Slashdot Mirror


Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

New submitter o_ferguson writes As Slashdot reported earlier this week, a lone shooter attacked the war memorial and parliament buildings in Ottawa, Canada on Wednesday. As many comments predicted, the national government has seized this as an opportunity to roll out considerable new regressive legislation, including measures designed to* increase data access for domestic intelligence services, institute a new form of extra-judicial detention, and, perhaps most troubling, criminalize some forms of religious and political speech online. As an example of the type of speech that could, in future, be grounds for prosecution, the article mentions that the killer's website featured "a black ISIS flag and rejoiced that 'disbelievers' will be consigned to the fires of Hell for eternity." A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents. Needless to say, some internet observes remain, as always, highly skeptical of the manner in which events are being portrayed. (Please note that some articles may be partially paywalled unless opened in a private/incognito browser window.)

17 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh! by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, they've said that they knew something like this was going to happen eventually.. If they knew it was going to happen eventually, they should have planned for it. And, if they were happy with the security measures before, why do they need to change them now?

    Let's keep this in context.. One guy, seemingly acting alone, shot a few people. Unfortunately he did it on government land, so the instant response is 'Terrorism'.

    One guy (well, two if you count our PM), screwing with our freedoms.

    1. Re: Ugh! by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do understand that some people do.

      I don't. You can't claim to be a free country if you sacrifice your fundamental liberties to stop a few bad guys. The people who believe otherwise would be better off moving to already existing police states and seeing what their nonsense will ultimately bring about.

    2. Re:Ugh! by Nyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, they've said that they knew something like this was going to happen eventually.. If they knew it was going to happen eventually, they should have planned for it. And, if they were happy with the security measures before, why do they need to change them now?

      Let's keep this in context.. One guy, seemingly acting alone, shot a few people. Unfortunately he did it on government land, so the instant response is 'Terrorism'.

      One guy (well, two if you count our PM), screwing with our freedoms.

      Sounds to me like this was planned. Push a crazy psycho into doing something really dumb on Government property, or to a soldier/government worker. Then push thru agenda you want.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Ugh! by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was shot in the back. How would bullets have made any difference?

  2. Drafted prior? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One begins to wonder which of the three possibilities is accurate... coincidence, waited for such an event, or furnished the event.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  3. Re:i lose my civil rights cause a crazy fucktards by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're angry about losing your civil rights, maybe you should be angry at the people taking advantage of situations like these and trying to take them?

  4. waiting for the right time by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "A government MP offers the scant assurance that this legislation is not "trauma tainted," as it was drafted well prior to this week's instigating incidents."

    Its introduction was obviously waiting for a trauma to capitalize on.

  5. It's a trap! by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey Canada, It's America,

    We gave our guys all these fancy abilities. Well, they took them and we didn't complain, which I guess is the same thing. Anyway, they haven't actually managed to CATCH anyone yet. Well, they've found some impressionable people with mental issues, chatted with them online, gave them a plan, weapons for the plan, talked them into it, and then instead of just getting them some mental help they "caught them" so they could tell us what a good job they were doing....

    Never mind that I could bring my city to it's knees with $100 and a trip to Home Depot. We're kind of wondering if there are any actual real Terrorists out there at all. They're probably bogarting all the Ebola. I mean, we've got deranged people with guns but those are impossible to find beforehand and so far we just clean up after them and use them to pass new laws.

    Don't fall for it. Sincerely,

    Americans

  6. Re:One man by o_ferguson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't have to be cynical - they are totally upfront about the fact that they had these already written and were just waiting for the right time. Hell, they boast about it, as though it makes the legislation better.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  7. WTF? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ONE person dies and they go full retard? WTF? This was one guy with a gun. It's no reason to engage in national hysterics. They have managed to outdo us in US by a country mile.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. Shot in the back by davecb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He was doing a ceremonial guard duty, as an honour. He probably didn't expect to be shot in the back.

    The operational bases were on moderate alert, but apparently the PM didn't think he or anyone else needed to be careful...

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:Shot in the back by towermac · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, they were afraid that the honored soldier would just go off shooting people if he had bullets in his gun?

      I don't get that; an empty weapon. Unarmed is great. A sword, if you want to be ceremonial. Why an empty weapon?

      Politics. That is gun control politics taken way, out, past any logical, anything. They set him up.

    2. Re:Shot in the back by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are a fucking idiot.
      The weapon was an old, outdated weapon. It was meant to look fancy for tourist pictures. He was unarmed. Because here in canada, we don't carry guns without cause.

      Notice how this idiot shooter was using a shotgun? That's a shit weapon for a shooting spree like this. THAT is the consequence of our gun control. Hunting weapons are fine and widespread. Human killing weapons are restricted.

  9. Fourth possibility... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They've ALWAYS had a draft like that. And any excuse will do to try to push it through.
    If there is no excuse, try to push it through anyway.

    It's not a conspiracy. It's not a coincidence. They are not waiting for or furnishing events.
    They see such events as INEVITABLE. It is a part of their view of reality. It is their life philosophy.
    Their BELIEF SYSTEM.
    They think they're the good guys.

    And once you look around, you'll notice that in other groups of people as well.
    Gun nuts really do believe that government is after their guns.
    Rich people really do believe that poor people are all lazy.
    Hippies really do believe that all people are good, just misunderstood.
    Justin Bieber fans really believe that he can sing.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  10. Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. Would have been so much better if the guy could have had some psychiatric help.
    It's a shame that the crackhead has given the Conservatives more ammunition to remove our rights, especially considering he was totally under the radar anyways so this legislation wouldn't have helped.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  11. Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge by davester666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neither of the wack jobs were "under the radar". they both were on the terrorist watch list, the other one was semi-regularly being followed by the RCMP, this one was just denied his passport to travel to Turkey [they assume to then go to Syria to fight]. So they both certainly having their internet connections, email and phone calls being monitored and listened in on.

    But still, this legislation wouldn't help because they didn't do anything "wrong" until they actually went to kill somebody. Which is already a crime. They didn't tell anybody they were planning to kill somebody here. And nobody directly told them to go kill somebody [other than that ISIS video "go attack somebody now now now, yes you, do it now!"].

    So, the only way to "catch" these guys sooner is to arrest them for thought-crime, for believing something the gov't doesn't like.

    The FLQ crisis was an actual terrorist attack, designed to directly influence the gov't. These were just a couple of screwed up guys doing something stupid, and they both paid with their own lives. The gov't is just using them to push it's own agenda.
     

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  12. Re:We have always been at war with Oceania. by qeveren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's why it's good that you read it.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!