1  2  3  Next

<strong>Written By:</strong> 4Canada
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-10-25 10:12:20
<a href="/article/221220750-harsh-law-set-to-live-on-unexplained">Article Link</a>

Police don't have to have real evidence. But if they can convince a judge that their concerns have an "apparent" basis in fact, he in turn can jail the suspect — without trial and without charges — for a year.

After a year, the same thing can happen all over again.

It's a remarkable power to grant police and the courts. The mood of fear that gripped North America after 9/11 goes some way to explaining why this particular aspect of Canada's anti-terror laws got through Parliament in the first place. But it does not explain why the major parties seem so willing to keep it on the books.

In its report, the Liberal-Conservative majority on the Commons subcommittee gives no reason for its decision.

It does note that in five years the preventive detention provisions have never been used.

But it says this doesn't mean they are no longer required. "The subcommittee believes they should be retained with the arsenal of tools that should continue to be available to counter terrorist activities."

Why? The report doesn't say.

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/y6f7jg">http://tinyurl.com/y6f7jg</a>







[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 25, 2006]

   

"This allows police to arrest, without charge, anyone they believe may somehow be involved in what they think could be a future terrorist act."

Oddly enough, "future terrorist acts" don't include fascist laws, the slow suspension of civil liberities, the selling out of the nation, and media fear mongering.

I guess THEIR kind of terrorism is ok then.



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

"I guess THEIR kind of terrorism is ok then."

Agreed. No one has ever been convicted under this legislation, the committee neglected to say what 'new' powers (other than abritrary detention) these give the government over what they already had, and how their abilities before wouldn't apply or were inadequate in the fight 'against terror'.

Total rubbish.


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

   

One of the most peculiar aspects of this fascist law is that the accused are not told what they're accused of and what the charges are on account of "national security".

This means that anybody, some official wants to get rid of, can be arrested indefinitely and nobody is accountable, or can ask questions because some jerk says so.

I have seen such laws at work in Europe and never thought I'd see the day when they may come to Canada. I was sentenced to death by a "court martial" of 3 NCOs who thought I was a spy and traitor. I wish I had been. It was perfectly legal at the time and am still surprised they didn't hang me there and then.

At the same time the governments that bring in such laws, are inviting the biggest crooks on Earth as "investors" and selling off the country and the people.

Ed Deak.

   

"This allows police to arrest, without charge, anyone they believe may somehow be involved in what they think could be a future terrorist act.<br />
<br />
<br />
Police don't have to have real evidence. But if they can convince a judge that their concerns have an "apparent" basis in fact, he in turn can jail the suspect &#8212; without trial and without charges &#8212; for a year.<br />
<br />
After a year, the same thing can happen all over again."<br />
I also agree with D.C. and Deacon on this<br />
<br />
Canada was set to become a police state 5 years ago and this legislation cinched it with nary a blink and no opposition.<br />
<br />
I propose a coalition of the less popular parties and a non partisan citizen&#8217;s organisation to demand this rammed through legislation be rescinded<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.synonym.com/antonym/Anarchy">http://www.synonym.com/antonym/Anarchy</a> <br />
Antonyms of noun anarchy<br />
<br />
Sorry, I could not find antonyms for 'Anarchy'. As I was unable to locate an antonym for Anarchy I will supply my own. Democracy of today.<br />
<br />
What ever perceive dangers there are due to the wrongfully used identification of anarchy what we are now under is far worse.<br />
It is the choice between freedom and servitude.<br />
Your prisoner number is in you wallet. It is you S.I.N. <br />
Play on words intended!<br />
<p>---<br>Diogenes said:<br />
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

   

Can anyone intelligently explain how giving up personal freedom equates to being safer from terrorism? It's amazing how easy it is to make the brain dead public draw false conclusions from myths perpetuated by the usual suspects for the usual reasons.

   

Way to go Ed
while i was struggling with my keyboard and searches of support ...

Bless you! for you for your insights

---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

   

See the other thread - "harsh law dealt second blow". These anti-terror laws are dangerous and unconstitutional and the courts agree with us. The government can extend them for as long as they want but when the courts decide they've got to go, they go.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

   

How people cannot question that all these laws are reveiwed and implemented by coucils under the auspices of the SPP astounds me.

These types of laws do not secure the current governments, they secure the propsed North American Union and those Nationalists are the proposed terrorists. That is why under national security these people will not need to know why they are being detained. If a FOIA pertaining to a persons arrest was given they would find the person an enemy to the North American Union not to their National government.

Until the NAU is implemented "full force" it is unlikley that the measures proposed in this article are implemented on the Canadian population. It an international law agreed upon by all 3 nations.

   

There they go again, using what didn't happen on 911 as an excuse for their draconian law which is supposed to protect us from people who have not attacked us. The people charged with wielding this law are not to bright either, if they were smart they would know that 911 was an inside job.

Those who think that this ruling means the courts are in power are missing the point, that has been made by other posters, of how long this insult to intelligence has been in force prior to the court ruling anything. So, if I read this correctly, the ruling party can pass any law and have it in effect for five years or longer before our saviours, the courts, rule that some little piece of it is defective. The whole system is defective.

Good post 4Canada.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

   

Your point is valid Milton but not on this thread. The point of this thread is that this "Harsh law" is "set to live on, unexplained". The extension to the law (the parts struck down) is now a moot point. That is the point I've tried to make.
I've missed nothing!

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

   

The people are not questioning anything because the corrupt Canadian media is doing everything in their power to hide the truth from the masses<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.trentarthur.info/archives/001249.html">http://www.trentarthur.info/archives/001249.html</a>

   

&#8220;See the other thread - "harsh law dealt second blow". These anti-terror laws are dangerous and unconstitutional and the courts agree with us. The government can extend them for as long as they want but when the courts decide they've got to go, they go.&#8221;

(I hope there is no hard and fast rule about thread jumping cause this one is way to important to not respond to)
With all due respect Wraun I strongly suggest you not allow yourself to be lured into a false sense of security. The Judge&#8217;s ruling will need to be studied to become familiar with it. Another aspect of this topic is it I the law that is being dealt with here and rule get overturned on a regular basis. The law is very much transitory and the players are masters at their game while we are the neophytes.
We are dealing with an organisation that will throw us a bone to worry while they in conjunction with their political friends, or those the politicos take their direction from continue to move their positions forward.
History bears out my assertions.


---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."

   

Great link Sphinx!!

It really shows how corporate Canada works hand in hand with those in powerful postions to solve unusual problems.

I have a freind that has recently started working on TV, I send him Real news and he tells me he cant use it, the content is wrong for his demographic.

When you need to pay for your mortgage every month and can't get ahead your perspective changes.

   

This phoney law is unconstitutional and thus illegal. It is simply another tool of repression in their arsenal against we the people. The idea behind this "arrest" law is clearly designed to intimate, and perhaps to allow for the disappearance of anyone who learns too much, or says too much openly. That it has not been used (or has it, how would we know?) only means that they do not yet have the power they seek, or that that the people have been simply too docile to bother with.

The people responsible for breaching the publics trust should pay the consequences, and I don't mean just kicking them out of office - they should do lengthy prison time for it. Messing around with our constitution is no joking matter and is a very serious crime against this nation of ours.

   

1  2  3  Next