Now, Carmen Cheung, Joanna Kerr and Ron Atkey will take questions from the Committee. (I've heard that the CPC committee members were hostile and contemptuous of critics of their piece-of-shit bill, so let's see ...
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses. Thank you for attending today.
My first line of questioning will go to the BC Civil Liberties Association. Your website, like you, describes Bill C-51 as unnecessary. It goes on to articulate that your group thinks it is unfair. One of the elements of the bill that is attacked is the issue of preventative arrest. This is an item that national security experts and law enforcement officials have stated will be of enormous value in a number of cases, so it has a high benefit in terms of preventative law and a low cost, as it applies to a limited number of individuals.
Oh! Well! If you're only going deprive a limited number of individuals of their constitutional rights, then it's fine. Why don't we start with you fuck-face?
Furthermore, I understand that the preventative arrest provisions in some allied nations, also thriving democracies, go much further than what we have proposed in this bill.
He probably "understands" this from listening to unproven assertions (re: "lies") spewed by asshat Stephen Blaney.
That said, it is difficult to fathom a case in which preventative arrests are not useful tools for protecting the public.
I suppose crime rates might go down were police allowed to arrest anyone they felt like. On the other hand, every arrest takes resources, and arresting people for expressing outrage at western atrocities in Iraq or Syria, and maybe expressing passing support for the fundamentalist rebels, might actually be a complete waste of time and resources that could go to more useful ends?
We have heard that radicalization happens faster than we have ever seen in the past. One just has to watch the evening news over the past, I'd say, month and a half to two months to see that happening, not only in Canada but in many other nations.
This is truly imbecilic. Again, they treat "radicalization" as this mysterious virus that could infect anyone, but seems to mostly prey on young Muslim men. (Although First Nations and environmentalists are other "at risk" groups.) "Radicalization" isn't caused by anything; certainly not by Canadian foreign policy or domestic Islamophobia. It just is "radicalization" and it afflicts its victims with an irrational hatred of "Canada" as well as "all Canada stands for" and it needs to be combated by taking away the civil liberties of all Canadians.
We have also heard that investigations are labour-intensive ...
Yeah. The "Toronto 18" took a lot of time and money to manufacture a "terrorist" outfit. Then there's those two welfare recipients in British Columbia, badgered and bribed and led by the nose to plot a bombing, in a "sting" that involved 240 officers and millions of dollars. And the innocent Canadians stalked by CSIS and the RCMP and then tortured overseas at their request. And all the landed immigrants held under security certificates, none of who have been found guilty of anything. As I've said repeatedly at this blog; with all those hours and resources wasted chasing innocent people, the fact that nothing happened in the meantime, shows the relative insignificance of the terrorist threat.
... and that Canada and its allies are dealing with unprecedented numbers of citizens leaving their borders to commit terrorist acts abroad. Also, sadly, some of them, and many more, have expressed a desire to turn on their country of birth.
It's a clever little con-job isn't it? Encourage goddamned Saudi Arabia to foment rebellions by fundamentalist extremist warriors against troublesome secular Arab dictators; allow goddamned NATO ally Turkey to have an open border for these nutbars; disaffected Muslims in western nations flock to the fighting, and PRESTO! You've got your own home-grown Islamic combat-hardened fundamentalist threat!
In that context, one says, “Could you really imagine a world in which a weekend in jail would prevent an act of terror and give the government precious extra days to make a criminal case and save Canadian lives?”
It's also curious to see the concerns of some civil libertarians with an angle like this. We say preventative arrest will be used only on terrorist subjects.
Yes, but .... you fucking idiot ... there's genuine concerns about this vague concept your government has about who "terrorist suspects" will be! It's actually a frighteningly expansive term.
Prior to preventative detention, the threshold will still be robust, because it will require reasonable grounds to believe that an attack may be carried out and that the detention is likely to prevent such an attack.
It's already been established that the threshold is not "robust" at all. Idiot.
No innocent bystander would be caught up in this threshold. An officer must present hard evidence to demonstrate that this threshold is met and that the person in question is a threat to society. Then, the Attorney General must agree and consent to the preventative arrest. The arrestee must be taken before a provincial court judge then....
