Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Internet Surveillance Dies a Quiet, Lonely Death

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the grandkids-never-visit dept.

Canada 110

Dr Caleb writes "According to the Globe and Mail, 'The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead. If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to start from scratch.' The bill has been sent to a public safety committee for extensive revision, but it must be debated for five hours on the House floor first, and that won't happen before summer recess. This is a followup to the story we discussed in February titled 'Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be "For" Child Porn.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quiet? Lonely? (5, Insightful)

Cyphase (907627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011067)

Weren't we all there cheering?

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011147)

It only means that since it couldn't / didn't pass in the open house they'll enact something similar as a back room Order in Council or some such thing like an Executive Order in the United States system and it will be even worse for the general population. We're entering an age of tyranny here folks and nothing done in open government will stop it. Back room deals, executive orders and orders in council until they achieve a complete martial law is the way things are going.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011435)

Orders in Council can only be made where legislation has given the Government the authority to do so. It cannot concoct new government powers out of thin air.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011775)

Sure, just conjure up a phony war, any kind. If the Yanks can do it, why not Harper too? War on terror. War on drugs. War on bubble gum (good job, Singapore!) - the possibilities are endless. Then pass another wartime measures act, same as the one that gave us income tax.

We've seen it happen south of the border often enough, and these things take on a life of their own. When do you think the DEA will get their mandate revoked, or the GST will be repealed*? Not in our lifetimes.

(this was a temporary tax that successive Liberal and Con. prime ministers have campaign-promised to repeal since the nineties)

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012937)

The GST has been gone for a while now. It's now the HST. The next iteration will be the IST (Integrated Sales Tax), followed by the JST (Joint Sales Tax).

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

SuperSlug (799739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40015091)

, followed by the JST (Joint Sales Tax).

They are going to legalize marijuana in Canada and start taxing joints? Should have done this a long time ago, me thinks...

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

J Story (30227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011909)

Orders in Council can only be made where legislation has given the Government the authority to do so. It cannot concoct new government powers out of thin air.

Agree and disagree. Governments in Canada have overstepped their legislated or constitutional authority, but they eventually get hauled back into line by the courts. On the whole, though, I don't remember that the over-reach has ever had a lasting effect -- other than getting the political party in power turfed out at the next election.

There seems to be a constant drumbeat that the Conservative government is hellbent on destroying freedoms and kicking the poor onto the streets. For myself, however, I think the real threat to the "Canadian way of life" would be if the socialist NDP should ever form government.

The Conservatives, and their traditional counter-weight, the Liberals, have been in and out of power for decades. They have a fair sense of what the general public will let them get away with. What's more, both parties have had reasonably steady hands on the fiscal side. In contrast, the NDP have never been in federal government. They believe, like Greece, that deficits don't matter. Moreover, with their new power base in Quebec, they have every incentive to drain the wealth of the rest of Canada in order to appease Quebec's insatiable maw. (For a sense of the privilege that Quebeckers feel, students in that province are current on the warpath because their tuition fees, the lowest in Canada, are set for a modest increase.)

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

lurker1997 (2005954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012519)

It would be nearly impossible to do a worse job managing Canada's finances than the Conservatives have. They cut budgets in areas they don't agree with ideologically under the guise of fiscal conservatism, but spend much much more money on their own ideological initiatives (prisons, more military spending), enriching themselves and their friends, advertising, tax breaks where they are not needed, etc.

The NDP can never form government, and we should be worried if it did, but mainly due to the ridiculous foreign policy that is somehow mainstream in their party: there are NDP members of parliament that want to boycott Israel, at least one signed a petition to open an inquiry into 9/11 suggesting that Bush did it, and I'm sure all kinds of other wacky stuff. Fiscally, there is no may that they could make us worse off than the Conservatives, and at least some of their spending might actuall help people that need it.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012617)

There are NDP members of parliament that want to boycott Israel

Yeah... that's craaaaaaaazy talk. Boycotting a state stealing land and committing genocide, terrible idea.

Most in North America thought a boycott of South Africa was crazy as well. And even when the whole world supported it, Reagan vetoed it (yeah, fucking hero he was) and a large number of Americans agreed.

