Conservatives to gut Privacy Rights

[BigBlueBalls]

Conservatives want to change Canada's unreasonable search and seizure laws?

Thankfully, all the opposition parties are blocking it from happening. This is just an example of what policies Canada's Conservatives want to push through, which I'm sure is just a fraction of their true colours we'd only see in the event of a majority.

War on crime stalls

Red Deer MP Bob Mills says his Conservative government wants to change search and seizure laws to make it easier for police to crack down on drug houses.

But opposition parties are holding up these pieces of legislation, said Mills, who feels stymied by his federal Conservative government’s minority status.

“Our biggest frustration is the stalling,” added Mills on Thursday. The MP said he senses the public’s growing frustration with crime in their neighbourhoods.

“The laws aren’t protecting people anymore.”

Among the legislative changes that Mills’ government wants to pass are more flexible rules on police wire-tapping and search and seizure.

“This would help them shut down the pushers of drugs,” said the MP. “Police are 100 per cent behind this new legislation.”

The government also wants to prohibit drug lords and other offenders from using proceeds from their crimes to pay for their legal defence. “The money would be turned over to the Crown,” said Mills.

Organized criminals, who are “pretty much involved in the heavy drug trade,” should be easier to convict, he added.

Mills wants to force lawyers and banks to notify police when clients pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for real estate transactions. It would be simple to check the paper trail to see whether the money comes from crime, he said.

While civil rights advocates have criticized these proposed changes as infringements on personal liberties, Mills said it’s time to drop the preoccupation with protecting the rights of the accused.

“Let’s not worry so much about criminals’ rights. People are asking us to get tougher on criminals.”

But he doesn’t hold out hope any of these legislative changes will happen soon.

“We’re only now seeing our first piece of legislation (to make politicians more accountable) leave the Senate with amendments and come back to the House to be debated again.”

Politicians can’t move fast on an amendment to keep their own kind in line, he said, “never mind the criminals.”

Link

[JakeHero]

Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

[Memorize]

The only reason I see people wanting to oppose it is that they're stoners as well.

[Begoner]

At 10/21/06 11:42 AM, BanditByte wrote: Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

Yes, only a righty would not want to make it easier to install a fascist regime which spies on its people.

[Memorize]

At 10/21/06 12:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

Yes, only a righty would not want to make it easier to install a fascist regime which spies on its people.

You are a true nutjob.

[Proteas]

At 10/21/06 12:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 10/21/06 11:42 AM, BanditByte wrote: Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

Yes, only a righty would not want to make it easier to install a fascist regime which spies on its people.

Yes, because ensuring freedom and security after you sat there and bitched about how the government wasn't doing enough to secure EITHER is facist.

Shut the fuck up already.

[Begoner]

Yes, because ensuring freedom and security after you sat there and bitched about how the government wasn't doing enough to secure EITHER is facist.

There you go again, putting words into my mouth. Did I claim the act was fascist? No, of course not. I simply said it would make it much easier for a fascist government to seize power, provided that it would be much easier to isolate those who disagree with the new government's policies. It's a fact that a fascist government would be more tenable if it had an increased capacity to spy on its citizens.

[TheAntiThinker]

Man, didn't you guys get the memo?
Freedom isn't free. In the economic and post-traumatic state our country is in? We got hit by terrorists and angry easterners! Fuck no freedom isn't free, it's currently about two fifty a gallon at most pumps.

[Proteas]

At 10/21/06 03:38 PM, Begoner wrote: It's a fact that a fascist government would be more tenable if it had an increased capacity to spy on its citizens.

True, but my point is simply this; you're a hypocritical little bastard. The government didn't do enough to prevent 911, so what was the rallying leftist call? More security measures means of making intelligence gathering easier. What did you get? The Patriot act, which ALL of your democratically elected leaders voted for knowing full well what it was because they helped to write most of it, and two weeks later you start bitching about how it was a violation of privacy rights.

And now we have this situation in Canada, where basically the same thing is happening.

At 10/21/06 03:47 PM, TheAntiThinker wrote: Fuck no freedom isn't free, it's currently about two fifty a gallon at most pumps.

Yeah, nevermind the $400 BILLION dollar price tag of the war, we obviosly went over there for OIL!!!

</rant>

[Begoner]

The government didn't do enough to prevent 911, so what was the rallying leftist call? More security measures means of making intelligence gathering easier.

I obviously do not speak for all leftists, but I wanted less governmental power in domestic affairs, increased peace talks in the Middle East, bilateral discussions with what the State Department classifies as "terrorist organizations," more transparent government protocols, and for the administration to pay attention to what the CIA says.

Yeah, nevermind the $400 BILLION dollar price tag of the war, we obviosly went over there for OIL!!!

Who's "we"? The American people didn't benefit, but the oil companies sure did -- they're not the ones who have to pay for the war.

[texicomexico]

Guys do not listen to Begoner, He is a jew hating, Islam extemist supporter. But this odd part is, HE LIVES IN FUCKING NEW JERSEY, AND HE CARES MORE ABOUT TERRORISTS THEN OUR TROOPS! So gentlemen, just debate, but leave this nutjob out of it.

[Camarohusky]

This seems quite spurious to me...
An unpopular government making it easier to spy... On drug houses...
Yes and an Ar-57 is a hunting rifle...

[cellardoor6]

At 10/21/06 04:54 PM, Begoner wrote:

The government didn't do enough to prevent 911, so what was the rallying leftist call? More security measures means of making intelligence gathering easier.

I obviously do not speak for all leftists, but I wanted less governmental power in domestic affairs,

You better vote for Republicans then. Read a book about what Democrats do when they get in office, higher taxes, expanded central government, more meddling in the affairs of the citizentry. Thats what liberalism is today, its more government, the government imposes its values on the people and moderates the whole system more tightly.

increased peace talks in the Middle East,

With terrorists?

