Twitter account attacking Toews tied to Parliament

[Jarnhamar]

Are you seriously using that comparison?

When you think of it and the opinions of non-firearm owners towards what gun owners deal with it can be pretty accurate .

 

[Remius]

When you think of it and the opinions of non-firearm owners towards what gun owners deal with it can be pretty accurate .

While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.

The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.

And no, I don't think that non-firearm owners attitude towards firearm owner's is accurate in any way to the experience that Jewish people went through at the time.

I agree with the argument, not the example being used to support it.

I used to be pro-registry until a few people argued the case against it to me in a reasoned way with facts and evidence.  If they had gotten all emotional and talked about how Hitler did the same things etc etc, I would likely still be pro-registry.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.

The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.

And no, I don't think that non-firearm owners attitude towards firearm owner's is accurate in any way to the experience that Jewish people went through at the time.

I agree with the argument, not the example being used to support it.

I used to be pro-registry until a few people argued the case against it to me in a reasoned way with facts and evidence.  If they had gotten all emotional and talked about how Hitler did the same things etc etc, I would likely still be pro-registry.

You have to chill out and keep your view on the main point(s) and not an example. Don't get all wrapped up and out of focus because you're somehow offended at a simple saying. Don't forget, it's only one line, and not verbatun either, in a whole poem attributed to Martin Niemöller. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of permutations of the original poem out there.

It's certainly not about gun owners relating their plight to communists, trade unionists or Jews. It's about a current mindset of  politicians and  people in Canada.

Others thought it apt. It's a matter of opinion and perspective is all.

 

[armyvern]

Simply as a metaphor.

To wit: "So long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't care if other Canadians suffer that fate."

Bang on. Too many suffer from this lapse of not giving a crap until it's on their own doorstep these days.

 

[Remius]

RG:  I'm hardly offended by the phrase.  I just don't think it's an effective quote for the reason's I stated.  And trying to stay on the main point is what I was trying to emphasise.  By throwing out hyperbolic statements or quotes the main message gets lost.  Your second quote is much more supportive of the argument than what you said before ie the Jewish comparison.  I mentioned Godwin's law for example.

I realise after you explained yourself that wasn't your intent but it still comes off that way.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I love how everyone is up in arms because the cops can get at them without a warrant.

Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about?  If BB wants to look at what I do on line, they're welcome to do so.  I'm already monitored at work and watched at what I do anyhow.  I'm still here and expect to be so tomorrow.  If you are over the line, or skating on it... well maybe you need some oversight.

And RG, as a "former" gun owner I can feel your pain and frustration.  That was one of the reasons I decided many years ago to lose the iron, but not the main ones which have more to do with restricted weapons issues and requirements.  But again, unless we become a police state I don't anticipate anyone coming for your guns unless you warrant it.  I would be more worried about some shitrat coming into your house and relieving you of them than the law.

 

[Jarnhamar]

While I agree that the whole thing is a taste of your own medicine (from both sides as far as I can tell) and that yes, people don't care unless it affects them, I always find the whole Nazi, Hitler, Jewish comparisons in any argument diminishes the validity of the argument (i think that it's Godwin's rule/law or whatever).  Unless of course you use the comparison with something that is actually comparable.

The 2nd metaphor by Recceguy is much better in my mind.

And no, I don't think that non-firearm owners attitude towards firearm owner's is accurate in any way to the experience that Jewish people went through at the time.

I agree with the argument, not the example being used to support it.

I used to be pro-registry until a few people argued the case against it to me in a reasoned way with facts and evidence.  If they had gotten all emotional and talked about how Hitler did the same things etc etc, I would likely still be pro-registry.

Fair enough. I don't think you can evoke Godwin sans the N and or H word - but I know what you mean.  Huge pet peeve of mine is throwing the N/H word into a debate. i just found RGs example was good.

One could use Christopher Reeves as an example. Before he fell off a horse and became paralyzed he didn't care about that stuff.  Afterwards all of a sudden hes a big champion about it.  I feel the same way about people who don't give two shits really about drinking and driving until it directly impacts them then they become crusaders against it.

 

[Remius]

Right.  And the argument is a good one.  It's hard to see the opposition as credible when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.  And vice versa.  Ultimately we need to judge the legislation for what it is worth.  Gun registry: Not good.  Cyber-law: Not so good either.

jollyjacktar: If the police suddenly had unfettered access to your house or car and you had nothing to hide would you be cool with them just coming in and searching without a warrant or without your permission?  How about wiring your phone?  I think this is what some people compare the online world to.  The technology is moving faster than the rules so things get muddled and or confused.