Don't be on the wrong side of history.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012527)

socialist NDP

You're a twat. Seriously, you don't know what the word means. You may want to lookup the NDP on Politcal Compass [politicalcompass.org] . Really, though, don't you want to say pinko commies, since that's more in line with your intellect.

They're barely on the left, and more properly described as centrist.

And PS - the left/right paradigm is weak. The country is being taken over my authoritarian fucktards, but you're too busy fretting about the commies. It's idiots like you that have brought the level of political discourse down to strawmen and windmill tilting. Wake up.

Idiot.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (2)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012627)

The Conservatives [...] have been in and out of power for decades.

The Progressive Conservatives were indeed in and out of power for decades, but that party no longer exists. The present government was originally called the Reform Party of Canada, and never governed under that name. It renamed itself the Conservative Reform Alliance party after the PC party collapsed. It's so far to the right that all the other parties are relatively clustered on the left, hence splitting the vote among them and allowing this party to form a majority in the last election with only 39.6% of the popular vote.

In terms of overreach, this party is setting new lows at an aggressive pace. The list is already dozens of items long, with suspicion of election fraud being only the latest. We've seen corrupt politics across the spectrum in Canada before, but never on this scale.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012867)

Despite being such recent history, you have it wrong.

The Reform Party through the United Alternative process renamed itself the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party (known as Canadian Alliance) in early 2000, and in late 2003, it and the Progressive Conservatives voted to merge to form the current Conservative Party.

Despite your claims that the party is so far right, it in fact governs pretty much in the centre, as most gov'ts find they must do unless they want to lose power. On at least some issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of the previous Progressive Conservative government from 1984-1993.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40014595)

Despite your claims that the party is so far right, it in fact governs pretty much in the centre, as most gov'ts find they must do unless they want to lose power. On at least some issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of the previous Progressive Conservative government from 1984-1993.

Most of the actual Progressive conservatives, you know, the ones who actually know what the word "progressive" means, have jumped ship and are now part of the other parties. Just ask the premier of Quebec.

The only remnants of the original Progressive Conservatives who are still supporting the CPC are the ones who are too stupid to realize that it's not the PC party any more, and the ones who were the right-wing extremist minority in the days of the PC.

And no, they really don't govern in the center. A centrist government would never have put forward the internet surveillance bill being discussed here. They also never would have allowed one of their members to put forward a bill defining a 3-day old zygote as a human being. They're nowhere near the center of the political compass.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011525)

Well, at least they were nice enough to de-regulate rifles.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011677)

De-regulate? Can I buy a Saiga in Canada now?

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40014363)

How about an Kalashnikov or H&K MP5 that has been set to semi auto and ammo limited? No? Why not since I can buy the same gun that was used in the Montreal Massacre? How come that wasn't banned?
Oh right it doesn't look evil.
Stupid hypocritical laws

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (3, Interesting)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40015175)

Why not since I can buy the same gun that was used in the Montreal Massacre? How come that wasn't banned?

The Browning 9mm HP is a restricted firearm, meaning you need a special permit to own it, it is illegal to transport it unless it's locked in a case in a "made safe" state (firing pin removed, not loaded, magazine stored in a separate case). Additionally, it doesn't support a fully automatic firing mode like an MP5 or an AK-47, and the maximum legally allowed magazine size is 5 rounds.

These laws/requirements existed before the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, btw... the reason the laws didn't get updated is because the person who was responsible for the massacre was already violating a half dozen gun laws. More laws wouldn't have made a difference in that case, and the one thing that they *could* have done to prevent it from happening has already been done: it's *significantly* harder to get a restricted weapons permit today than it was 20 years ago. Of course, the cons scrapped the gun registry, which was the *other* law that got changed as a result of that event.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40015803)

It appears that way, Which is why I'm thankfull we do have the internet and we're not going to get caught off guard like the Jews did. People are getting ready for this one :D Don't be afraid to fight if the time should come, let's not be herded like sheep onto trains. Fuck that noise

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (4, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011289)

I am cheering. I am sure I am not alone.
There is a system in place. I don't see any reason for a new law. I personally would bet that any law enforcement official asking a judge for a warrant for a pedo case is going to get their warrant in a flash.
Deserved or not, pedophiles are the biggest boogiemen of our time.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (3, Informative)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012033)

