Canada Has Voted Down "Anti-Terror Laws"

[sparhawk]

Congratulations. I just read some news that Canada has stopped their Anti-Terror Laws now, because they were simply pointless and unfounded. I can't believe this. Does Canada has so much more sensible politicans than in the US or Germany? I think we should send over our "politicans" for half a year of training, before they should be allowed to take anything up again resembling governing.

 

To those it matters, this is a big image boost here, and in teh news forum that I read, poeple were taking this with a very positive note.

[Gildoran]

Where exactly is Kanda? A quick google search of wikipedia mentioned a district of Tokyo, though I'm assuming you were refering to a country?

[sparhawk]

Uh! I was employing the german spelling. Fixed it now.

[sparhawk]

Here is a link for the english speakers, as I only read it on a german news mag.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto..._nletter_newsUp

[oDDity]

Well of course, no terrorist is interested in attacking such an anonymous and powerless country which is so far from the center of anything that happens in the world, so Canada doesn't need anti-terror laws any more than Antarctica needs them.

[sparhawk]

Tell that to german politicans.

[oDDity]

Germany is a lot more rich and powerful than Canada, it's also in the middle of europe, so the other countries don't want terrorists using Germany as a safe zone in europe.

I'm not sure what your problem is with anti-terrorist laws. I grew up with anti-terrorist laws so I'm used to it I suppose, armed police and army patrolling the steets, road blocks etc, so it doesn't really bother me that much. THey did stop plenty of terrorist plots.

When you've seen first hand, like I have, what a terrorist bomb exploded in the middle of a busy street can do, then you don't mind terrorist laws so much.

[New Horizon]

I had posted something else, before I read the article. I'm just waking up, so I hadn't a chance to read the news yet.

 

Ok, I'm not so surprised now. First I thought the Harper government took an about face and decided not to go through with it, but it was merely voted down by the House of Commons. Figures. Harper has been a little GW Bush wannabe.

[sparhawk]

I would agree to that, if terrorists were indeed a problem. Apparently they are not SUCH a problem in Germany (or Austria for that matter) that millions of people have to be submitted to rigoros scrutiny all the time is to break a butterfly on a wheel (is this really a proverb in english?).

[OrbWeaver]

Why assume that submitting people to scrutiny has anything to do with "terrorism"? All governments want to control and subdue their populations as much as they can possibly get away with, and terrorism is just the current convenient excuse (along with protecting kids from "paedophiles"). 50 years ago it would have been "communism", and a few hundred years ago "witchcraft", but the principle is the same: use whatever stupid bogeyman the plebs are scared of at the moment as an excuse to extend your own power.

[oDDity]

Except, terrorism is actually a reality. They do really explode bombs and commit other murderous acts, it's not just fantasy.

You don't know how many more acts they would have committed if it was not for the actions of the security forces trying to foil them.

[sparhawk]

Why assume that submitting people to scrutiny has anything to do with "terrorism"?

 

I don't assume that, I know this is just a cheap excuse. That's all the more frustrating, because poeple buy into it, as long as the media are playing along with the goverment. Though I don't really understand what#s in it for the individualy who are participicating in such thigns, because their freedom is also under attack. Unless they either believe that they do something for the good, or think they are somehow immune to it.

 

All governments want to control and subdue their populations as much as they can possibly get away with, and terrorism is just the current convenient excuse (along with protecting kids from "paedophiles").

 

Yup. Currently the bavarian goverment is also using violent computergames as an excuse for yet more scrutiny, so they wanted to pass a law which would prohibit the posession, creation and anything else related to it. I wrote a letter to the goverment and even got a response (quite surprisingly). Well, the response is not really surprising. The excuse is that paedohiles are using the internet as well as terrorists and of course violent computer gamers also use it. The primary excuse for computer games, at the moment is, that one guy ran amok in a shool and injured five people before killing himself. Nobody says anything about the facts that he was frustrated by his environment, because he was treated like a dog, when he tried to turn to the teachers, they didn't have time for him and ignored him. And of course also nobody ever lost a word about the fact that he trained actual shooting in a shooting club, because the prime minister of bavarian is also a member of a shooting club and it would be emberrassing to acknowledge that in such a light. But violent computer games, like Doom 3 or Counterstrike are a good excuse because the majority of he poplution probalby considers computer gamers as strange freaks anyway.

