> The new disruption powers could permit CSIS to thwart travel plans, cancel bank transactions and covertly interfere with radical websites. The bill says CSIS needs "reasonable grounds to believe" a security threat exists before taking measures to disrupt it. It requires CSIS to get a court order whenever its proposed disruption violates the charter of rights or breaches Canadian law in any way.
CSIS can now cancel our flights, freeze our bank accounts, and take down our web sites without any due process whatsoever, but don't worry, they need to get a secret court order against us in order to WAIVE our charter rights!
Encouraging someone to commit a terrorist act is now a crime. I expect this will be a very popular law for authorities use their new powers to exempt themselves from.
I'll be surprised if we make it a whole year before this is abused for some completely unrelated purpose such as harassing the administrations critics.
This will have real consequences for freedom of speech online. CSIS has been operating a huge mass surveillance system for a very long time, and today it just grew legal teeth.
'The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.' - Section 1, Charter of Rights and Freedoms
I like how a single crooked judge can now covertly determine what is a free and democratic society. I mean, this was the case before but it had to happen in the public which had some sense of accountability.
Not exactly. The criteria for what constitutes a reasonable limit was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes
I don't know about Canada, but in the USA precedent is only applicable if it's brought up and the judge decides its relevant.
In non-contested situations (eg: only the government is before the court, there is no opposition attorney) there would be no reason to bring up precedents that don't support the governments position.
This is part of the reason secret courts are so fundamentally wrong.
Don't worry, we'll get rid of Harper soon enough. Alberta just dumped a 44-year dynasty, and this is the Conservatives' home ground. Most Canadians are sick of him.
The NDP win in Alberta has exactly nothing to do with federal politics. In fact, had Mulcair (the federal NDP leader) endorsed the Alberta NDP party it probably would have cost them a lot of votes. He is remembered for demonizing Alberta to cozy up to Quebec voters in the last federal election and remains wildly unpopular in Alberta.
Prentice and the Alberta PC's made a litany of key mistakes in rapid succession. Perhaps foremost was flouting their own legislation that "guaranteed" fixed election dates... again. Why was it too much this time? The PC's had just cut the head off the official opposition party by luring their leader (along with half it's MLA's) across the floor. While Prentice claimed he needed a new mandate for his budget, the true reason for this election's timing was obvious. They thought it would be a cakewalk because their opposition was in complete disarray. This is exactly the kind of election manipulation their own law was supposed to discourage.
The reason the NDP won the election is because voters had decided on "anyone but the PC's" and Rachel Notley was the only leader who didn't look like a clown in the leader's debate. Alberta isn't afraid of big-spending governments because that's precisely what the PC's were. They also expect the NDP to become a much more centrist, business friendly party now that they're in power. Mulcair might be walking with a bounce in his step right now, but he's going to be choking down a lot of sour news about what passes for NDP policy in the West soon enough.
As for federal politics... Harper has now been in power long enough that the West has gotten over feeling giddy about actually mattering in federal politics. A different party with a sound policy and a good leader could easily win a lot of ridings here if they took the province seriously. That means no nepotism, especially regarding the son of a leader famous for flipping the province the bird while riding right on through to the next province on the train. That means no parties that are too afraid to announce their platform. That means no parties that run garbage candidates. (In the last federal election, the NDP ran a grocery clerk from the other end of the province in my riding. She had never been to my city and refused to speak to media. She was nothing more than a name on a ballot.) No federal party that demonizes Alberta as a way of attacking Harper's background (even though he's from Toronto) is going to get a lot of votes here.
Finally, I'd just like to add that the liberals voted with the PC's to pass this bill. The NDP get no credit for opposing the bill because they'd oppose practically anything the other two parties were for.
You're right that the provincial NDP and federal NDP have very little to do with each other.
However, the winds of change are here in Alberta. Not saying we'll vote overwhelmingly NDP in the federal election, but you could see some change. Country-wide, support for the Cons is wavering. They lose a few here, in BC, lose a bunch in Ontario (this is pretty much a given), and they could be in trouble.
The NDP won because the conservative vote was split between two parties (PC and Wildrose) and the voting system is single-member-district plurality (FPTP).
Federally, there is only one conservative party and several viable opposition parties (mainly NDP and Liberal), so I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the next election, for exactly the same reason.
Unless the Libs and NDP are willing to join a coalition, I dont see how that would happen (or one party gains a majority). That's the problem with two opposition parties, both of whom are centre left/left (ish).
Even if Harper goes (and if he doesn't I call shenanigans) the bill has been passed. The damage has been done. If liberals win it is highly unlikely they would remove that bill, and if NDP wins still i doubt they will abolish the bill. At best you can hope for NDP to win and submit revisions to the bill for more oversight.
The question is will whoever comes to power reverse all of this, or will you get a "choice" that is just as much pro-mass surveillance and pro-unaccountability for abuses like in the US?
CSIS can now cancel our flights, freeze our bank accounts, and take down our web sites without any due process whatsoever, but don't worry, they need to get a secret court order against us in order to WAIVE our charter rights!
Encouraging someone to commit a terrorist act is now a crime. I expect this will be a very popular law for authorities use their new powers to exempt themselves from.
I'll be surprised if we make it a whole year before this is abused for some completely unrelated purpose such as harassing the administrations critics.
This will have real consequences for freedom of speech online. CSIS has been operating a huge mass surveillance system for a very long time, and today it just grew legal teeth.