Recently discussed this with a cop. It isn't so easy. He said most warrants for wiretaps are 600-odd pages and take a god awful long time to get through. Part of the bill would let them tell the phone company to start collecting data on someone while they went through the process of getting warrant signed. Once the warrant was approved, then they'd get access to all the data and could make their case. One of the problems, even with pedos, is that they know the guy is a Bad Dude, they know he's committing crimes, but they can't get the evidence because they can't get the wiretap in time. I definitely don't agree with the bill, but it isn't so cut a dry as some people make it out to be.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (4, Insightful)

deimtee (762122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012253)

It should not be easy. I think the 4th amendment to the US constitution has it pretty close to right.
However, it also shouldn't take 600 pages. If you can't say what you want to intercept and why in a couple of pages, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013929)

It's no different in the US, when it comes to a wiretap warrant. They are big stacks of paper.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (2)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017511)

Then I would say that is a bureaucratic problem with obtaining a warrant. Fix the problem with obtaining a warrant, don't try and create a law to simply bypass the system. That is lazy and stupid, and wrong.

I am not a cop, however I find it VERY hard to believe that it takes a 600 page report to acquire your average wiretap warrant. I would say either you cop friend is full of bullshit, or if indeed that is true, then the system of obtaining warrants needs to be examined in detail and streamlined.

However neither is justification of simply creating a law to circumvent due process.

Not to mention how unreasonable it would be to actually implement as well as the inherent risk that any such system would be fraught with.

A case of Stubbed Toews? Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017583)

It's pronounced Toes....

I would be happy it was stomped on with a steelToews boot but then dead in committee is fine.

Re:Quiet? Lonely? (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017689)

Quiet and Lonely, just like Vic Toews is now. The whole thing was a "Gold Dig 'Em" tactic. He was going through an ugly divorce (he cheated on his wife, probably a big deal for a Mennonite) and so he stirred shit and made people him hate him for something else. But it back-fired on him. Now he's both seen as an adulterer scum and a wannabe Nazi. Much more the latter because of his time as the Federal Minister of Justice where he tried to draft draconian laws. Well less a Nazi, more a clueless old man out of touch with reality. He wanted to decrease crime but couldn't understand why just doubling prison sentences wouldn't have that affect.

But (4, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011083)

the Cons are in full swing to get Bill C11 passed http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6488/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption and corporate influence and introduce liability to political positions and decisions.

Re:But (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011171)

not sure how things are in CA, but in US, sometimes i feel the same then i realize... we could actually vote
37.8% turnout in 2010

Re:But (4, Insightful)

addie (470476) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011255)

In Canada we reached just over 61% turnout in the federal election in 2011, which was a slight rise from a historically low 59% in 2008. With the way our first past the post system works, that meant the Conservative Party of Canada became government with only about 40% of the total vote - working out to just 5-6 million people out of a country of 35 million.

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

Re:But (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011831)

Don't blame the voting system. Nearly 40% of the population are pathetic useless losers. YOu don't change anything by sitting on your fucking hands at home moaning about the electoral system. If even 5% of those worthless piles of garbage had shown up at the polls, it's likely the outcome would have been another Tory minority, and Harper would likely have been finished.

There's nothing sanctified or noble about not showing up at the polls. It's just sheer idiocy and laziness. I mean, they even do advanced polls so those that can't be there on election day get their votes counted.

Re:But (3, Interesting)

willy_me (212994) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012645)

There's nothing sanctified or noble about not showing up at the polls. It's just sheer idiocy and laziness.

If one is indifferent as to who gets elected then it is best that they do not vote. If they vote then, on average, they will vote for whoever invested the most in advertising. This is not the way it should be. If you don't care or are insufficiently informed of the candidate's policies then stay at home or cast a blank vote.

If only 50% of a population votes then that tells you the other 50% do not care which party gets elected. There is nothing wrong with that. Should the governing party screw up then you know that you will get a much higher turnout at the next election. It is the ability to vote that is important and keeps the politicians in line not the actual vote.

Re:But (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013219)

If you do care and are sufficiently informed your just as likely to vote for the same party/candidate that an ill-informed non-caring voter is likely to pick.

I propose a new system: Voter Apathy System (2)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 2 years ago | (#40016221)

First, to clarify the language, let's say that a person who does not vote has the moniker "non-vote" in the following statement.