 

50 years ago it would have been "communism", and a few hundred years ago "witchcraft", but the principle is the same: use whatever stupid bogeyman the plebs are scared of at the moment as an excuse to extend your own power.

 

Yup! History repeats itself.

[sparhawk]

Except, terrorism is actually a reality. They do really explode bombs and commit other murderous acts, it's not just fantasy.

 

Of course you ignore simple issues like the reasons why terrorists actually do this. Usally they don't do it just for the fun of it.

 

You don't know how many more acts they would have committed if it was not for the actions of the security forces trying to foil them.

 

Well, considering that there were no terrorist attacks in the last ten years in Germany, that suggests to me that the proceedings and allowings for foiling such attacks must be pretty good, despite the constant claims that the allowances for police and inteligence is to small and need to be broadend.

Assuming that such attacks really were foiled, because you also don't know that. You are just assuming it on the benefit for them. Which I not really find very realistic, because I simply don't believe that the police and inetlligence is SO good that they can prevent 100%.

[OrbWeaver]

Except, terrorism is actually a reality. They do really explode bombs and commit other murderous acts, it's not just fantasy.

 

True, it does exist unlike some of the others, but it is still a pretty minor problem compared with all of the other causes of death like obesity or road accidents, which receive far less attention by the media and government.

 

You don't know how many more acts they would have committed if it was not for the actions of the security forces trying to foil them.

 

Indeed, it seems like the security services are doing a pretty good job, which means the case for "More! More! More!" terror laws is very far from compelling.

 

Though I don't really understand what#s in it for the individualy who are participicating in such thigns, because their freedom is also under attack. Unless they either believe that they do something for the good, or think they are somehow immune to it.

 

It's all right, because they are not brown and muslim-looking, so obviously the laws will never be applied to them. Once the terror laws start targetting middle class white people I suspect that their tune will be very different, but by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

Yup. Currently the bavarian goverment is also using violent computergames as an excuse for yet more scrutiny, so they wanted to pass a law which would prohibit the posession, creation and anything else related to it.

 

Yeah, we get that shit as well. Some woman got strangled by a Internet sex fetishist and then her ignorant retard of a mother went around saying "The Internet killed my daughter" until the government promised to ban "violent pornography" on the Internet (I think somebody should strangle her, and then we can petition the government to ban censorship using the same logic).

[Gildoran]

Of course you ignore simple issues like the reasons why terrorists actually do this. Usally they don't do it just for the fun of it.

Allow me to use my awesome psychic powers to predict oDDity's response:

Religion causes it.

Of course, it certainly doesn't help when you cause somebody's living standards to be non-existent or bomb their neighborhood and family with missiles, but we Americans can't be bothered to pay attention to such trivial details.

[Maximius]

Reason four thousand and fifty five to move to Canada and away from this batshit nightmare of a country.

 

But I'm in agreement with future-oDDity, religion has a lot to do with it, IMHO. Its religious thinking that feeds into American exceptionalism, the ideology of national uniqueness that helps keep a significant portion of the population firmly behind imperial adventures, even when it has direct negative impacts on their own lives. Thats why they send their sons and daughters to die, many believe its a divine perogative of this nation to be a "beacon unto the world, a city upon the hill." to paraphrase Cotton Mather, IIRC. Religious superstition and nationalistic hubris blend into a toxic mix of entitlement and avarice here. A good show to that effect:

 

http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20070221-Wed1200.mp3

[oDDity]

What I want to know is, what you guys are so upset about because of these terrorist laws, how exactly do they infringe on your daily life?

I'm someone who has the opinion that if you're not a criminal, such laws shouldn't bother you.

 

IF it means they catch someone who should be caught, then it's worth such a small price.

