Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

"Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
64 Posts 22 Posters 2 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Value SubtractedV Value Subtracted

    regular folks

    I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.

    border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.

    And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, “the Corporation may open any mail.”

    It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, “Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention,” and replaces it with, “Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament,” which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.

    It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there’s…no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.

    Bill C2 gives police the ability to search mail when authorized in order to carry out a criminal investigation.

    The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there’s no warrant required. Just an “Act of Parliament.” There’s no probable cause defined here. Maybe you’re fine with that. I’m not.

    But let’s not sweat things right now. This was the first reading, and all points of the bill can (and will) be debated. Expect tweaks, repeals, and amendments.

    I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.

    Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.

    S This user is from outside of this forum
    S This user is from outside of this forum
    showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    wrote last edited by
    #54
    regular folks
    

    I’m not even going to ask what your definition of that is.

    My definition is people who aren’t in organized crime, or being investigated for crimes against children.

    border authorities had the power to open any and all mail weighing over 30 grams, for at least the last 30+ years.
    

    And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, “the Corporation may open any mail.”

    The weight limit was removed in 2017 via Bill C-37, because small baggies of fentanyl were getting through the mail system, and that bill closed the loophole.

    And anyone sending packages knows that there’s a good possibility that their package can/will be opened by border authorities. This has always been a thing.

    It’s important to note that the language in the bill still say that reasonable grounds for a crime (i.e. drug trafficking) must be established before any mail can be opened.

    A few other sections of that specific part of the bill were repealed, so changes have already been made to tweak it.

    The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there’s no warrant required. Just an “Act of Parliament.” There’s no probable cause defined here. Maybe you’re fine with that. I’m not.

    I’ve never heard of warrants being issued to open mail or packages. I’ve had plenty of international packages opened, and the paperwork never included a copy of a warrant.

    On that note, “warrant” is mentioned 89 times in the bill, so they are still required when appropriate.

    I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.

    For sure. We have a right and duty as voters to demand that a Bill like this is balanced and fair. It will be interesting to see which parts are repealed before it’s passed.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M mad_lentil@lemmy.ca

      I agree in part.

      I’m genuinely curious, did you read the bill, or do you plan to? If so, I would seriously love to hear your take on it. I’ve read the backgrounder, and skimmed the actual bill. Even just doing that I’m sure I’ve read more of it than 99% of Canadians.

      Generally speaking, if you’ve actually read and understand it, then I say it’s your duty to help act as a vulgarizer so others can navigate it. It’s easy to say that we value citizens’ duty to educate themselves on their democracy, then figuratively cross our arms and say “well I read it and I don’t agree” and refuse to elaborate, when asked for your informed (and valuable!) opinion–which is what certain people who claim to have read the bill in this thread appear to be doing.

      I’m not trying to be cheeky. If you’ve (or anyone else has) read the bill and you care about our democracy, then please share your actual thoughts on the bill! So far all we seem to be doing is arguing meta amongst each about how to talk about bills, and not the fucking bill–pardon my language, this comment sections is frustrating me. it’s not directed at you - you’re cool. 🙂

      T This user is from outside of this forum
      T This user is from outside of this forum
      trakata
      wrote last edited by
      #55

      I agree with you in part as well, I’ve made my opinions known.

      I however have no intention of holding a serious conversation with someone who calls me a liar and stupid in the first breath.

      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • T toastmeister@lemmy.ca

        The problem as far as I’ve read from Sam Cooper is the lack of policies like racketeering laws in Canada, thus we are used worldwide by criminal entities for laundering money. Which is likely the larger issue Trump has with drugs, and likely is a big reason how housing in Vancouver can be millions of dollars when the median salary is less than 70k.

        Theres a long form interview here, Sam Cooper is a journalist who wrote Wilfull Blindness:

        @17:45 the interview starts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B73Tayj37sM

        acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
        acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
        acargitz
        wrote last edited by
        #56

        So let’s get racketeering laws?

        T 1 Reply Last reply
        3
        • S showroom7561@lemmy.ca

          As far as postal stuff goes, don’t they only have the right to open packages, but not letters?

          They have the ability to open letters over 30 g for a very long time. Bill C37 (from 2017) gave border officers power to open letters less than 30 g, because criminals were sending fentanyl over in small bags, and that closed the loophole (read here)

          I haven’t heard of this being abused over the last 8 years, so why the assumption that it’s all of a sudden going to start now?

          And I don’t think they have the right to get all our digital personal information either. At least not like they do in the U.S. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

          If you are being investigated for crimes against children online, then your digital assets can be seized and combed through. This new bill strengthens that in this context.

          The “unreasonable” part of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what protects us, but that doesn’t apply if you’re under investigation for crimes and stuff like a computer needs to be accessed as part of that investigation.
          

          It does apply. A warrant is required for confiscating and searching mail and computer equipment. It sounds here like it won’t be required.

          I honestly didn’t read anything in the bill that says that warrants are not required for things that they would have currently been.

          In the case of the mail, what used to happen if there are suspected drugs being sent by mail (under 30g), the officer would have to get permission from either the sender or the receiver of the letter before opening it. If no response was given, they would send it back.

          The problem is that criminals banked on the fact that some would get through, and because others envelops were being returned, the drugs wouldn’t be seized and nobody was getting caught. This new bill tries to fix that.

          Maybe not, but it lays the ground for it though.

          I get it. There’s always a chance for abusing this power. Maybe not now, but in 10 years.

          Here’s the thing: good laws can be abused by any corrupt government. And corrupt governments can always introduce bad laws (see the States).

          Our current government seems to be doing this in good faith, so we have to take them at.

          If Carney was giving public events saying that immigrants are all murderers and rapists, and we’ll deport them by the millions, well… that would be a different story! I guess thank god we don’t have a majority conservative federal government.

          C This user is from outside of this forum
          C This user is from outside of this forum
          Cyborganism
          wrote last edited by
          #57

          Yeah that’s my problem with this. The laws definitely can be abused. You think you can trust the government, but can you trust the police? Because in the end, they’re the ones who will be doing the abuse.

          And if you eventually don’t like the government that’s in power, and want to protest and act against it, that’s when these laws turn against you.

          We definitely should not sacrifice our privacy, rights, and freedoms in exchange for security. We learned that in 2001 after 9/11 and we shouldn’t make the same mistake again just to make Trump happy.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • G greyeyedghost@lemmy.ca

            FYI, in Canada and the UK, to table something means to give it attention or handle it, unlike in America where it means to set it aside.

            M This user is from outside of this forum
            M This user is from outside of this forum
            Maeve
            wrote last edited by
            #58

            It means either, in the USA.

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A alloi@lemmy.world

              Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.

              softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
              softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
              softestsapphic@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #59

              Like in all political systems, nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

              1 Reply Last reply
              11
              • acargitzT acargitz

                So let’s get racketeering laws?

                T This user is from outside of this forum
                T This user is from outside of this forum
                toastmeister@lemmy.ca
                wrote last edited by
                #60

                Well I’m just speculating where this is going, that the US wants to control our legal system in exchange for tariff relief.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • M Maeve

                  It means either, in the USA.

                  G This user is from outside of this forum
                  G This user is from outside of this forum
                  greyeyedghost@lemmy.ca
                  wrote last edited by
                  #61

                  Depends how British you are? 🤔

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • A alloi@lemmy.world

                    Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.

                    acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
                    acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
                    acargitz
                    wrote last edited by
                    #62

                    Why is this the very first law the Liberals are trying to pass? This is not an issue that was campaigned and debated on in the election. This was nobody’s priority. Why strengthen police powers as the very fucking first thing the new government is doing? This smells very bad. And even if it’s all one big misunderstanding, given the slow burn that has been fascism in the US, I’m alarmed with even slight nudges in more authoritarian laws.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    5
                    • B benotafraid@lemmy.world

                      This Bill is just a lie to spy on (mainly) Canadian Citizens and residents. It gives Canada Post the ability to open your mail for any cited reason. It requires your ISP to log and keep track of all your devices and online activity and require it be turned over at the governments request. It’s also gearing up to turn Canadian Border Officials into ICE. We’re cooked.

                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      auli@lemmy.ca
                      wrote last edited by
                      #63

                      Well they can’t keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.

                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • A auli@lemmy.ca

                        Well they can’t keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.

                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        muusemuuse@lemm.ee
                        wrote last edited by
                        #64

                        IPv4 does not protect your from online tracking and logging. Not at all.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        2

                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                        • First post
                          Last post