So, if you are correct when saying that the non-votes "tells you that X % not care which party gets elected" then I can propose a new system called the "Voter Apathy System."

Premise: All non-votes should be added as votes to the losing party's total.

Example:

* Eligible voting population: 100%
* Party A: 20%
* Party B: 35%
* Party C: 10%
* Non-votes: 35%

In the "Voter Apathy System" the non-votes go to Party C. Consequently, Party C wins the election with (10% + 35% = 45%) of the vote.

Like you said, this doesn't matter because the 35% of non-votes don't care which party wins, and there's nothing wrong with that.

A real democracy requires active participation. Let's keep it that way.

Re:I propose a new system: Voter Apathy System (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017951)

Good idea. Sounds like time to bring back the Rhinocerous Party and make sure the voters get the government they deserve.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40016757)

And when there are no decent parties to vote for? When NO ONE is representing your interests? or when your vote equates to essentially NOTHING because of a broken first-past-the-post system?

Give me a break. The system is every bit as at fault as the people who didn't exercise their right to vote.

Re:But (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017075)

Then vote independent. But not voting, that's worst of all.

Re:But (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011877)

So where were all our voters when the Electoral Reform vote was done? http://www.fairvote.ca/ [fairvote.ca]

Re:But (2)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013243)

The majority who were against it, like me voted. The ones who didn't care, didn't.

I am sorry I voted against you because I felt I'd rather have a local candidate who I elected then someone who was appointed by the party. An appointed candidate to me is a shill, and even if I had a local candidate still, a shill would cancel his or her input and be impossible to find when it's lynching time.

I wish our education system did a better job at teaching politics.

Re:But (2)

J Story (30227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011977)

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

I think we are seeing in Greece and Italy the downsides of a more fair and accurate representation. As we have seen, voters do not always do what is in their best interests. The multitude of parties in these countries means that outright majorities are all but unknown, and that in order for a coalition to get enough support to form a governemnt, it must do things that are not always wise. We've seen this in the last few years when the Conservatives in Canada were having to do things to appease opposition parties.

On the other hand, there is the example of Germany, which still seems to have its financial head screwed on right, and I don't have an answer for that. Maybe there are some constitutional guards, or maybe it has something to do with German character, whatever that is.

Re:But (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40015243)

On the other hand, there is the example of Germany, which still seems to have its financial head screwed on right, and I don't have an answer for that. Maybe there are some constitutional guards, or maybe it has something to do with German character, whatever that is.

AFAIK isn't Germany one of the few economies in Europe that isn't being fucked sideways by bad decisions?

Re:But (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011313)

We had a 61% turnout last year, but since the FPTP system is so retarded, our Canadian version of Dubya won a (narrow) majority despite getting less than 40% of the votes.

The way most of us read the results, it means over 60% did NOT want that guy to win. Either way, since getting his majority he's been ramming all these big brother bills down our throat, along with unprecedented military spending and all the other abusive stuff you neighbours have been subjected to for the last few terms. Shit's going downhill fast and riots are become more and more frequent. Amazing how easiy one sellout can ruin a country for millions of people.

Re:But (0)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011325)

Wait. A guy who's an economist and kept us from sinking unlike the US, or Europe and has pushed for actual free trade agreements(instead of fair trade agreements like NAFTA), is an idiot? Amazing.

Re:But (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011443)

For most of the time that the US was sinking like a stone, Harper had a minority government, and as such couldn't really screw it up too badly. Now Asshat (My pet name for him.) has a majority and so we will soon be just as fucked as the US.

Re:But (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011723)

Huh, I call him Stewie the Shithead. I'm hoping that catches on.

Re:But (3, Funny)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011921)

I've always been partial to Crime Minister Harper.

Re:But (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011469)

He didn't keep Canada from sinking. Banking governance and policies put in place by previous governments were largely responsible for that. And all that money that Harper found in 2009-2010 was because the Governor General forced him to make a budget that Parliament would support before she would grant him the prorogation that saved his government from being replaced in a vote of no confidence.

Re:But (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011501)

Economists? Interesting.

Jim Flaherty's first budget in 2006: 468 billion [wikipedia.org]

Today's debt: 584 Billion [debtclock.ca]

That's $116 BILLION in overspending in the last six years.

