Tuesday, May 12, 2015

C-51 Committee Hearings Cont'd

Right, so RCMP Commissioner Paulson had just finished summarizing their "anti-radicalization" programs.

     Thank you very much, Commissioner and Minister.

    Now we will go to Ms. Ablonczy, for five minutes, please.

    A lot of Canadians will remember the debate a little over 30 years ago when the Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau brought in the act that created CSIS.

Okay. Before we go any further, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Diane Ablonczy is a cretinous back-bencher who has been fed her talking-points question by the almost as cretinous Steven Blaney. Also, That it's important to point out that CSIS was created by the Liberals. The Liberal Party of Trudeau that had invoked the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. The Liberal Party of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Liberal Party that needlessly voted for this same bill we're talking about here; C-51. Supposedly they voted for it (even though the Conservatives have a stolen majority) so as not to be painted "soft on terror." They're so fearful of this charge that they can't even imagine defending themselves against it and so, are voting for a dangerous piece of legislation that they claim to disagree with. Personally, I'm starting to think that when it comes to creating the Orwellian state, it's Liberal-Tory, Same Old Story. They go through the pantomime of debate, but it's all a sad farce.

Immediately there were voices of protest and fear raised when CSIS was created. There were allegations that the creation of this civilian security agency would be a step toward a police state. Thirty years ago the naysayers said that...the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said that no Canadian would be safe from being targeted. Thirty years ago the Ontario government said that CSIS would have unlimited and unchecked powers, carte blanche, to break every law in Canada. We know today that there are many activities that threaten Canadian security that do not fall under the Criminal Code or under the mandate of the RCMP. We value CSIS and the work it does.

In an earlier post on these hearings, I quoted from legal scholar Craig Forcese, who pointed out:

Minister Blaney also sought to dismiss some critics as alarmists, suggesting that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is a serial “fear monger” because it objected also in 1983 to the original CSIS bill. A little history: The CSIS bill tabled and debated in 1983 is not our current CSIS Act. As CSIS itself notes, that 1983 bill was referred to a special Senate committee in response to public outcry. That body made many recommendations, and the 1983 bill was withdrawn, redrafted and then a new bill tabled in substantially modified and improved form in January 1984 – incidentally, an election year. So thanks go to the Cassandras of the past.

So, just so we're prepared. And, anyway, once again, CSIS was created to separate spying authority from policing authority. When the RCMP had spying authority, they used their policing authority to abuse what they knew.

    One example is criticism of the expansion of the passenger protect program, Minister. The NDP say it is already illegal to travel abroad to join in terrorist activity. I wonder if you would speak to that and why you believe the mandate of the passenger protect program needs to be expanded.
    Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy, for your question. It seems that we are seeing history repeat itself in some way where some people are bringing a fallacious narrative. That's why I'm proud to be here to talk about the bill for what it is and not for what people may think or would like it to be.
    It is a very important exercise for this committee to undertake a review over the course of the next month. As Canadians we expect to base our conversation on facts and on reality.

What a stupid asshole.

I am confident that Canadians understand the goal of the bill, which is to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and their privacy. It provides tools to those who are there to protect us, as well as provides tools to those who are watching those who are there to protect us. That is what Bill C-51 is all about. 

Stop the self-serving babbling and start answering questions you fuckwad!

    There are robust oversight and review mechanisms. I give the example that we are one of the few countries that will need judicial oversight for threat diminishment. Once all of these activities have been conducted there will be a strong review.

This is nonsense! He's not saying anything!

     Let me tell you what our Security Intelligence Review Committee said about their work and how they see their work in terms of reviewing the work that has been accomplished. What they like to have is distance, so they can have a critical eye on the operation of the intelligence community. They said that our model of ongoing and methodological review also has the distinct advantage of allowing for a full and impartial assessment of our Canadian security intelligence agency's performance, arguably better positioning it to detect potential problems earlier.

SIRC has already been soundly thrashed as an insufficient, if not incompetent body. The fact that they wrote a summation of their work that was self-congratulatory is meaningless.

    We have 30 years of independent expertise and knowledge without political interference and without government interference, because they are fully independent. They are lawyers and researchers who bring continuity. Some of them have worked in the intelligence community. You may have heard the director himself yesterday saying he was fully staffed to do the important work he has to accomplish.
    To get back to your passenger protect question, it's fairly clear—

    Very briefly, Minister.

Yes, please, you blithering idiot.

    Okay. This act was passed when there was the attack on the World Trade Center by those who wanted to attack our safety using the airplane. We need to be able to arrest those people even though we cannot lay charges. If we have reason to believe they will conduct a terrorist attack, then we need to be able to prevent them from travelling. That's why we need to add the high-risk traveller to our no-fly list. 

That steaming mess of stupid garbage doesn't deserve any sort of reasoned critique. It was empty drivel from start to finish. Disgusting. 

No comments: