[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

There is plenty fo compassion.  The grind of the gears is lubricated by love.

By human hearts, at least.

We tried hearts - too gristly.  Human love and compassion work much better.

Then why do you do evil things?

Everything we do is in the pursuit of the public good.  You just can't see the Big Picture like we can.   

The government is like God that way.

[Josephus]

The government is like God that way.

And that's why we need more, not less, of it.

[Barrister]

The government is like God that way.

And that's why we need more, not less, of it.

Also like God, a little government goes a long way. 

[Malthus]

There is plenty fo compassion.  The grind of the gears is lubricated by love.

By human hearts, at least.

We tried hearts - too gristly.  Human love and compassion work much better.

Then why do you do evil things?

Everything we do is in the pursuit of the public good.  You just can't see the Big Picture like we can.   

The government is like God that way.

Also in being unfathomable, arbitrary, vengeful and obsessed with the minutae of its own worship. Sort of like the version of God found in Leviticus.   

[Neil]

Everything we do is in the pursuit of the public good.  You just can't see the Big Picture like we can.   

The government is like God that way.

If governments were capable of seeing the big picture, they wouldn't do so much evil.  That's the problem with them.  Trust me, nobody sees a bigger picture than I.

[crazy canuck]

You just keep telling yourself that Neil.

So you feel that the shack-people are in for a fall as well?  Or are you just posting inane trolls because you're bored?

More from pile #2 then pile #1.  It sucks when things settle.

Well, what can you do?  Have you thought about installing Crusader Kings 2 on your work PC?  Or maybe starting an argument with grumbler over the usage of the word 'the'?

I can do what I always do. 

Although engaging with Grumbler over the meaning of the would have some entertainment value for at least some brief period of time.

[viper37]

Toews surprised by content of online surveillance bill

What a moron.  This government should stick with what it knows (worshipping colonial relics of the past) and leave our technology alone.

[Josephus]

In an interview at the end of his very bad week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told CBC Radio that he was unaware of a provision of Bill C-30 that would allow police officers to obtain personal information from Internet Service Providers without a warrant.
http://blogs.canada.com/2012/02/18/why-nobody-wrote-about-vic-toews-divorce/


I think at the very least, Ministers should know the content of the bills they propose. At the very least. I wonder what he thought the bill did, though. Find out the ISPs of twitter uses perhaps. 

Thank God for "popular misinformed outrage."

[crazy canuck]

 Just imagine what would happen if people couldnt get all outraged until they actually knew what they were talking about.  Heck we wouldnt be able to have things like occupy movements.  Cant have that.

[viper37]

So, the described position, as per the article, of bill C-30 is totally false?

[crazy canuck]

At the very least it is misleading. Toews was quite right the the Bill does not allow, as BB said, for anyone's online activity to be monitored without a warrant.

This is a great example of the hysteria.  The way the Bill is structured, if you take the time to read through it, is that normally a request for a persons identification will be make under section 16 by someone who is called a Designated Person.  All that really means is some police officer will be designated with the task of pushing that paperwork.

Now lets say the Designated person isnt working that shift (middle of the night ect) but a warrant is urgently required and in order to get that warrant the id of the person is required.  In those circumstances of urgency section 17 allows for an investigating police officer to make the request directly.  And then within 24 hours of that section 17 request the Designated Person must follow up to confirm.  So basically it is the same thing only it doesnt require the Designated Person to work 24/7.

So, no big deal right?  Wrong.  A reporter who probably didnt understand the legislation asks a very misleading question - probably not intentionally and the Minister responds by saying he didnt know that was in the Act.  Because you know - it isnt.

[Jacob]

So when he said "I didn't know that was in the act" he meant "it isn't in the act"?

He probably should've answered a little more robustly, maybe something like "That's not what the act does, you're plainly misinformed. This is what it does: [your explanation, which is imminently reasonable]."

[Syt]

At the very least it is misleading. Toews was quite right the the Bill does not allow, as BB said, for anyone's online activity to be monitored without a warrant.

This is a great example of the hysteria.  The way the Bill is structured, if you take the time to read through it, is that normally a request for a persons identification will be make under section 16 by someone who is called a Designated Person.  All that really means is some police officer will be designated with the task of pushing that paperwork.

Now lets say the Designated person isnt working that shift (middle of the night ect) but a warrant is urgently required and in order to get that warrant the id of the person is required.  In those circumstances of urgency section 17 allows for an investigating police officer to make the request directly.  And then within 24 hours of that section 17 request the Designated Person must follow up to confirm.  So basically it is the same thing only it doesnt require the Designated Person to work 24/7.

So, no big deal right?  Wrong.  A reporter who probably didnt understand the legislation asks a very misleading question - probably not intentionally and the Minister responds by saying he didnt know that was in the Act.  Because you know - it isnt.

That sounds like from "Yes, Minister".

[crazy canuck]

That sounds like from "Yes, Minister".

I agree.

[Josephus]

And so, you're saying, because a journalist, a misinformed one at that, asked a question that Toews answered wrongly, they're going back and re-write the bill? But what's to rewrite, if there's nothing objectionable in it?