People are too obsessed with personal rights and freedoms these days, and that's because you have too much of it, you have such free and easy lives compared to anyone in the past, that the slightest impeachment of it makes you angry, and don't give me the ridiculous slippery slope argument either, 'oh noes, if we let them away with this, the next thing is that we'll end up with fascist governments dragging us out of our beds at night to be taken off and tortured'.

You've got more rights and civil liberties than you know what to do with or will ever use, that's the reality of it, this is just scaremongering. It's just as much scaremongering as you're accusing the governments of scaremongering over terrorist threats so they can control you more.

 

I suppose my general view of life is that I'd rather have a few innocent people wrongly put in prison rather than have some guilty ones wrongly set free. It means that less people are adversely affected.

[OrbWeaver]

I'm someone who has the opinion that if you're not a criminal, such laws shouldn't bother you.

 

And who gets to decide whether you are "criminal"? That's right, it's the government, the same people who are introducing the laws. Your argument is completely circular -- it's equivalent to saying "I don't mind giving the mafia total authority to kill anybody they like, because if you're not the sort of person the mafia wants to kill it shouldn't bother you.".

 

Oh, and not being allowed to carry drinks onto an aeroplane or forced to pay £90 for the priviledge of an ID card that the government can use to track your certainly do count as "affecting your everyday life".

 

People are too obsessed with personal rights and freedoms these days, and that's because you have too much of it

 

What exactly defines "too much freedom"? Do you think that people will start suffering if they have "too much" of it, and need it to be restricted by the government for their own good? Your position here seems to be completely at odds with the general "anti-authority" viewpoints you have expressed in the past.

[oDDity]

Well, I'm partly devils advocate, since everyone else here seems to have extreme liberal hippy views, you need to see the other side of it.

I did actually live under pretty extreme anti terrorist laws, and under real daily threat of terrorism for the first 25 years of my life.

As I say, it's only because you have it so damn easy that the slightest hint of 1% of it being taken away makes you want to revolt in horror.

Oh, and not being allowed to carry drinks onto an aeroplane or forced to pay £90 for the priviledge of an ID card that the government can use to track your certainly do count as "affecting your everyday life".

Wow, what a terrible life that would be. These, and any other minor complaints you come up with sound so minor and childish, that you'd be better not mentioning them at all.

 

And who gets to decide whether you are "criminal"? That's right, it's the government, the same people who are introducing the laws. Your argument is completely circular -- it's equivalent to saying "I don't mind giving the mafia total authority to kill anybody they like, because if you're not the sort of person the mafia wants to kill it shouldn't bother you.".

Heh, so now you're accusing the government of arbitrarily deciding law and adding unreasonable criminal offences willy-nilly so they can drag people off and torture them for it?

Can you give examples of some?

It sounds like the rantings of a paranoid dope addict to me.

[OrbWeaver]

Well, I'm partly devils advocate, since everyone else here seems to have extreme liberal hippy views, you need to see the other side of it.

I did actually live under pretty extreme anti terrorist laws, and under real daily threat of terrorism for the first 25 years of my life.

 

Fair enough. When you have daily acts of terrorism committed then "extreme" measures probably are necessary, but our single terrorist act killing around 50 people is hardly at that level and does not justify the amount of hysteria in the government and media.

 

Wow, what a terrible life that would be. These, and any other minor complaints you come up with sound so minor and childish, that you'd be better not mentioning them at all.

 

Of course they are minor, but they are also useless and stupid. If the government want to reduce the terrorist threat, how about not invading other countries for no reason and sucking up to America 24/7? So far I don't think there have been any terrorist attacks on countries that do not blindly support the US, so clearly this would be a much more effective strategy.

 

Heh, so now you're accusing the government of arbitrarily deciding law and adding unreasonable criminal offences willy-nilly so they can drag people off and torture them for it?

 

No, I'm saying that the "only criminals have something to fear from these powers" argument is ridiculous because the same entity is responsible for both defining and punishing criminality, therefore allowing them to use their powers against anybody they wish. Whether the government actually do this is irrelevant to the argument's invalidity.