Yeah, nevermind the $400 BILLION dollar price tag of the war, we obviosly went over there for OIL!!!

Who's "we"? The American people didn't benefit, but the oil companies sure did -- they're not the ones who have to pay for the war.

That makes no sense. If the idea of going into Iraq was for the oil, oil prices would have gone down if the US was reaping the benefits and the oil companies would have made less profit. But now you're indirectly suggesting that we invaded Iraq for there to cause contention and oil prices to rise? And therefore help the oil companies charge more and make more profit? So lets invade a country that has oil, so that there will be LESS OIL on the market and therefore higher prices? Interesting...

[BigBlueBalls]

I expected the Conservatives to behave similar to the US Republicans, as we all did, but I'm surprised at how little they provided ANY distinction from them. Everything from their environmental policies to polarizing politics to trying to use fear (crime / terrorism) to gain support and now they're attempting to subvert our privacy laws.

Not to mention, this is still only the minority version of the Conservative Party. I wouldn't want to see what they'd be capable of in a majority.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/23/06 09:33 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: I expected the Conservatives to behave similar to the US Republicans, as we all did, but I'm surprised at how little they provided ANY distinction from them. Everything from their environmental policies to polarizing politics to trying to use fear (crime / terrorism) to gain support and now they're attempting to subvert our privacy laws.

You do realize that conservatives and republicans can be mutually exclussive right.

Anyways, Canada aint' in my jurisdiction nor my country.

So I have little opinion to it's internal politics.

[AdamRice]

At 10/21/06 11:42 AM, BanditByte wrote: Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

Big Brother is watching you and he says that 2+2=5

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/23/06 09:46 PM, fasdit wrote:

At 10/21/06 11:42 AM, BanditByte wrote: Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

Big Brother is watching you and he says that 2+2=5

Well, BanditByte willingly refuses to be more "fair and balanced" and goes by the FOX (or CNN) standard of the word instead.

[Memorize]

At 10/23/06 09:33 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

Not to mention, this is still only the minority version of the Conservative Party. I wouldn't want to see what they'd be capable of in a majority.

That's because you're the one thing everyone hates... a hippy.

[JakeHero]

At 10/23/06 09:46 PM, fasdit wrote:

At 10/21/06 11:42 AM, BanditByte wrote: Yes, only a lefty would not want to make it easier to enforce the law.

Big Brother is watching you and he says that 2+2=5

According to Mr. Hawkins it does.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 11:37 PM, Integrity wrote:

At 10/23/06 09:33 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

Not to mention, this is still only the minority version of the Conservative Party. I wouldn't want to see what they'd be capable of in a majority.

That's because you're the one thing everyone hates... a hippy.

Hell, better than being a tile-setter.

[Memorize]

At 10/23/06 11:47 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

Hell, better than being a tile-setter.

At least I got a job.

[JakeHero]

At 10/23/06 11:48 PM, Integrity wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:47 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

Hell, better than being a tile-setter.

At least I got a job.

Wow, can you say low-blow? Lawl

[AdamRice]

At 10/23/06 11:49 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:48 PM, Integrity wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:47 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

Hell, better than being a tile-setter.

At least I got a job.

Wow, can you say low-blow? Lawl

My cousin installs tile in homes for people and actually makes decent money doing it. It's a bit more up-scale though since he does specialized paterns and custom stuff for people, but he's still a tile setter lol.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 11:48 PM, Integrity wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:47 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

Hell, better than being a tile-setter.

At least I got a job.

I’m working right now dipshit. Why else would I be on the net and 5am?

[Memorize]

At 10/23/06 11:55 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

I’m working right now dipshit. Why else would I be on the net and 5am?

Oh i'm sorry. I meant... at least I have a better paying job.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/24/06 12:00 AM, Integrity wrote: Oh i'm sorry. I meant... at least I have a better paying job.

You'd be surprised how well the Metropolitan Police are willing to pay their IT Supportists.

Add to that out-of-hours bonus...i'm giggling all the way to the bank.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 10/23/06 09:39 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You do realize that conservatives and republicans can be mutually exclussive right.

I don't think American Republicans define conservatism, even though they'd like to. My point is that instead of leading with their own Canadian version of conservatism, they've pretty much adopted everything from the American version.

At 10/23/06 11:37 PM, Integrity wrote: That's because you're the one thing everyone hates... a hippy.

Nah just the dickheads who act like they got a big giant stick up their ass. I could give two shits about what they hate, which is pretty much anything that doesn't conform with their views.

Oh and I don't consider myself a hippy, in the classical sense. Not that I'm offended by the term. I find it another great example of 2 dimensional "for us or against us" thinking. If I'm not a Republican and for everything they stand for... then that must make me a hippy. If I oppose government intrusion in our privacy, as you pointed out earlier in the thread, then that must make me a stoner.

[Memorize]

At 10/24/06 12:10 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

Add to that out-of-hours bonus...i'm giggling all the way to the bank.

I also like my benefits. Free gas being one of them.

At 10/24/06 12:43 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: If I oppose government intrusion in our privacy, as you pointed out earlier in the thread, then that must make me a stoner.

You've already admitted to being a stoner so... whatever.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/24/06 12:47 AM, Integrity wrote: I also like my benefits. Free gas being one of them.

Good for you. But living in a city centre with no car…I wouldn’t have anywhere to put it.

I suppose I could increase the number of flags I burn…

[Memorize]

At 10/24/06 12:55 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

I suppose I could increase the number of flags I burn…

Go ahead *flips thru bills*