Jump to content
Political Forums
olpfan1

Toews says we support Child Pornographers

Recommended Posts

waldo    2

well, there should be no surprises in the actual bill makeup (to be tabled later today)... we saw a Round 1 attempt in bills C-46/C-47 - which succumbed to the power of the Harper perogy. A Round 2 attempt came in the format of bills C-50/C-51/C-52 - which died on the order paper given the 2011 election.

we discussed facets of each of these over various past MLW threads; part of those discussions included analysis drawn from Michael Geist, renowned expert in Internet & E-Commerce law. Geist has put together a FAQ on the intended Harper Conservatives "Lawful Access" legislation - here:

following a Q/A format:

- What is lawful access?

- What is Bill C-30 likely to contain?

- Isn't ISP customer name and address information similar to phone book data that is readily available to the public without privacy concerns? (first prong)

- Isn't the mandatory disclosure of ISP customer information necessary for police investigations? (first prong)

- Didn't former Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day pledge not to introduce mandatory disclosure of ISP customer information without court oversight? (first prong)

- Who pays for the surveillance infrastructure required by lawful access? (second prong)

- Does lawful access create a new regulatory framework for the Internet? (second prong)

- Does lawful access create new police powers? (third prong)

- Does opposing lawful access mean questioning the integrity of law enforcement?

- Don't other countries have the same lawful access rules as those found in Canada?

- What do Canada's privacy commissioners think about lawful access?

- Are these lawful access proposal constitutional?

-Does the government seem somewhat inconsistent on its crime and privacy policies?

-Where can I learn more about lawful access and what can I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waldo    2

from the aforementioned Q/A... waiting for those fevered MLW gun registry advocates to chime in on this thread and rally the charge!

Q: Does the government seem somewhat inconsistent on its crime and privacy policies?

A: If by inconsistent you mean supporting the creation of widespread surveillance capabilities, removing foundational privacy principles requiring court oversight, and claiming the need to support police investigations, while:

- killing the long gun registry over the objections of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police

- planning to delete the data from the long gun registry on privacy grounds (Toews: "to maintain the registry and the information is a complete violation of law and the principles of privacy that all of us in the House respect")

- scrapping the mandatory long-form census on privacy grounds

then, yes, they seem somewhat inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eyeball    626

Sometimes I wonder if we have to many rights and do we deserve the ones we have.

How about you try giving up your's and let us know how that works that for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre    49

Everyone knows that if you support the right to privacy, and the free nature of the internet, you obviously have an impossible time going even a day without buggering a small child.

On another note...

Elections have consquences and Canadians DESERVE whats coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manny    0

Only true in theory, Manny. If ALL the choices are poor, what do we deserve?

In my entire life of 59 years, only a couple of times did I have a choice where I could say I agreed with more than half of a party's platform and historical proof of their character. Every other time I have had to hold my nose and vote for the least rank!

So if we are not given a valid choice are we truly responsible for the outcome?

Yes, in a very specific way. By agreeing to vote for the "best of the worst", we agree to participate in the system without reforms. That is what we do when we are sheeple, and we still deserve what we get. The right thing for the people to do when there is no real choice is, to reject all of the candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Bill    0

Yes, in a very specific way. By agreeing to vote for the "best of the worst", we agree to participate in the system without reforms. That is what we do when we are sheeple, and we still deserve what we get. The right thing for the people to do when there is no real choice is, to reject all of the candidates.

What would happen if we reject all the candidates? Would any politician care? As long as there are enough votes to allow him a win, why would it matter to him?

You realize that spoiled or declined ballots are no longer even counted. Even if the number of voters who decided not to participate WERE tallied, how would that matter? Perhaps you believe that if that number was high enough it would embarrass the politicians.

Don't you realize that NOTHING embarrasses a politician?

Literally MILLIONS of voters worked hard to support change with the Reform Party. Now it is merely a footnote in history. The old style politics with the PC party of Mulroney came back with a vengeance.

You are giving the official, academic line as to how things are supposed to work. Millions of Reformers tried for well over a decade to accomplish real-world progress. All of it has been a failure.

Is there anything left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... The right thing for the people to do when there is no real choice is, to reject all of the candidates.

See ballot designed with candidate => "None of the above"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scribblet    228

I was a DRO in the last election. We had to count spoiled ballots.

Yes, but nothing happens to them and they don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scotty    0

Where are the CPC apologists? Why are they hiding?

Apologists? I will explain away certain things to those too dumb to figure it out themselves when it's merited. But I don't support this bill.

On the other hand, I can't help note the irony of all the left wingers mocking Toews for taking the very same attitude the Left wingers here took when I argued last week that the current overhyped fear of child porn was unjustifed and the current laws were overbroad. I was accused of being sympathetic to child pornographers and being a reader or viewer of child porn myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
olpfan1    0

On the other hand, I can't help note the irony of all the left wingers mocking Toews for taking the very same attitude the Left wingers here took when I argued last week that the current overhyped fear of child porn was unjustifed and the current laws were overbroad. I was accused of being sympathetic to child pornographers and being a reader or viewer of child porn myself.

