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.)

54 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Won'd past constitutional challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly there's no way that this legislation passes the Oakes test. Section 1 allows for limitations, but not like this.

    1. Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, but the conservatives keep trying. Harper is what, 0-4 with constitutional challenges?

    2. Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge by davester666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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"

      Of course it was drafted some time ago. Harper was just waiting for something like this to get a way to quickly get it passed into legislation without all that pesky complaining that he got last time he tried doing it.

      Unfortunately, the opposition and the press are busy deifying the couple of soldiers [well, two soldiers and a glorified security guard at a cemetary] and Harper for being so courageous, for standing up to this terrorist, and not giving into fear, while fighting for Canadian freedoms.

      Of course, Harper is wallowing in fear, greatly increasing security around himself, and leaping at the chance to be able to spy on more and more citizens, I mean, terrorists. Nevermind also giving up Canadian freedoms so that Harper can really give it to his wife tonight.

      Our supreme court MIGHT overturn this legislation, but who's going to fund the couple million dollars in legal fee's challenging it?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. 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
    4. 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!
    5. Re:Won'd past constitutional challenge by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was not on any so called "terrorist watch list" - he was denied a Libyan passport (by Libya) because his ID didn't match the name given, they couldn't verify his mother's contact info, and his photos didn't match his appearance. He was never denied a Canadian passport because he only started the process of requesting one - it never had a chance to be denied.

  2. yup! by ZorglubZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Restrict freedom, that'll make them stop trying to take it all away...

    1. Re:yup! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately the Canadian Bill of Rights has some weasel words in it.

    2. Re:yup! by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      That seems to be what they do in the US anyway. The courts just modify the constitution with invisible ink, and then pretend they're "interpreting" it.

    3. Re:yup! by x0ra · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is the first article:

      1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

      Basically, the whole thing is worthless

    4. Re: yup! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      That's pretty much what an "assault rifle" is. There are no functional distinctions. It's a made up term by gun grabbers.

      A magazine-fed rifle-calibre long gun with full automatic capability.

      It's a literal translation of Sturmgewehr, which is 70 years old.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:yup! by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      No, not really. A more accurate description would be the courts tend to look at the Constitution (and its Amendments) as if those who created it were alive, sitting next to them, and completely aware of the last 240 years of history when they wrote it.

      No, they just blatantly make shit up. If they were doing as you said, mass surveillance would be struck down immediately, free speech zones wouldn't be allowed, and the commerce clause wouldn't be used so ridiculously, among many other things.

      While in reality the invention of the assault rifle and the Internet has pretty much blown away anything they intended in the Second and First Amendments, respectively.

      Nothing is wrong with the first amendment; the courts just enjoy modifying it. As for the second, if you really want it changed, then you must amend the constitution. Arbitrarily deciding which modern weapons are and aren't allowed is not something I want the government to be able to do.

    6. Re:yup! by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately the Canadian Bill of Rights has some weasel words in it.

      Every word is a weasel word for a big enough weasel.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Formatting. by o_ferguson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not really sure why I should go to the trouble of properly formatting with paragraph tags, italics and footnotes (using Slashdot's own markup conventions) just to have the editors strip it all out again before pushing to the front page. If you want to optimize for mobile, just remove the option to use markup tags in the first place.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    1. Re:Formatting. by o_ferguson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks for the kind words. I realize now that I forgot to mention it in the submission, but as a Canadian I was surprised to find that the very best analysis of this current situation came from Russel Brand, who I'd honestly never watched before, but was overwhelmingly prescient in his analysis (even if he does bounce about like a caffeinated meth head) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  4. 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 misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And the soldier killed was forced to to carry an unloaded gun

    2. Re: Ugh! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      Someone died. In an ideal system (and probably one that exists only in imagination), no one would die (except may be the terrorist). Working towards a better ideal system is not a bad thing at all. I personally don't consider this a better system. I do understand that some people do. Why change anything is an ideology you should refrain from adopting.

    3. 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.

    4. 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...
    5. Re:Ugh! by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    6. Re:Ugh! by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      The fact is you can never make anything 100 percent safe. It's just not possible. Anyone willing to die can cause havoc because really the only thing stopping them is the fact they'll die in the process. You can pass law upon law upon law and it doesn't matter because if someone is willing to kill and be killed then obviously the law doesn't matter. Laws are most effective on the law abiding so they end up punishing those who aren't a threat anyway. If we were a truly evil society then a law that responded by killing all of the terrorist's family in response might make them hesitate or that might not even work. Regardless that's not going to happen so all I can see is take all reasonable precaution and hope you have someone like that Sergeant at Arms on duty.