Conservatives. Discuss and define, please.

harper didn't keep us from sinking (3, Interesting)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011545)

I rather suspect that Harper himself (and the Conservatives in general) had little to do with our economic stability. That's more likely due to huge resource exports as well as stricter banking regulation.

Tightening up on crime while the crime rate is dropping is a joke. The claim that they have a majority "mandate" with 40% of the vote is a joke. They've been found to have breached parlimentary privilege multiple times, they've been found to be in contempt of Canadian parliament. They intentionally violated the election spending limit, they prorogued parliament twice to avoid nonconfidence votes, they fired the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for reporting that the Chalk River nuclear facility had a high risk level, they lowballed the F-35 spending costs, they lowballed the Libya mission costs, and a string of other problems.

Re:harper didn't keep us from sinking (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011885)

And now they're running neck-in-neck with the NDP. The problem in the end isn't the Tories, it's that the bottom fell out of the Liberal party, and someone had to govern in the meantime. Now that it looks like the Bloc is about to be taken off life support and Quebec has decided to re-engage with Federalism, and the majority of center and left-of-center voters have decided to send the last remaining major Western liberal party into the dustbin and gone with a left-of-center party, we ought to see things change.

Yes, Harper's policies, or at least some of them, are pretty fucking stupid. But it's not like the Liberals before the didn't have stupid policies. You go back to Confederation, and it's littered with stupid policies, and some outright abusive ones. Canada has survived far worse governments than Harper's, but because so many people are either just as ideologically handicapped as Tory supporters are, or have so little knowledge of the country's political history, they make Harper into this almost comically Darth Vaderesque figure. It's moronic. He isn't that good and he isn't that bad, and he's now facing a country that's basically throwing the Liberals into a distant third place rump and saying "Those NDP guys look interesting."

And you know what, if the NDP gets in, they'll pass a bunch of stupid policies, and you'll have a bunch of right wing morons of about your equivalent mental capacity comparing Mulcair to Josef Stalin and claiming Canada is going to become a Communist state, blah blah blah,

Re:harper didn't keep us from sinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012403)

Canada would work a lot better if party lines were not used so aggressively to force MPs to vote against the interests of the people that vote them in. That is how stupid policies are enacted since the party now doesn't need support of 50% of the country. They can bully the MPs into voting a certain way on the issue. Basically, I have never voted for the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. but they do seem to make a hell of a lot of decisions about the country. I vote for someone and then it gets approximated and warped and somehow we get a government.

Re:But (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011781)

Bullshit!

Harper wanted to deregulate our banks, which would have left us in the same mess as the US. He was stopped because he had a minority government at the time, not because he made a good decision.

Harper has consistently kow-towed to the oilpatch in Alberta at the expense of other industries in the country.

I'm going to shut up at those two points, because I have a laundry list of issues detailing how he's a failure and how the country has weathered a potential recession despite Harper, not because of him. My blood pressure doesn't need the boosting.

Re:But (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012137)

Harper came in on a strong surplus created by a Liberal govt. He quickly chose to cut $6b in revenue by lowering GST. This was shortly before the worst recession in 75 years. Yes, truly a genius.

Re:But (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012199)

I'm guessing you weren't alive during the late 1970's and early 80's. They're still far, far, far above what we have now in terms of a recession in the last "75 years" oddly, I can still find a job easier walking out my front door today as I did 10 years ago.

Re:But (2)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013039)

Wait. A guy who's an economist and kept us from sinking unlike the US, or Europe and has pushed for actual free trade agreements(instead of fair trade agreements like NAFTA), is an idiot? Amazing.

Harper and his lapdogs did nothing of the sort. He was pushing for more deregulation in the banking sector, until things tanked, then took credit for what Paul Martin and the liberals achieved.

Harper is a liar and a crook, and that's all there is to it.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40016343)

WHAT THE FUCK?!

Are you seriously trying to come here to say that Harper has done anything but ruin this country? Do your research.

He has done little else other than mimic FAILED AND FAILING AMERICAN POLICY. He is a money sieve who is only looking to pave an easy retirement for he and his croneys.