Extreme left wingers are no better than extreme right wingers.. seems like there's plenty of both on this site

hopefully those that accused you of such apologized .. or at least will apologize after they realize they did

what Toews just did.. if they do not I will find out who they are and expose them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waldo    2

Where are the CPC apologists? Why are they hiding?

yes, very quiet - I suspect the most fevered and ardent MLW Harper Conservative supporters are still waiting for their talking points.

when both the National Post and the Financial Post are coming out against this piece of Harper Conservative invasion into personal liberties, you know things are bustling on the PMO damage control front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Topaz    32

There's one thing about this and its the cost to the ISP. They have 18 months to update so this program can go forward and who do you think is going to pay for this...not the government and your ISP will pass that on to the users and we just got hit a year ago because of this government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manny    0

You are giving the official, academic line as to how things are supposed to work. Millions of Reformers tried for well over a decade to accomplish real-world progress. All of it has been a failure.

Is there anything left?

I gave nothing my friend. You have filled in those blanks yourself.

Clearly, democracy has been hijacked by the wealthy, if it ever was a truly "fair" system. All legal means of reform have shown themselves to be mere deception. So let us now consider more closely your question, if rejecting ballots and embarrassment means nothing to them, if peaceful protest also means nothing to them, what really is left? When a system depends on injustice in order to continue, violence is the only, inevitable consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Bill    0

I gave nothing my friend. You have filled in those blanks yourself.

Clearly, democracy has been hijacked by the wealthy, if it ever was a truly "fair" system. All legal means of reform have shown themselves to be mere deception. So let us now consider more closely your question, if rejecting ballots and embarrassment means nothing to them, if peaceful protest also means nothing to them, what really is left? When a system depends on injustice in order to continue, violence is the only, inevitable consequence.

At one time I would have agreed with you, Manny. Now, I just can't see it happening, at least for a while.

You see, we Canadians are just too apathetic to get violent!

However, since we seem hell-bent on importing as many new Canadians from violent cultures as we can get, the situation may well change sooner rather than later.

The unfortunate thing is that those with the energy of violence tend to lack the brains to have workable, sustainable positive goals. That's why those cultures with a history of social violence tend to be countries that are perpetual crap-holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sa'adoni    0

But how will they monitor foreign web activity. There is only one answer. The net must be nationalized and the great red and white firewall unleased!

Aproved websites:

IHATEISLAM.COM

www.imperialoil.ca/

buygunshere.com/

calgarystampede.com

www.warmuseum.ca/plan-your-visit/hours-of-operation/

AND FINALLY A LITTLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT

EVERY WEBSITE CANADIANS NEED!

Edited by Sa'adoni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan    1

yes, very quiet - I suspect the most fevered and ardent MLW Harper Conservative supporters are still waiting for their talking points.

No. You are not going to find very many Conservatives who agree with Toews on this issue. Not here, not in the EDA's, not on Blogging Tories.

CPC MPs are getting a lot of backlash right now from even their most dedicated supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Topaz    32

The NDP brought up the fact Stockwell Day said this law would never happen, just wondering if he left the party because he had no choice and the way the Tories wanted to take this, to were its going now? If people don't trust this government they only have themselves to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wild Bill    0

You know, I just had an Atlas Shrugged kind of an idea! It goes like this:

Vic's Bill demands that ISPs provide all sorts of things, including back doors and easy methods for the police and other authorities to find out whatever they want from the Net.

They are making the assumption that they can demand anything they want and it will happen! Not only is everything they ask possible, they assume, but who cares about the cost! It's as if they think that some software guy will spend an evening with a pizza and some coke and change everything for them!

This Bill is an attack on many of the values of the people who built and now maintain the Net. What if they refused to do the technical work involved?

They would not have to be so stupid as to overtly refuse. They could be charged for that and I've no doubt that a personality like Vic Toews WOULD if he thought they were challenging him!

So here comes my Atlas Shrugged idea - suppose all the techies simply said that they didn't know HOW to change the software?

How could a government PROVE that this was bogus? Are there any politicians, let alone judges, who understand how to do this stuff? Perhaps the structure of the InterNet is such that it's TRUE! Maybe it isn't possible to do as Vic asks! I don't know for sure, do you? Would a judge?

The Law would be put in the position of trying to tell a citizen what he is or is not capable of doing, in a field where the Law has no expertise of its own. Even more, some software engineers are better than others. If one said he couldn't do it, can the Law assume that they are ALL equally capable and the engineer in question is lying?

In other words, Atlas the software guy Shrugs! Who would do what Vic wants? What could he possibly do about it?

Edited by Wild Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DogOnPorch    878

I like your idea. Slipping some CP on Toews's computer would be the crowning move.

Well, well, well...no wonder he's looking for witches under beds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×