Who will probably find the whole thing unconstitutional. As will the Supreme Court Which is what Ron Atkey tried to tell you.
There is a point of order.
Thank you Mr. Garrison. I was starting to think that myself.
Mr. Chair, I am entitled to make a comment and ask a question, but sometimes a question needs to have a certain amount of information before it is asked.
The member just interrupted me so that he could interrupt me. It has no bearing, and he knows that. His point of order is out of order.
He's out of order?! You're out of order! This whole Bill is out of order!
No Mr. Norlock; what you're doing is transparently obvious. You have no confidence in your ability to confound these witnesses, so, rather than let them speak further and expose your own and your government's inadequacies, you choose to ramble at length to run out the clock.
All that the chair would do, just as in previous conversations before this committee, is to ask members to keep things relevant. In this particular case, it is relevant to the testimony we've heard and where you are going with that, so it is in order.
I would encourage all members to try to stay within the framework of the meetings of acceptability for all.Thank you.Yes, you have a point of order, Ms. James.
The Chair is a harpercon stooge after all.
Put a sock in it you blubbering, self-pitying, self-righteous fool!
Just to finish off before asking my questions, the arrestee must be taken before a provincial court judge, as I mentioned, within 24 hours, at which point the judge can extend the detention for up to 48 hours. The Attorney General must then consent, and then a judge must agree within 24 hours. The hearing will be within 48 hours of that detention. At these hearings the crown will have to demonstrate that the case is progressing toward a criminal charge.So we have a peace officer with evidentiary threshold; the Attorney General, represented by crown prosecutors; the judicial oversight. Keep in mind that we're trying to save lives in an emergency situation. That sounds like a fair process to me.Is there any degree of checks and balances that would satisfy you? Are you simply fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the street?Let me just quote one thing before you answer that. Mr. John Russell, a prior vice-president of the Civil Liberties Association, has stated:
...the government's proposed definition of “terrorist activity” is simply too broad. As it stands, proposed item 83.01.(1)(b)(ii)(E) of this definition would count as “terrorist activity” any unlawful politically motivated act that threatened to significantly disrupt an essential service.He goes on to say:
...it would potentially brand as terrorists doctors, teachers, and nurses who threaten to strike or withhold services in the face of provincial orders deeming their work an essential service. It could also brand as terrorist the actions of first nations individuals who blockade an airport or a highway.Are you fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the streets?
This guy is a stupid asshole.
Thank you for your question, Mr. Norlock.
With respect to that question, no we are not fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the streets. We believe that it's necessary to have effective measures for countering terrorism. Our concern with preventative detention is that it may not be the most effective measure for countering terrorism, given that the example Mr. Norlock has cited, somebody who might want to travel to commit a terrorist offence, is already in our Criminal Code as a terrorism offence. If law enforcement has that information, then it certainly has that information to actually lay a criminal charge, and no preventative arrest is necessary.I think even others who see limited roles for preventative arrest will acknowledge that preventative arrest has enormous potential for abuse. To that end, I understand that Professors Roach and Forcese, for example, whom I think you'll hear from later today, are suggesting that there be limits to the circumstances under which preventative arrest can happen.With respect to the characterization that this is simply a weekend in jail, this is not what Bill C-51 contemplates. As your minister—
Of for fuck's sake! These people really are shameless!
As I think you heard from the ministers two days ago, what this bill contemplates is up to seven days in detention.
Well that was infuriating. But also illuminating. It renews my deep loathing of the harpercon party of Canada and all its stupid bullshit.
I acknowledge that there are different views of the world, and that some people think that it's the leftists who are the deluded shit-for-brains. I'll never convince them that they're wrong just as they'll never convince us that they're right. Some people see "terrorism" as a threat worthy enough to compel them to eviscerate all of our civil rights. But they know nothing about the threat. They're even ignorant of their own contributions to the threat. They're even ignorant of the value of the constitutional rights they shred so gleefully. I can't help but respond to the revoltingly stupid things these harpercons say in the way that I do.