[Maximius]

A real effort to thwart terrorism would involve addressing the problems that give rise to terrorism. Imagine if we had gone into Iraq and started building hospitals and schools, like we said we were. Imagine if the US used its incredible wealth and military power to actually assist needy nations with honest, healthy development instead of rape and rapine. Poverty and desperation breed terrorism, but rather than attacking those evils we would rather live in a state of semi-terror, waiting for the next attack that is sure to come largely due in part to our own actions.

 

And the war in terror is a bullshit scam anyway. The war on terror is about handing sweetheart contracts out to US corporations, about consolidating control of the police state thats forming here, and about removing obstacles put in place to check the power of the State, little else. The ruling elites would love another 911 style attack, something to whip up more fear in the mooks, they keep trying to find one but the truth is there hasn't been a lot of terrorist activity here since 911.

 

And do not dismiss the "slippery slope" phenomenon, its at work here as well. It started out as secret detentions for foreigners, now we have US citizens being secretly detained. It started out as foreigners being declared "enemy combatants" by the President and therefore having no legal recourse in the courts, the pressure is to apply this to US citizens as well. Police groups in the US are using the W o T as a reason for spying on peaceful anti-war groups, environmental groups, and others, this is un Constitutional BTW.

[oDDity]

Fair enough. When you have daily acts of terrorism committed then "extreme" measures probably are necessary, but our single terrorist act killing around 50 people is hardly at that level and does not justify the amount of hysteria in the government and media.

It's the same for everything. Bird flu epidemics are predicted every few years and you get exactly the same sort of hysteria.

 

Of course they are minor, but they are also useless and stupid. If the government want to reduce the terrorist threat, how about not invading other countries for no reason and sucking up to America 24/7? So far I don't think there have been any terrorist attacks on countries that do not blindly support the US, so clearly this would be a much more effective strategy.

So just behave like nice little boys, do what they want, and they won't hurt us?

You can't pander to that sort of muslim scum. IF they had the capability they'd have a full scale religious war against the west to force us all to bow down to their god and live by the teachings of Mohammed.

Any non-muslm is automatically a legitimate target for them.

Why don't we all just convert to Islam now and grovel at mosques like mindless sheep 10 times a day just like the rest of the stupid fuckers, and we'll be perfectly safe from them for sure.

 

We shouldn't have them over here teaching them our science. They'll inevitably use it against us one day.

No, I'm saying that the "only criminals have something to fear from these powers" argument is ridiculous because the same entity is responsible for both defining and punishing criminality, therefore allowing them to use their powers against anybody they wish. Whether the government actually do this is irrelevant to the argument's invalidity.

Well, it's not irrelevant in the general context of the argument, because it's the motives of the government that is being called into question here, so you'd have to show some evidence that they're up to no good in order to prove your point that this terrorist stuff is all just a scam so they can keep a closer eye on you, and the thought-police will be at your front door to brainwash you in 10 minutes.

 

I actually don't think that governments keeping a close eye on what the population is up to is a bad thing.

There is a balance to strike of course, but better a bit too much, so a few people's liberties get trodden on from time to time, than too little, so you have criminals literally getting away with murder. That's the government's view, and plenty of people agree with them.

[OrbWeaver]

IF they had the capability they'd have a full scale religious war against the west to force us all to bow down to their god and live by the teachings of Mohammed.

 

Al Quaeda did not attack the west because they want to convert it to Islam, they attacked because rightly or wrongly they perceived America and its allies as oppressing the Muslim world. The "they hate our freedom" nonsense is just a lie invented by the governments to avoid having to take responsibility for their foreign policy.

 

Well, it's not irrelevant in the general context of the argument, because it's the motives of the government that is being called into question here, so you'd have to show some evidence that they're up to no good in order to prove your point that this terrorist stuff is all just a scam so they can keep a closer eye on you, and the thought-police will be at your front door to brainwash you in 10 minutes.