Re:But (2)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011461)

Bingo. One bad bill draws too much heat, so let it lay low for a while and railroad through some other cancerous bill.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011587)

I've forseen another civil war in North America for some time now... since around the time Bush "won" again.

relevant captcha: harass

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012145)

K. But first explain to me which group of militant liberals are suggesting taking up arms.

*crickets chirping*

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011755)

As a Canadian, no, I don't believe that taking up arms is the way to go. There are plenty of other means that Canadians are (by and large) simply too lazy to avail themselves of before resorting to such drastic measures. Look at the voter turnout! Plenty of room for improvement there still. Run for office, you say? At least in Canada it isn't obscenely financially difficult like it is in the US. You don't *have* to have huge amounts of money to realistically stand a chance of getting to be an MP. And, look, we have campaign finance laws that in the US would probably require a constitutional amendment to implement. NO corporate or organizational donations *at*all*? Not perfect, but awesome. Oh, but if you did get in you'd just be one MP against so many more in parliament? Sigh.

Look, there's no polite way to put it: stop fantasizing about radical revolution and get off your lazy Canadian butt and get involved with politics. The political system isn't *that* broken. Is our current government doing a run-around when it comes to democratic process? Well, yeah, but they're technically doing it within the rules. We just need to get them out of there in a few years and hold MPs accountable when they technically follow procedure but flagrantly violate the principle behind parliament (like bundling all those non-financial bills together with the budget -- that's just silly). When we run out of democratic options, then *maybe* other options are worth considering, but we're way off that point.

Re:But (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011815)

Okay, let's take this a step at a time:

1. You imagine that the bulk of your fellow citizens would be the least bit interested in joining your uprising.
2. Even if they did, that new political movements of vast numbers wouldn't already have popped up and forced change.
3. That the stable and relatively well governed country you attempted to foist a new government on would actually be improved.

You know, a quick survey of all the badly governed places in the world tells you that Canada is pretty fucking prosperous, is reasonably well governed, probably as well governed as any place you could find, and just because a government passes a few things you don't like, you think the answer is guns and rebellion?

Nothing is more pathetic than some useless piece of shit sitting in his basement dreaming up armed uprisings that probably less than 1% of the entire fucking nation would think was a good idea, let alone tolerate.

Get a grip, you idiot. Revolutions are bad fucking things. Even the US revolutionaries tried to get the British government to see the light and only declared independence when they felt they had no other option. To imagine that we are anywhere near that point is idiotic.

Don't like Harper. Don't vote for him and convince lots of people not to.

Re:But (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011829)

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption

You don't need to "take up arms". You'll only end up hurting yourself. The person a gun owner is most likely to kill is himself.

Start with yourself. Change yourself. You don't like "corruption and corporate influence"? Well, the solution to that is self-evident. Then look at your family, your friends, your community. You've got plenty to do before you get anywhere near a need to "take up arms". When you can fill a single-spaced sheet of paper with the ways you have tried to help the situation and failed, then you can talk about "taking up arms". Until then, I suggest you get out that sheet of paper and get to work. Are you on your local school board? Have you run for any elected office or worked for someone running for elected office? Have you even taken the time to visit the office of an elected representative to speak to him or her? What's that? I didn't hear you? You mean you haven't done shit but decide it's time to go to the mattresses? Oh, and plinking at bottles and cans down by the railroad tracks with your air rifle does not count as "doing something to make a difference".

And stop being so dramatic. It makes you sound like a goof or a crank. Or a cranky goof. Even though I'm inclined to agree with your political opinions, all you're liable to do is make it harder for anything real to get done and get yourself or someone close to you hurt. What's that? Well, maybe the first thing you need to do is find "someone close".

"Taking up arms" my black ass. My guess is you wouldn't even know who to shoot. No, "my mailman" is not the correct answer, "future assassin". And one other thing: even though it must have seemed like a great and noble idea to choose that user name when you first did it in the 12th grade, has it ever occurred to you that you completely neutralize any possible positive social impact you might have accomplished by that little act of nominative cosplay?

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011845)

I'm of the belief that you are simply trying to rationalize killing another human being. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else. Just go join the fucking military already.

System is Working (4, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011177)

Despite all the howling we've been hearing, it sounds like the democratic system worked as designed. Public debate, bad ideas squashed, eh?

