379 replies to this topic

[Derek L]

are you laughing at your affirmed assertion... the following one?

once again, feel free to ignore the following most pointed questions/requests... while you also deny your affirmed assertion

Nah, I’m laughing at you Waldo. I’ve demonstrated the Canadian laws involved, an international agreement allowing the exchange of information and cooperation between agencies of the Government of Canada and their foreign counterparts and a legal case involving as such.

I’ve answered your loaded questions and provided confirmation to my “assertion”, and nowhere did I comment on the frequency of use, nor if it’s the preferred method of investigation….Those are your assertions.

You’ve yet to address the legal allowances that have been provided, nor have you provided any evidence to support your assertions.


You’re a troll with a thesaurus. I’ll allow you, to have the last word……since that’s all you’ve got.

[waldo]

I’ll allow you

you'll allow me to once again highlight you have never provided anything to substantiate that your assertion actually even occurs, what foundation in Canadian law would support it (if it did actually occur), let alone why Canadian authorities would opt for it. Clearly, your assertion is predicated upon Canadian authorities purposely, knowingly and wantonly foregoing not just their own capabilities/means, but also bypassing Canadian oversight/(judicial authorization)... foregoing and bypassing all that to, instead, request foreign agencies perform surveillance on individuals in Canada.

and why would Canadian authorities do such a thing? Why? Just answer the question... oh, wait... you already did! Your telling answer was... wait for it,... "well, do you expect them to just give up"? An answer that was simply just another of your many 'own goals' throughout this thread. Let me go down the grab bag list of you scrambling and thrashing about trying to find some foundation in law to support your claim... yes, you had googly firing on all cylinders, over many, many days! From your outrageous leap to the 'Privacy Act'... then you ramped it on up to the 'Charter' (no less)... then scaled it back down to an agreements 'inherent authorization'... to then settle down into the weeds of 'Criminal Code' exceptions. Of course, out of all that, nothing even remotely lined up with your assertion - nothing!

[mentalfloss]

Well, I'm glad that's over.

[cybercoma]

So, just to be clear, a YouTube video needs a parliamentary committee to investigate it, but evidence that suggests there was systematic election fraud calling into question the legitimacy of the entire government?... well, that's no big deal and shouldn't even get a debate in the commons. -Leadnow.ca

Mr. Toews testified Tuesday before the procedure and House affairs committee, which is investigating the YouTube video in which a group called Anonymous threatened to release personal information about the minister and his family if he didn’t scrap Bill C-30, the Conservative government’s controversial online surveillance legislation.

Cont. http://www.theglobea...article2382836/

Read the whole article. There's some facepalm-worth hilarity in it. For instance, when asked how to prevent this from happening in the future, since nothing was hacked, Toews was at a total loss. Toews needs to suck it up and stop whining about his publicly available information being made, well, public. Moreover, if he was truly just doing the job he was democratically elected to do, as he claims, he would have realized that the vast majority of Canadians opposed this legislation and scrapped it. Besides, I'm not sure he was elected to tell Canadians they stand with child-pornographers, which is rich coming from the champion of family values that cheated on his wife with the babysitter.

Edited by cybercoma, 28 March 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Bryan]

evidence that suggests there was systematic election fraud calling into question the legitimacy of the entire government?... well, that's no big deal and shouldn't even get a debate in the commons.

If there actually was any evidence of anything even remotely close to that, we most certainly would be having that debate.