    7. Re: Ugh! by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 2

      the Slashdot crowd cries foul and talks about police states. Give it a rest.

      Actually, smaller-scale corruption can be seen in police forces abusing what powers they do have. What makes you think giving them even more sweeping powers will lead to good results?

      You've been crying foul for years and nothing like that has happened

      It has already happened numerous times throughout history. That you are utterly ignorant of history and cannot comprehend how something can be a slow and gradual process is not anyone's problem but your own.

      But yes, *this time* the government is and always will be full of perfect little angels who will never make mistakes or abuse their powers. This time will be different, so give the government as much power as it needs.

      There is a good reason for it and it's long overdue.

      No, there is no good reason. In any truly free country, fundamental liberties are considered more important than safety. So even if the police state isn't a threat, this action would still be wrong.

      Your authoritarian garbage will convince no one except those who hate liberty, are ignorant of history, or both.

    8. Re:Ugh! by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      He mostly just shouldn't be there in the first place, all this assignation of military honor guards merely celebrates war. We should be ashamed, not proud, of our war dead.

      It doesn't celebrate war, it gives people a way to remember the horrors of war and the people who gave their lives to make ours a bit freer.

      Anyone who thinks that we should be ashamed of our war dead doesn't have a CLUE as to what they did to ensure our freedom.

      I agree that war should be vilified and as well as any politician who puts troops into harms way without a major verified threat. But to put this on the war dead is just plain immaturity in understanding.

  5. 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.
    1. Re:Drafted prior? by davecb · · Score: 2

      How about finding someone who's tried to be thrown in jail and seemingly wants to go get killed, and cancel their passport...

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  6. This guy tried to rob McDonald’s with pointy by Truth_Quark · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think that mental instability and social issues is at the heart of this tragedy, not terrorism nor insufficient power to monitor or detain. He actively tried to be detained, to no avail, and made himself well enough known to the authorities.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. Re: i lose my civil rights cause a crazy fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please, if they are posting on /., then clearly they cannot be a source of fucking evil. At most, they are a source of celibate evil. ;)

  10. Please by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    This is not some random thing. The authoritarians are scared of the internet, and they have to sell the *war*. The work of the propagandist is never done.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. 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

    1. Re:It's a trap! by whistlingtony · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are roughly 300million Americans. Are you saying only a third of the country is with you? Also, you ironically misspelled Dumbass. Also, I think you maaay have missed what I was saying.... I hope? Unless you're saying that all this security theater and warrantless wiretapping was a GOOD idea and it's caught loads of terrorists?

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
    1. Re:WTF? by davecb · · Score: 2

      It's front-page news for a soldier to be killed on duty in Canada. Believe it or not, it's also front-page news when an RCMP officer was killed on duty a few years back.

      Canadians usually die from car accidents (or are eaten by polar bears (;-))

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    2. Re:WTF? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Then there's another Jihadist who attacked two police officers in NYC with an axe: ... But these two aren't reported as heavily because they didn't use a gun, and the liberal media are against guns.

      No, they're not related because they're not related.

      This "jihadist" thing is just a hook for a certain slice of the crazies to hang their hat on. We will always have crazies doing antisocial things. Ordinarily they would be called "crimes by crazy people." But as soon as a crazy says "jihad", it's "terrorism" so the government needs to further infringe on liberties.

      Just say no to "jihad" as a serious thing - it's popularized to speed along your enslavement. There may be a few actual jihadis operating in the Middle East, but going nuts on some cops with a hatchet is not jihad, it's assault.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. We have always been at war with Oceania. by rs79 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Under the table Winston's feet made convulsive movements. He had not stirred from his seat, but in his mind he was running, swiftly running, he was with the crowds outside, cheering himself deaf. He looked up again at the portrait of Big Brother. The colossus that bestrode the world! The rock against which the hordes of Asia dashed themselves in vain! He thought how ten minutes ago -- yes, only ten minutes -- there had still been equivocation in his heart as he wondered whether the news from the front would be of victory or defeat. Ah, it was more than a Eurasian army that had perished! Much had changed in him since that first day in the Ministry of Love, but the final, indispensable, healing change had never happened, until this moment.

    The voice from the telescreen was still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter, but the shouting outside had died down a little. The waiters were turning back to their work. One of them approached with the gin bottle. Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

    He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. 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!
  15. 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 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.

    2. Re:Shot in the back by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Shotguns are great for close in work. They are also better for someone who's not all that much of a marksman. If you don't practice with a pistol a lot, and I mean a lot, then you'd be lucky to hit someone at 25 feet in a firefight. I saw a video of a gunfight in a pool hall with a bunch of gang members emptying semi-auto pistols at each other at close range. One guy got hit in the arm out of hundreds of rounds fired. Trigger control on a pistol is everything. If you jerk it you missed unless you stuck it in the guy's belly. The retired Mountie that put him down used a pistol but he was a very experienced pro. I didn't see how many times the shooter got plugged but I bet it wasn't that many times and security fired a lot of shots.