Re:System is Working (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011215)

Unfortunatly, they can just keep trying. Over and over again. Eventually people will have grown tired of the massive public effort required to kill this stuff, and it'll pass.

I really wish there was a legal remedy for this. Some kind of "can't try it again for 10 years" law. Of course who decides what law is too similar to a previously failed one is the huge problem with that.. but a man can dream.

Re:System is Working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011639)

Something of an exponential wait in years before each tries should be a good idea.
If it's not "mature" enough, come back when you do your homework.

We should propose this kind of law.

Re:System is Working (1)

jaymemaurice (2024752) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013285)

I have the strangest feeling of Deja-vu after reading this... almost as if I have read it before...

Re:System is Working (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40014993)

If these proposals keep failing based on public opinion the next step is to vote the fucker who propose it out of their offices. This way they can only keep trying until the next election.

Re:System is Working (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011221)

I made a comment back in febuary that it would be dead and roasted, got modded a troll for it. Always fun to point out to /. that this is indeed how it works in Canada, despite how much the media froths at the mouth that the government doesn't "listen to the people" and all the rest.

People seem to forget that the media in canada is like the media in the US, hyperventingly anti-conservative to the extreme. If he said the sky was blue, they'd say it was purple covered in red splotches then trot out the experts to argue that they're factually accurate, while pointing out that it's only blue in Ottawa because they're in power right now. Ah politics like that are the norm.

Re:System is Working (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011911)

Oh give me a break. When the Liberals were falling to pieces, they were blaming the media for being right wing.

I can't remember who said it, but the saying "A politician complaining about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea."

The Tories have gotten bad press because they've done bad things. In their incarnation as a minority government, they invented out of thin air the notion of executive privilege, which has never existed in the Canadian constitution. They used prorogation to evade a confidence motion, becoming only the second government in Canadian history to use it to avoid censure by Parliament (the first being good old Sir John A Macdonald who was trying to avoid paying the price for the Pacific Scandal). Now they have a pretty silly crime bill that it looks like at least some provinces are going to refuse to pay for, and have been caught fibbing about F-35 cost estimates. And what, you want the media to ignore that and just say nice things?

Re:System is Working (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012173)

Oh give me a break. When the Liberals were falling to pieces, they were blaming the media for being right wing.

And when they were complicity stealing from the public, and shoveling friends off to diplomatic posts in order to avoid having them come before the AG, along with HCGC before parliament for adscam, the media were complicit in whitewashing for them.

I don't believe though I never said they didn't do bad things, the media in Canada though is heavily left wing. Though their new stepchild is the NDP.

Re:System is Working (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012587)

If this bill didn't pass the first time, it's because of the people who protested against it. It's because of the petitions, and it's because we were lucky enough that Toews made a few mistake. We'll have to keep fighting this sort of stuff and ultimately, the Tories can do what the hell they want and they are showing this all the time as they even refuse to debate some key bills in parliament now.

Re:System is Working (2)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011491)

Yeah, well, apparently going after pirates [www.cbc.ca] is more important than saving Canadians from pedophiles...

Re:System is Working (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40014449)

Just remember this is the evolution of a bill from the liberal days. Shows that there is very little difference between the two parties

Re:System is Working (1)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40014981)

Oh, you don't need to tell me. Liberal, Conservative... doesn't matter. It's just a plaque on an office door when the entertainment lobby comes calling.

Re:System is Working (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011835)

Because of all the howling we've been hearing, it sounds like the democratic system worked as designed.

FTFY

Omg... proof read (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011229)

How hard is it to proof read a story before submitting it?
It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

Re:Omg... proof read (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011283)

Idiot.

/I know, I bit

Re:Omg... proof read (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011619)

It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

Try "For all intents and purposes."

Re:Omg... proof read (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012563)

It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

Try "For all intents and purposes."

Try "I need to work harder to identify humour before I post."

Re:Omg... proof read (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012999)

It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

Try "For all intents and purposes."

Try "I need to work harder to identify humour before I post."

Try being funny next time. Ya can't find what's not there.

Re:Omg... proof read (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011747)

What's scary is that this got a +1 Insightful mod.....

Re:Omg... proof read (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012227)

OK, you brought me out of the woodwork. Everybody knows it's "for all in tents and purchases".