I think the police need the tools to do their work but not at the expense of people's rights.  If getting warrants in a timely manner is the issue then tackle that problem rather than circumvent it.  If you are found guilty of a crime and on probabtion for example then yeah maybe the police should have access to you IP but a blanket law covering everyone is a little overboard.  What kills me is the minister didn't even know what was in the legislation and now the government sent it to comittee before 2nd reading as a damage control measure.

 

[larry Strong]

From what I can find out, and I could be wrong, all the police will get is access to basic cell phone and internet user information like home addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses. Actual usage monitoring (I.e., what you're "up to" online) would still require a warrant. Also from what I can figure out if police tap in without a warrant in such a situation, they are subject to restrictions imposed by the bill and some evidence may not be admissible in court.


Somehow I don't think that police would have the resources to monitor what every person is doing online.

I personally don't see a big deal.......unless you are doing something illegal.

I vaguely remember a big stink being raised some years back about surveillance cameras being installed in cities and how it was an invasion of privacy etc. I view this bill as very much the same thing.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about? 

Where have I heard some thing like that before? Hmmm. Now I remember: "Welcome to Westworld, the Playground of the Future. Where Nothing Can go Wrong. Go Wrong. Go wrong. Go Wrong."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Unless we end up with a police state, I fail to see what they are up in arms about.  If you are behaving yourself on line, what do you have to worry about?  If BB wants to look at what I do on line, they're welcome to do so.  I'm already monitored at work and watched at what I do anyhow.  I'm still here and expect to be so tomorrow.  If you are over the line, or skating on it... well maybe you need some oversight.

And RG, as a "former" gun owner I can feel your pain and frustration.  That was one of the reasons I decided many years ago to lose the iron, but not the main ones which have more to do with restricted weapons issues and requirements. But again, unless we become a police state I don't anticipate anyone coming for your guns unless you warrant it.  I would be more worried about some shitrat coming into your house and relieving you of them than the law.

You'll have to tell that to the hundreds of gun owners who've lost their guns and gained criminal records based solely on the unwarranted searches that have already taken place in this country.

Although there is trepidation on my part of loss from either the police or shitrats, I am reasonably confident about dealing with the later, forcefully and mortally. The former, I have a snowballs chance in hell against.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I find the whole "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" thing to be more than a little disturbing.  Why should anyone volunteer to have their cyber sphincter probed indiscriminately?  Any peek into my personal life without my expressed consent is a violation, and rest assured, EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide if they dig deep enough.  Even the most innocuous material can be misinterpreted by an overzealous bloodhound.

 

[ballz]

I've been in a somewhat heated discussion about this bill with someone, but it was a rational discussion and it led us to finding things out for ourselves as opposed to what the media is reporting. I read all of sections 1-39 (the stuff that deals with what they can / can't do, what's required for what, etc.) and in my opinion there's a few things that need to be looked at but for the most part it's a lot of fear-mongering by the media and a lot of hippies crying wolf.

Here is the bill http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/292611-bill-c-30.html

So, a couple observations (these are all according to my interpretation of what I have read):

1. In order for the police to get your name/address/number/email/IP Address, it has to be a part of a criminal investigation. In other words, if you are caught associating online with someone that they are currently investigating, they can get this information. Doesn't sound much different than if your name comes up during any other criminal investigation does it? They can't access anything, but they can come to your door and ask to speak with you. If you knew someone who was murdered or being investigated for homocide, this is probably what would happen.

2. There is a lot of talk in the media about whether or not they can use that information to profile you / track your movements. The bill specifically says that they are only allowed to use that information for the purpose of the specific criminal investigation it was requested for. However, there needs to be more discussion on this IMO. If that information *can* be used to profile / track someone, there needs to be specific safeguards to make sure that they don't (not one line written into the bill that says they can't, that's not enough).

3. I encourage you all to read Section 17 (well I encourage everyone to read the whole thing), the one that Mr. Toews said he "was not aware of." Under Section 17, the "exceptional circumstances" that allow any police officer to request the above information, without a warrant, are basically the same kind of protocol that a police officer can search you / your vehicle without a warrant when he pulls you over for speeding.

That officer is required to give his name / badge number to the ISP when making the request. The ISP is then obligated to contact one of his bosses, who is then responsible for ensuring that the member did in fact have "reasonable grounds" to get this info without a warrant.

All of this stuff is of course documented and reported in a formal way. The RCMP and CSIS (and that Competition one) are required to conduct internal audits on an annual basis of all of these instances, and report to the minister. The Privacy Commissioner is also allowed to conduct her own audit at her request.

4. They cannot access any of your communication, web browser history, etc. without a warrant.

5. Section 34 is what concerns me the most. It gives bureaucrats way too much "inspecting" power, including the ability to access your stuff (browser history, emails, etc) and make copies of it, without a warrant, all for the purpose of making sure the ISPs are holding up their end of the bargain.