 

Not just this government, but all future governments that might inherit their powers. Even if the current government is totally angelic, who is to say that the next government are going to be the same? Malicious and despotic regimes exist all around the world, and it would be complacent to assume that our own country is somehow immune.

 

You can't place too much trust in any one individual or group, which is why the system needs to be designed to prevent them from getting too much power.

 

I actually don't think that governments keeping a close eye on what the population is up to is a bad thing.

There is a balance to strike of course, but better a bit too much, so a few people's liberties get trodden on from time to time, than too little, so you have criminals literally getting away with murder. That's the government's view, and plenty of people agree with them.

 

Well yeah, that's the whole crux of the "big government" versus "little government" debate. As it happens I don't personally fear being tracked by the government, because there is nothing about me they are likely to be interested in, but that doesn't mean I don't object to the principle of them doing so, especially when the reasons given are based on hysterical fear-mongering rather than rational analysis.

 

Ultimately though, if the sheeple decide they want to live in a regimented hierarchy under government control just to "keep them safe", then that is how democracy works, and those of us who don't like it will have to either live with it, fight against it, or choose to live somewhere else or not at all.

[sparhawk]

What I want to know is, what you guys are so upset about because of these terrorist laws, how exactly do they infringe on your daily life?

I'm someone who has the opinion that if you're not a criminal, such laws shouldn't bother you.

 

I seem to remeber a US congress member, who was of the same opinion. He was several times already on the blacklist because of some mistakes. Similarity of names, or a simple accident, I don't know. Well, the consequences was that he was not allowed to board some flights, and other inconveniences. Of course being a congress member he pretty soon resolved the issue, but since then he had changed his mind about this laws quite a bit. I doubt that you, as a normal citizen can resolve such an issue as easily.

 

Also where is the notion gone that you are innocent until proven guilty. These laws turn this around 180 degree. All citicens are supposed to be guilty until proven innocent.

 

Where are the cornerstones of a free country, that can trust in a goverment. If you can simply be claimed to be a terrorist and then be shipped to some prison without even hearing the charge, needing any prooves or allowed to defend yourself? Is that what you call freedom?

 

IF it means they catch someone who should be caught, then it's worth such a small price.

 

It's not. There is this famous quote. Those who give up freedom to get security deserve neither.

 

And another good quote: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

 

People are too obsessed with personal rights and freedoms these days, and that's because you have too much of it, you have such free and easy lives compared to anyone in the past, that the slightest impeachment of it makes you angry, and don't give me the ridiculous slippery slope argument either, 'oh noes, if we let them away with this, the next thing is that we'll end up with fascist governments dragging us out of our beds at night to be taken off and tortured'.

 

Which is a pretty stupid argument. So people fought for these rights and even died for it, and now, because of such wheenies like you, this should all be given up for a false sense of security?

 

You've got more rights and civil liberties than you know what to do with or will ever use, that's the reality of it, this is just scaremongering.

 

Sure. And because Bill Gates has so much more money then anybody else that this shoul.d give us also the rights to take it away from him, right? After all, he has so much more of it that he also can't ever know what to do with it.

 

I suppose my general view of life is that I'd rather have a few innocent people wrongly put in prison rather than have some guilty ones wrongly set free. It means that less people are adversely affected.

 

I prefer it the other way around, because everything else makes it just to easy.

[sparhawk]

No, I'm saying that the "only criminals have something to fear from these powers" argument is ridiculous because the same entity is responsible for both defining and punishing criminality, therefore allowing them to use their powers against anybody they wish. Whether the government actually do this is irrelevant to the argument's invalidity.

 

Just the other day there was a criminal statistics report from the last year. In general the statistics are dropping especial on bodily offences like murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. But authorities are worried that "IP thefts" are increasing. Unauthorized copying and such were surging over 240%. Well, of course they do. They just made it a new law only two years or such ago, so what do you expect?

And if they had succeed in passing the bill for "violent computer games" we suddenly would have millions of "criminals", because there are quite a big number of computer game players here.