Re:Omg... proof read (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013485)

+1, pwnage of whoever modded this up.

Re:Omg... proof read (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017985)

It's "For all intensive purposes" ffs.

When will this complete misinterpretation die? Everywhere I go people are getting it wrong.

It's about camping with marine mammals. FOR ALL IN TENTS, AND PORPOSIES.

Get it right, people.

The Price of Freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011315)

The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:The Price of Freedom (1)

AarghVark (772183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011585)

That explains what is going wrong.

Just like in so many other things, large numbers of individuals have stopped paying their fair share. This is made only more sad is that all it takes is paying attention, and remembering who did what over the course of their terms and political careers come voting time.

Difference between the internet and intranet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011345)

The fastest way to create an intranet is to privatize part of the internet, so.. the internet will always be free.....

Re:Difference between the internet and intranet (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011715)

The only way I could condone privatizing parts of the internet is if government stopped giving special privileges to ISPs and allowed new ISPs to form. If ISP pay their own way, they can control their network. If they get special privileges from the government, they should be regulated.

Glad to see this promise broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011529)

When the Conservative government was campaigning in the last Canadian election one of their promises was to pass bills like this one within 100 days of winning the election. Here we are, about a year later, and they have failed. I'm happy to see they were unable to keep their promise.

Americans: Take notice! (1)

A Guy From Ottawa (599281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011675)

The internet is not just for porn, shopping, and creeping on people's facebook profiles... Inform yourself, inform others, and be active in you democracy so you too can start reaping the rewards of the information revolution.

You'd all do well.. (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011867)

... to know who harper and co are and their neo-conservative heritage.

How american newconservatives stole canada

http://canadianmanifesto.blogspot.ca/2011/08/canadian-manifesto-introduction.html [blogspot.ca]

Re:You'd all do well.. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012211)

Sounds like she could be good friends with Charles Johnson of LGF fame. Seeing racists and nazi's everywhere.

Gotta wonder about those Tories (2)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012559)

We've all seen examples of how the most homophobic people are the ones who get caught on their knees in men's rooms. Larry Craig comes to mind, of course, but there are many others.

It's hard not to suspect that people like Vic Toews, who are so quick to call everybody who disagrees with them a child molester, don't have some interesting pictures lurking on key drives that are never left lying around.

Re:Gotta wonder about those Tories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40017325)

Well, when he first tried to get that internet spying bill through and said the infamous line he is know for, people dug up his past as a taste of his own medicine and found out that he slept with his 17 year old babysitter (at the time) and had not been charged for it. Nobody really knew about it until they went digging around. WHOOPS!
Irony of ironies.
Many regard him as the old fashioned, family values type of guy. But I guess it a do as I say not as I do type of deal, as he had that affair with the babysitter and is now living with her as he was recently divorced. They have a child together too that was conceived before his divorce.

Isn't this a wonderful world we live in? Gays can't get married because of "wholesome family values", but then the preachers of this very same way of life do not practice what they preach, but still hold everybody up to that standard and prevent it from happening.

Up next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012877)

the stupid and dumb copyright bill
DMCA for canada NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Canada is like a huge banana republic (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013315)

Only better at hiding the corruption. It is so bad, especially here in Quebec, that I am starting to seriously consider to expat myself in another banana republic where it is always sunny and living is cheaper.

The Telcos jumped on the thought of it though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40013863)

The Telcos jumped on the thought of it though, and have begun implementing everything in the bill and more.

Ever wonder why Securris has grown so rapidly in the last year or so?

18 months ago nobody could tell you what was going through the networks - except for the pieces being policed by Arbor Networks. Now they know too much.

Increase Facebook like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40014311)

Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and will come back in the future. I want to encourage you to continue your great job, have a nice evening!

Idiot Politicians (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#40016791)

The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole.

I would have preferred if Vic Toews himself disappeared down a dark hole, but I'll take what I can get.

Not just the internet... (1)

lexxyz (939985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40017059)

The real concern here was the ambiguity of the telecommunications traffic...

The way the bill was framed was an internet bill against kiddie porn, but the lack of clear and concise definitions of what consitutes telecommunications traffic would have effectively handed them a golden key to all your electronic communication.

Not only would they be able to pursue and monitor my trolling, but also my prank calls... Bastards

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?