's not something to be proud of at all.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[PopeRatzo]

A UCLA/Stanford media study found Fox News to be the most centrist

I'm sorry, but you were misinformed. There is no UCLA/Stanford media study which found Fox News to be "the most centrist".

Re:Maybe....

[xTantrum]

anonymous coward eh? lol. dude i live in quebec in montreal specifically. just cause quebecers have their own culture doesn't equate to them not sharing the same culture as the US and English Canada. Alberta has its own culture too so do the natives....see where your argument falls apart?

as for beating the english stuff on the charts? what are you smoking? what charts specifically are you talking about? locally yes, internationally or even provincially or nationally. no. My statement still stands. that paragraph in the article was bogus.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe!

[Dirtside]

The U.S. imports about 19% of its crude oil from Canada
The next runner up is Saudi Arabia with 15.4%

Hold on -- is that 19% of the crude oil that we import or 19% of the crude oil that we consume?

In fact, does anyone have a link to some good solid information about how much crude and refined oil the U.S. produces, imports, exports, and consumes? Because I hear a lot about how we shouldn't depend on foreign oil, and then I hear about how the oil we use is actually mostly produced here, and so on and so (confusing) forth.

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Dirtside]

"Transnats"? Been reading Red Mars lately? :)

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[nightfire-unique]

On the other hand, St. Ambroise Creme Ale is the finest invention mankind has produced. :D

Re:Unbiased news posts

[gripen40k]

No way, spell checkers make you a better speller! The new firefox was how I found out I was spelling weird wrong all this time.

'Squiggly line eh? That must be a mistake! Woah, weird is spelt 'e' before 'i'??!? Crazy!'

What can I say, I'm an engineer. Not a great excuse, but it works for me.

Re:Maybe....

[ceoyoyo]

Nonsense. It's just a colony... er, satellite, um, protectorate? If you were going to count them all as states Iraq would be way more than 52.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[StikyPad]

Here's the reference, but unfortunately it says "The first, second, and third most centrist outlets are respectively Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America."

It goes on to say, "The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." Nonetheless, the scale was 0-100, with 100 being most liberal and 50.1 being centrist. Brit Hume's score was 39.7, making it clearly conservative.

And finally, "Our method only measures the degree to which media is liberal or conservative, relative to Congress," ergo even FOX's most centrist show is more conservative than Congress.

Don Cherry

[GoatVomit]

It's quite reassuring that at least some nation still has the right idea when it comes down to the intellectual crutch used to clamp down on civil liberties. Unfortunately they've missed at least one of the most visible muslim terrorists in their country. His name is Don Cherry. You only have to see his clothes to understand that he is really trying to fit in but still doesn't have a clue when it comes down to keeping it low key. He keeps using terms like 'hitting' which I have to assume is a code for something far more sinister and there's always a bodycount involved at some point. If my sources are correct he also used to run a terrorist training camp where people specialized in using wooden sticks as lethal weapons. He must be stopped at any cost.

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[gobbo]

"Transnats"? Been reading Red Mars lately? :)

No, started using that term in the late '80's when studying political economy... besides, I think you mean "Metanats" ;-)

I wish I had mod points

[Semptimilius]

You, sir, made a funny.

Keep that debt growing!

Re:Unbiased news posts

[jorgevillalobos]

Spell checkers, just like most tools, are useful as long as you don't forget to use your brain. Something as simple as "fo" could've been prevented using a spell checker. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't revise what you type, since they're not perfect - as you point out - and they won't check your grammar and logic.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Orgazmus]

I would think that Day/Month/Year is less backwards that Month/Day/Year ?
At least, most of the world think so.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Eunuchswear]

No, day/month/year is sane, but backwards (try sorting it). Month/day/year is nuts.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Orgazmus]

So, you agree by disagreeing? ;)
And yes, 2007-03-01 is the prefered format when it comes to programming, but I don't think the rest of the population would agree on that format, so we should stick with 01/03/2007 until the nerds unite and rebel.

I actually drool whn I think of a society of freedom and technological focus. But the vi and emacs people suicide bombing eachother will probably spoil the fun for the sane people who understands that its just an editor. Just as religion is just a collection of people of the same faith, not the children of satan / one true faith.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Orgazmus]

Oh shit! I just said to much about the rebellion!
Where is the delete bu
[NO CARRER]

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Eunuchswear]

So, you agree by disagreeing? ;)

Yup. Whoops, sorry, I meant nope.

And yes, 2007-03-01 is the prefered format when it comes to programming, but I don't think the rest of the population would agree on that format, so we should stick with 01/03/2007 until the nerds unite and rebel.

Swedes are nerds? I thought they were a kind of root vegatable.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Yvan256]

Actually YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO format and is used by quite a number of countries and people. I, myself, use YYYY-MM-DD since I have to deal with french and english people all the time, and using either MM-DD-YYYY or DD-MM-YYYY will inevitably lead to an error (sending the "wrong date" to someone).

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Coryoth]

I can definitely vouch for the quality of the St. Ambroise beers.

Re:Allah Ackbar!

[jeremycobert]

i didn't say i was glad to see canada represented on /. , i was referring to all the nutty leftists who drop these stories. apparently if canada is doing/not doing something, then America should jump in and follow their lead. nutty, yes.

Re:Free reign

[dadragon]

There are several laws against that already:
Homicide
Murder
Treason

The last one might be questionable. I'd say that storming Parliament and beheading the Prime Minister qualifies as "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province".

Now, you Americans might be wondering why killing the Prime Minister isn't treason in itself. The Prime Minister isn't special, he's just a guy. The only one who is special in Canada is the Queen. Causing her harm is High Treason.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[unts]

they won't check your grammar and logic

Indeed, that's what bored Slashdotters are for.

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Orgazmus]

Yeah, I use YYYY-MM-DD in all my projects too. And if someone asks why, I'll send my army of ISObots after them. Take that, n00bs!

Uh. I need to lay of the sugar or something.

Boo yah!

[Sj0]

True North Strong and Free!

Of course, our police are competent, which sort of ruins the point of draconian new laws and using the military as police.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[JavaLord]

conservative than Congress.

I'd venture that Congress wasn't a good measure of conservatism, which is why their base didn't come out in 2006.

Re:Unbiased news posts

[DevilDoc]

Of corse, ewe cood reed over what ewe type befour ewe post it, but that wood taek to much tiem and effart.

Agreed, partially

[Loundry]

I have read the same thing as well, though I have also seen evidence of Muslims applying the dhimmi status to Hindus as well. I can't back this up, though. Suffice it to say that I believe the rule is inconsistenly applied.