    3. Re:Shot in the back by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      Here's the deal.

      It's expensive to stay on high alert all the time. All those extra guards, guns, maintenance, etc. That costs money. Up here, after 9/11, we maintained high alert at the bases for a couple of years, then decided to go back to more-or-less before. Not quite; back in 2000 I could walk onto the base only flashing my ID, and once I did show a post-it that said PASS on it. As it stands now, I do require an actual valid pass to get onto the base. However, the security on the base itself is lower than that of my local YMCA. (The base passes are easy to forge and don't get scanned or recorded; the gym requires an active membership and records your entry times.)

      What I'm getting at here is that when you're on guard duty at the War Memorial, you're there to be a meet-and-greet kind of soldier. The only shooting you're expecting is some selfies with the kilted guy (meaning you) and maybe a couple of shots at the bar after work. You're not guarding anything. It's a public sculpture that's maybe 50 feet per side. There's literally nothing there to defend. (I've been there a few times; years ago for work I stayed at the Lord Elgin and worked in the next-door building, housing some PW stuff.)

      Now, here's the other thing. Bullets. You have to track the shit out of them. If you gave the guards at the War Memorial live ammo, it would be a complete clusterfuck. If you're giving someone ammo, you're expecting them to get shot at, right? Which really means they should be wearing armour as well, not the ceremonial dress uniform (which only offers protection against thrown bullets) So you've got to get them armour, bullets, and a real gun, plus track all that stuff from day to day. What if the gun got dropped and discharged? What if you stopped for a picture and someone took your gun or cut themselves on the bayonet? What if the magazine fell out and the ammo sprayed all over the ground? Now the person guarding is presenting the image of a drunkard scrambling around for their car keys in the dark.

      Weird scenarios, but all significantly more likely than a schizophrenic walking up to you and shooting you in the back in cold blood on a boring Hump Day morning.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:Shot in the back by ControlsGeek · · Score: 2

      Actually it was not a shotgun. That was just what uninformed witnesses said. It was a deer rifle. Winchester model 94 lever action carbine.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

  16. Re:Islam by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

    Actually, you are not a racist for noticing that the perpetrator is a muslim. You ARE a racist for infering that all muslims are terrorist because of the action of one person. Any time you're making a broad generalization about an entire people based on the actions of a tiny few or one, yes, you're a racist... and possibly funny, but still racist.

  17. Terrible Summery by inhuman_4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This summery is appalling.

    The bill in question Bill C-13 was introduced almost a month ago and passed two readings in parliament before the attack. Canada has been debating this bill in parliament and in the media for some time. I don't agree with this bill, but to label it a reaction to the shooting is completely wrong. Especially bad is the fact that a quick google search would have been enough to identify the mistake.

    http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-13/

    1. Re:Terrible Summery by starless · · Score: 2

      This summery is appalling.

      That's because it's now autumny (at least in the North).

    2. Re:Terrible Summery by o_ferguson · · Score: 2

      You may be correct that the summary is a little misleading, but I think C-13 is only addressed in one of the 3 main stories linked. Preventative detention & making certain forms of speech illegal are new ideas, as far as I understand, and are separate responses. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just a guy stuck in Costa Rica trying to make sense of this all from afar.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  18. Re:Won't past constitutional challenge by towermac · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow. It's like a different language, but in English.

  19. 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
  20. #notterrified by boojumbadger · · Score: 2

    Guy was a crackhead not a terrorist, a man with no plan other than death by cop. If he wanted to shoot up Parliament he wouldn't have shot the soldier.

    Nobody would listen to him so he came up with some topical way to make them.

  21. Disproportionate response by Livius · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Canada no-one is using the word 'terrorism' (except the usual suspects who would have pulled out the terrorism card no matter what). We honour a soldier who died in the line of duty, but this is a drug use issue, not a security issue.

    Politicians who try to exploit fear will likely reveal themselves, and themselves alone, to be weak-minded cowards.

  22. this happened in the USA too by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    This happened with john ashcroft and the PATRIOT act. Same bullshit, different country. Fuck these tyrants.

  23. Arms by gninnor · · Score: 2

    Does no one read the second amendment? Where does it say firearms? We have laws against switch blades, slung shot, and computer programs (now revoked due to first amendment stuff) and other "arms". Restrictions are all a joke going off of fear and often racism rather than what is logical and the best for society.