As for the stuff comparing this to the gun registry, they are not even close. Bureaucrats have the power to have the police seize your property at a whim, with no judicial or parliamentary oversight, without compensation, basically because they feel like it (don't believe me? go ask the owners of a certain .22 calibre rifle right now)... a complete violation of the Charter. I am getting posted (restricted) on May 9th, and I am still trying to figure out what the hell I can legally do with my restricted firearm. The only help from the RCMP is they are telling me to transfer the ownership to someone else with a restricted-PAL. That's bullshit, why should have to give away my property just because they came up with this stupid system and don't have a method in place to deal with my circumstances?

When you've got to go get an Authorization to Transport every time you want to leave your house with your laptop or cell phone, then come to talk to me about invasion of privacy. Owners of restricted weapons are lucky they can sneeze without some sort of permit or license.

EDIT: Oh yes, and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a terrible argument. The Charter guarantees us (minus firearm owners, of course) the right against unreasonable search and seizure for a very, very valid reason. Sorry to bring it back to the Nazi regime, but a lot of the Jews thought that as long as they were compliant, they would have nothing to worry about...

 

[larry Strong]

:goodpost:

 

[dogger1936]

Ballz that is 100% what I believe and have concluded after reading it. I thought the minister looked unprofessional switching his stance; aside from that your post is 100% bang on in my view.

 

[jollyjacktar]

ballz, this is still a free country and by all means debate the issues if you fear they might misuse things.  As for myself, as I presently conduct myself on-line and frankly in my personal life I am far to the side of crossing over the middle line and into the dark side.  If the cyber snoops want to look at what I do here in cyber space they are free to do so and welcome to it, and rather bored they'll be too.

Perhaps the day will come where I will be more concerned with how things are headed in this country, but I don't personally smell smoke at present.  As for being a gun owner, my days of that are many years behind me and I am sorely out of date on what is their current plight so in that regard I admit to being very ignorant of things. 

As for the bogey men out there, I agree there are bogey men to fear and ponder about.  I just look elsewhere than at Ottawa at present.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I find the whole "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" thing to be more than a little disturbing.  Why should anyone volunteer to have their cyber sphincter probed indiscriminately?  Any peek into my personal life without my expressed consent is a violation, and rest assured, EVERYONE has SOMETHING to hide if they dig deep enough.  Even the most innocuous material can be misinterpreted by an overzealous bloodhound.

:goodpost:

Very true: privacy is an acquired (rather than "natural" or inherent) right, but it is an important one none the less.

 

[ballz]

ballz, this is still a free country and by all means debate the issues if you fear they might misuse things.  As for myself, as I presently conduct myself on-line and frankly in my personal life I am far to the side of crossing over the middle line and into the dark side.  If the cyber snoops want to look at what I do here in cyber space they are free to do so and welcome to it, and rather bored they'll be too.

Sorry, I did not mean to say you shouldn't raise your point. But the issue I think you are overlooking isn't so much about whether or not they'll find something, but more importantly what precedent are we setting if we allow them to take away rights guaranteed by the Charter just because it doesn't affect us as an individual. You said "unless we end up with a police state," but the question I would ask you is how close are you willing to let them get to being a police state but they're coming into your comfort zone? If we protect our Charter Rights and Freedoms each time they are challenged by bills like this one and bills that would make us register our firearms, they will never get into your comfort zone, or anybody else's.

I don't fear the bogey man in Ottawa either, largely in part because the democratic process has been revealed to be alive and well according to what's happening with this bill. The citizens of Canada have rightfully raised concerns, very loudly, and this bill will likely be amended to something much more appropriate where no one's privacy is invaded without proper judicial oversight on the basis of "reasonable grounds."

 

[jollyjacktar]

5. Section 34 is what concerns me the most. It gives bureaucrats way too much "inspecting" power, including the ability to access your stuff (browser history, emails, etc) and make copies of it, without a warrant, all for the purpose of making sure the ISPs are holding up their end of the bargain.

If I fear anyone in Ottawa or from Ottawa these are the demons.  The Police have lots of hoops to jump through to snoop and must prove cause, things such as writs of assistance died 30 years ago.  But the crats, they seem to be a law unto themselves as evidenced by what has happended at VAC over the past few years.

 

[Nemo888]

Ironically Minister Toews knocked up babysitter is now one of those "demon" bureaucrats up on the hill now. Thanks leaked personal information that is none of my business! Won't that be nice to chat about during his next election campaign.

Records inevitably get used. Access is rather loose since ISP's, telecoms, any police officer who decides it is an "exceptional circumstance"(Whatever that means, the bill only says exceptional circumstance and doesn't delineate what that is.) and bureaucrats will have access. This bill is DOA as is Toews chances for re-election. One Conservative seat less for the next election.